Is it presidential?

The Clinton Trump face-off is raising questions about what is acceptable behaviour from a wannabe Commander-in-Chief.

Trump’s life in business and the media is being exposed in all its unethical banality. Hillary is on the pillory (!) for alleged illegalities and deceptions over the years.

And now (remember both candidates are of retirement age) Trump suggests Clinton is boosted by performance-enhancing drugs. As if this is a quasi-athletic contest in which a level-playing-field must be guaranteed. So – is it? Do the most senior public servants have a duty to be subject to medical scrutiny and be ‘clean’? If so does such a prerequisite apply similarly to their staff; and their staff, etc?

So come to think of it, should Churchill and JFK have been disqualified from office? Is today’s political environment different?

Just askin’.

Author: janus

I'm back......and front - in sunny Sussex-by-the-sea

14 thoughts on “Is it presidential?”

  1. An interesting point, Janus. I have been worried about Clinton’s health for some years now. I’m not sure she’s fit enough to be POTUS, though I suppose she could always retreat to the golf course and do nothing, like Obama. In France the front-runner in the right-wing primary for the presidential candidate is Juppé, now aged 71. Some French friends feel that while they’d prefer him to le petit Nicolas, he’s a bit elderly for the job.

  2. Trump crafted an image. He wasn’t actually that good a businessman. What he had was a good eye for talent. After taking the credit for the successes of his appointees, he leveraged this by licensing his greatest asset — his name. As a result, there is “Trump” this and “Trump” that — and very little of it is directly tied to “Trump” the man. His “real estate empire”, upon closer inspection, is largely a collection of projects that use his name under licence. He’s the most vacuous and banal of pop-culture icons, a veritable Kardashian but far more terrifying in a bikini.

    The Clintons have years of corruption, scandals and venality behind them. Hillary is infamously incompetent. Everything she touched as “first lady” was a dog’s breakfast. She was an unremarkable senator, despite her high profile. As Secretary of State she was able to “over-look” the loss of $6 billion and mismanaged virtually everything she had direct say over. The Clinton “Foundation” is merely a glorified tax racket. They can funnel contributions and earnings through it to avoid paying taxes and spend the money it receives as they see fit. In this regard, Hillary and Bill are probably far more astute businesspeople than Trump.

  3. I guess the best result would be Clinton as POTUS, even in a wheelchair, but with a congress so Republican that she can do no more to continue Obama’s wrecking of the USA. What an awful pair the candidates are!

  4. If ever there was a need for a ‘neither of the above’ check box, then this presidential debacle is it and if these two are the best that Murca can come up with the world is in even deeper doo dah than we thought.


  5. Hi Janus, thank you for your salutations. I really must find some time to visit more often. Too much to do and too little time to do it. I’m trying to fit in a time management course but I’m too busy. 🙂

  6. Short of that an assassination of both of them ought to do the trick, both of them ought to be six foot under on the basis of lack of taste, manners and class if nothing else!

Add your Comment

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: