tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post8103343804781000728..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Queen bee of the Borg CollectiveRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-42714735239834246272016-10-15T14:17:14.214-04:002016-10-15T14:17:14.214-04:00Look, I'm anti-Trump, but there's an equiv...Look, I'm anti-Trump, but there's an equivocation here. He's not an ideologue the way Hillary is. He's not reliably bad in the sense that Hillary is a SJW. She's on a leftwing crusade–he's not.<br /><br />That, in itself, is not a reason to vote for him. Indeed, I won't vote for him. But they really aren't comparable. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-71666171439948274832016-10-15T12:21:40.993-04:002016-10-15T12:21:40.993-04:00At this point we know enough about Trump to know t...At this point we know enough about Trump to know that he isn't just unreliable, rather, he's reliably bad. He consistently attempts to sabotage his own party for the sake of his own image (e.g., attacking Paul Ryan and others down ballot). He consistently lacks self-control (e.g., attacking miss universe all week after the debate, taking apart his teleprompter last night). He consistently demonstrates a lack of concern for conservative principles in favor those close to him (e.g., paid maternity leave because his daughter said so) or in favor of what sounds popular or good at a gut-level (e.g., violating constitutional rights in regard to no-fly lists). Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05690738239872948496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-21737001504064701112016-10-15T11:23:38.291-04:002016-10-15T11:23:38.291-04:00But as I said in my post, that's somewhat offs...But as I said in my post, that's somewhat offset by the fact that someone who's unreliable (Trump) is preferable to someone who's reliably bad (Hillary)stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-81580014948022872902016-10-15T09:34:28.125-04:002016-10-15T09:34:28.125-04:00"But should character be a sufficient criteri..."But should character be a sufficient criterion? Speaking for myself, I never considered character to be the major criterion in choosing candidates. "<br /><br />At some point character is a sufficient criterion. If a candidate's character gives us reason to doubt his sincerity in his policy proposals then character is a sufficient criterion. <br /><br />Take your plumber analogy as an example: "But that takes candidates too personally. We just hire a candidate to do a job, like we hire a plumber to do a job."<br /><br />If the plumber has demonstrated such poor character that you have some reason to doubt his honesty when he diagnoses your plumbing issue, the cost to fix it, and/or the quality of his repair then it's obviously not taking it too personally to allow the plumber's character to be disqualifying. <br /><br />Trump has, I would argue, demonstrated such poor character that he can't be trusted in regards to his policy proposals. He has demonstrated such poor temperament that I can't trust him to properly address our national and international issues without getting us into even more serious problems.<br /> Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05690738239872948496noreply@blogger.com