With scandals, there is no outcome that benefits anybody. Think about if a school teacher abuses kids, okay, that is a scandal, and, it has serious outcomes. But a politician that hits his wife or something, that is nobodies business. This is a private affair that has private outcomes. If a bloody fisherman boozes and whores, nobody cares, but a senator? Where is the mutual respect - it is nobodies business. That fisherman brings in fish each day, so, is capable of doing his job, the politician the same. I think the same of this as news of a person with one leg being preferred over someone that groped a woman, the groper is more capable than the paraplegic, yes? On that note, there is a lot of hysteria about parolympics, dominating the media every time they get a nod. This is a great feat of personal strength, but, honestly, watching some guys in wheels chairs playing basketball is nowhere nearly as entertaining as fully fit people, is it? I mean, there is so much money pumped into the wheel chair people, while that money could improve the state of the fit people's game, something people actually watch. I put this down to people wanting to feel good about themselves, that they foster the sick, nothing wrong with that, to do that to the point of ruining the sport is stupid! How does this relate to politics? I heard about Oprah running for president, how good would that be? If she made it it would be like hiring some actor, yes? JFK. Then, why stop there, why not hire a director, surely they are more qualified to rule? They have ruled the set of movies, so they would make better rulers - they are just not as highly thought of, of course. So, that is my argument, mental images. Surely director Trump is doing better than Oprah would? If he gropes some women, well, that is like impeaching someone for having a car accident, also a scandal material, yes? I mean, if the fisherman feeds the community...
Oprah may win. She is black and a woman, those are the only qualifications the left cares about....she could have positions on issues or not, it doesn't matter to them.
I agree somewhat. Where I disagree is when candidates run on a platform and practice something else altogether. What this means is they will be in conflict in how they represent what they pretend to advocate. This should present a serious problem imho. When you brought up the para-athletes, I personally agree, but don't see the relation to your first point (first 2 paragraphs)? I got confused here tbh even with the Oprah example.