To Tell The Truth
A thread on a friend's Facebook timeline yesterday discussed some of the ugly things said by Hillary which have recently come to light via the Wikileaks email dumps and supposed first person accounts from recent events.
It is virtually impossible for a human to totally bottle up their true feelings and emotions. Some manage to do so and I think they suffer greatly for it. Others let it all hang out (I think we know where Trump comes down on this one.) Clinton, according to many recorded accounts, is very emotional and emotive, but she has an uncanny ability to put on a semi-likable facade for public consumption. Having said that, when she (or anyone for that matter) does "let it all hang out", it gets recorded. For many of us "folks" it gets recorded primarily in the memories of those around us, but for others, especially those at a high level of prominence, it also gets recorded in emails, text messages, audio, video, hidden video, journals and memoirs.
These recordings become the impressions which inform our attitudes toward other people. Do we like them or not? If not, why not? Often our attitude towards an individual is formed by an extremely complex web of impressions. What is the good and what is the bad? Which characteristic dominates? Does following and supporting an individual align with your core values and with how you identify yourself or is your affinity for that person perhaps a opportunistic pose for the advancement your own power or fame?
Clinton is extremely well documented. The emails from large numbers of people describe who she really is and what her orbital supporters represent. I dare say that Trump is in the same boat from a documentation point of view, but if he is "temperamentally unfit to be President", where is his emotional detritus? Sure he has his boorish recordings after forty years as a very public person and ten-plus years as a reality TV superstar, but where is the "temperamental" ugliness evidence? Is there evidence that The Donald has engaged in object-throwing rants, spewing profanity which would make a sailor (from a previous, non-PC era) blush?
To say that Trump is temperamentally unfit is exactly the wrong trait to attack. I could see attacks on his fundamental knowledge or his ability to retain decorum, but his temperament seems almost Obama-like. The real temperament to watch is Hillary's. Watch how she is constantly caught in the lie and NEVER even flinches. This may be a trait you need to be champion of the World Series of Poker, but do you want someone as your President who can lie and pivot as easily as you and I can breathe?
I do not. I want someone, who when they address the nation after a significant event or give the State of the Union, is at least plausibly believable. Even Bill Clinton had a hard time covering his lie. Don't get me wrong, he did a LOT of lying, but you could tell when he was doing it. When someone is as good at telling falsehoods as Hillary Clinton, there can be only one default position in any sane person's mind.
You believe none of it.
It is virtually impossible for a human to totally bottle up their true feelings and emotions. Some manage to do so and I think they suffer greatly for it. Others let it all hang out (I think we know where Trump comes down on this one.) Clinton, according to many recorded accounts, is very emotional and emotive, but she has an uncanny ability to put on a semi-likable facade for public consumption. Having said that, when she (or anyone for that matter) does "let it all hang out", it gets recorded. For many of us "folks" it gets recorded primarily in the memories of those around us, but for others, especially those at a high level of prominence, it also gets recorded in emails, text messages, audio, video, hidden video, journals and memoirs.
These recordings become the impressions which inform our attitudes toward other people. Do we like them or not? If not, why not? Often our attitude towards an individual is formed by an extremely complex web of impressions. What is the good and what is the bad? Which characteristic dominates? Does following and supporting an individual align with your core values and with how you identify yourself or is your affinity for that person perhaps a opportunistic pose for the advancement your own power or fame?
Clinton is extremely well documented. The emails from large numbers of people describe who she really is and what her orbital supporters represent. I dare say that Trump is in the same boat from a documentation point of view, but if he is "temperamentally unfit to be President", where is his emotional detritus? Sure he has his boorish recordings after forty years as a very public person and ten-plus years as a reality TV superstar, but where is the "temperamental" ugliness evidence? Is there evidence that The Donald has engaged in object-throwing rants, spewing profanity which would make a sailor (from a previous, non-PC era) blush?
To say that Trump is temperamentally unfit is exactly the wrong trait to attack. I could see attacks on his fundamental knowledge or his ability to retain decorum, but his temperament seems almost Obama-like. The real temperament to watch is Hillary's. Watch how she is constantly caught in the lie and NEVER even flinches. This may be a trait you need to be champion of the World Series of Poker, but do you want someone as your President who can lie and pivot as easily as you and I can breathe?
I do not. I want someone, who when they address the nation after a significant event or give the State of the Union, is at least plausibly believable. Even Bill Clinton had a hard time covering his lie. Don't get me wrong, he did a LOT of lying, but you could tell when he was doing it. When someone is as good at telling falsehoods as Hillary Clinton, there can be only one default position in any sane person's mind.
You believe none of it.
Comments