• Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    No it would have been better, because the point was he cheated on his significant other, betraying the trust of the one person who should be able to trust him more than anyone else. If he can do that to those closest to him, how can we trust him with the fate of faceless millions? This is nothing to do with “puritanism” and everything to do with his character

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      the point was he cheated on his significant other

      It most certainly was not. The point was that he defrauded the people in order to gain power.

      If he can do that to those closest to him, how can we trust him with the fate of faceless millions

      Fun fact: millions of imperfect people who behave badly, sometimes even cruelly, towards those closest to them are excellent public servants. Trump never was, of course, but that’s nothing to do with his private life.

      Professional and personal lives are separate things and as such, one doesn’t automatically reflect the other.

      This is nothing to do with “puritanism” and everything to do with his character

      Maybe not puritanism, but definitely sensationalism and conflating separate parts of the garbage human that he is.

      Would I prefer that all politicians are both excellent public servants and kind and considerate in their private lives? Of course!

      Do I believe that failing the latter makes the former impossible? Hell no! That’s just not how people work!