The Unethical Donald Trump Quote Of The Day, Unethical Tweet Of The Month, And Unethical Americans of All-Time

Trump Tweet

I must confess that I got a bit bored with my promised unethical Trump quote of the day feature, since on most days there are so many of them. After a while they are predictable and redundant. It’s best to just assume that Trump is being unethical, and wait until he crosses a new line before highlighting an example of his despicable nature. I think threatening another candidate’s wife is a new line: has any Presidential candidate ever directly and publicly threatened an adversary’s wife? Would any previous candidate survive public outrage if he did?

This attack was particularly outrageous. Trump, whose calling card is Rationalization #2 A, Sicilian Ethics or “They had it coming,” was reacting to an offensive ad by a pro-Cruz group in Utah, which released a nasty ad featuring a nude photo Trump’s  trophy wife Melania once posed for with the caption “Meet Melania Trump, Your Next First Lady. Or, You Could Support Ted Cruz on Tuesday.” It wasn’t Cruz’s ad, and he could not, under the law, have anything to do with it (not that I would put it past his campaign anyway.) Cruz responded by tweeting that Trump had shown that “you’re more of a coward than I thought.”

I have suggested that Trump could have been reduced in the public’s eyes had a Republican opponent effectively repurposed Joseph Welch’s “Have you no sense of decency?” televised kill shot that ended the career of Joseph McCarthy. None of them were equal to the task or smart enough to attempt a Full Welch, and it’s too late now. The question, however, should still be asked of Trump’s supporters, and often. Do they realize what their support of this revolting human being for the highest office in the land says about them?

Both ends of the news media, conservative and liberal, have been pushing the nonsensical argument that there is something wrong with pronouncing Trump supporters irresponsible, irrational and dumb as dirt, because this just reinforces their resentment against “the elites” and “the establishment,” which is their motivation for supporting Trump in the first place. Ergo, the proper response of those Americans who see clearly that electing a raging narcissist and bully as our President is to treat Trump supporters as if they aren’t dangerous fools like their pet candidate.

By not condemning irresponsible and irrational behavior, however, the culture ratifies it. Trump supporters are now the equivalents of terrorists, no longer caring about the damage they cause or the basic values they reject as long as they make their “point.”  We should call them what they are. Now they are supporting a man who thinks it’s appropriate to threaten the innocent family members of adversaries.

They have no decency. They are a disgrace to their nation. They are betraying its values and well-being, and nobody should hesitate to let them know it.

29 thoughts on “The Unethical Donald Trump Quote Of The Day, Unethical Tweet Of The Month, And Unethical Americans of All-Time

  1. Trump is a asshole, prick, a turd, a genuine piece of crap! We can create any list of negative adjectives, slang, or foul language and they would all fit Trump and he knows it; it’s what he does, therefore it is what he is.

    Trump has hijacked the GOP by intentionally bastardizing the GOP; the GOP is no longer the GOP. Priebus can throw out any previous platforms that the GOP has had and just call this new bastardized party “Nazirump”.

    Other than the ideology of “anti-” Trump has no ideology, period; Trump only represents himself and panders to the demographic fault lines. Come to think of it; the ideology of “anti-” is the exact same snake-oil hate that the Democratic Party has been selling to their ignorant voters, they’ve been trying to win by default for years.

    Both Trump and Sanders are pandering to those individuals that are fed up with the status quo in the federal government; it’s a no win situation for the American people if those two get the nominations. I really hate to say it; but, if Sanders and Trump get the nominations we’d probably be better off leaving Obama in office. The United States is headed for a head-on collision with a constitutional crisis within my lifetime. What’s sad is these people that Trump and Sanders are pandering to are too politically ignorant to realize that it’s not the system that’s the problem, it’s the people on both sides of the political aisle “abusing” the system that’s the problem. These politically ignorant dolts what to change the system – it’s like removing all the roads in the United States because there are drunk drivers.

    • Hmmm, I agree with you about Trump and Sanders: They are both unethical demagogues to say the least. However, leaving Obama in office if it was possible, is a terrible idea. Witness, his enjoying a baseball game in Cuba, with his pal Raul Castro and not leaving the stadium immediately condemn the two terrorist attacks in Brussels and condemn the Islamic terrorists who did it.

      • Wayne said, “Witness, his enjoying a baseball game in Cuba, with his pal Raul Castro and not leaving the stadium immediately condemn the two terrorist attacks in Brussels and condemn the Islamic terrorists who did it.”

        That’s the exact same kind of BS politically motivated nonsense that the left spewed at Bush when he was in a classroom full of children on 9/11.

        Get over it.

          • In my opinion, the POTUS is supposed to do everything he can to protect the lives of American citizens here and abroad. Obama, by his inaction and determination to advance his agenda at the expense of taking a forceful action to protect Amercan lives did something that disqualifies him from holding the office of POTUS. I stand by my previous statement!

            • Wayne,
              Your comments are unethical smears in the same way that the political left was unethical in demonizing Bush for the classroom on 9/11.

              Do you also think the “inaction” (as you define inaction) of Bush on 9/11 while sitting in a classroom full of children “disqualified him from holding the office of POTUS”.

              You might want to think of all the implications of your answer before you open your mouth to shove the other foot in.

              • Your comparison of the left’s attack on Bush after 9/11 and my opinion of Obama’s lack of response to the Islamic terrorists attacks is fallacious. Obama could have easily left the baseball field, got on the phone with the joint Chiefs of Staff to discuss an appropriate response, and then flew back to the U.S. Why do you defend this awful decision on Obama’s part?

                • Wayne said, “Your comparison of the left’s attack on Bush after 9/11 and my opinion of Obama’s lack of response to the Islamic terrorists attacks is fallacious.”

                  That’s idiotic nonsense.

                  I guess I was totally wrong; you had already swallowed both feet and you just opened your mouth to change socks. Such utter obtuseness must be intentional.

                  Wayne said, “Obama could have easily left the baseball field, got on the phone with the joint Chiefs of Staff to discuss an appropriate response, and then flew back to the U.S. Why do you defend this awful decision on Obama’s part?”

                  It’s obvious that you’re a firm believer in the unethical “the ends justify the means”. Go back to watching Romper Room, my conversation with you is over.

                  I suppose I’m being too harsh on Wayne, but I’m done with his nonsense.

                • Wayne—you’re talking policy, not ethics.IF Obama believed there was appropriate and urgent action for the US to take and didn’t leave the ball game to do it, yes, that would be unethical, incompetent, and a dereliction of duty. I might believe that the US should take action, and you might. Obama, as we know by now, doesn’t. Since he sees no appropriate action to take, then it can’t be unethical for him not to curtail a trip to take it.

            • Wait—what is it you think he needs to do? The Presidency is about prioritizing. Just returning home and expressing concern about a terrorist attack? If he was on vacation; playing golf; fundraising…but having chosen to make this diplomatic trip, is the symbolism substantive? Why do you think that?

      • You have the timing wrong., the bombings happened a little after 8 am in Brussels which would have made it around 2 am in Cuba. I expect they woke the president but if they didn’t they’d have briefed him when he did wake. At that point he’d have told the national security people to do what they need to do regarding alert levels. Then he would have made a choice, call the president of Belgium to offer sympathy and support and make him drop everything to take his call or decide to do it later that evening or the next day. He obviously decided at that point to stay in Cuba and attend the baseball game.

        The choice was to go or to not go, not to leave or not leave. Your whole scenario is based on the erroneous assumption that the attacks happens while at the game. You are flat out wrong.

        • I’m with you valkygrrl. After being alerted to the Belgium attacks, what could Obama have done? More importantly, what could he have done from Washington, D. C. that he could not have not have done from any other place on earth? Perhaps, he could have called for carpet bombing of Brussels? Perhaps, he could have called for more extensive bombing in Syria and Iraq? Perhaps, we could have called for sending a special FBI, CIA (or some other group known by their initials) team to Belgium? All of these directives could have been requested during a baseball game, regardless of where the game was being played, and could have been ordered hours earlier (if there was a reason to believe such an order would make any impact whatsoever).

  2. “The United States is headed for a head-on collision with a constitutional crisis within my lifetime.”

    Would you kindly elaborate? Do you mean it is headed for a constitutional crisis? The sentence is not quite clear to me.

    • Alizia Tyler said, “Would you kindly elaborate? Do you mean it is headed for a constitutional crisis? The sentence is not quite clear to me.”

      No Ms. Tyler I won’t elaborate further. Honestly Ms. Tyler, I was quite clear sharing my opinion. Maybe if you read that singular sentence in context with the rest of the paragraph, like it was meant to be, you’d understand it better.

    • Ms. Tyler,
      I’ve been down this kind of road with you before; I’m not going through the looking glass with you this time. It doesn’t matter how I respond to you you’ll read it through a pair of ideological blinders.

      • Have it your way. To ask someone to define what sort of constitutional crisis they envision is not in itself a topic of ideology. I just don’t have enough experience with these things to imagine what sort of crisis will occur.

        And just two wee comments: What disconcerts is not an ‘ideological blinder’, but rather that I have various sets and keep changing them, no? Or I wear a set with two different lenses, one on each side. (Leading to unique vision).

        But I think ‘ideological lens’ would serve better, if you don’t mind me saying. I reference various ideological lenses and, sadly, can’t make up my mind which to decide on. Ideological fashion confusion or ethical crisis?

        A blinder just keeps one’s vision focused on the immediate, doesn’t it? The purpose is not to distract or to keep (the horse) from being startled by side-intruding information.

        I am not so much the ‘blinder’ but the information coming in from the side, IMHO.

        It is less ‘ideological’ and more ‘wider information range’, according to me. And so again, ‘blinder’ is not the right metaphor.

        • Ms. Tyler,
          Lens or blinders – whatever floats your boat.

          Alizia Tyler said, “I reference various ideological lenses and, sadly, can’t make up my mind which to decide on.”

          You must have some serious panic attacks when approaching a voting booth knowing full well that you’re going to have to climb off the ideological fence and make a permanent choice.

          • Esteemed Zoltar, it is far more serious than that, in truth.

            But a small correction: If you were to follow the logic of my self-description, graciously offered previously, you’d not refer to ‘climbing OFF an ideological fence’ to vote, but rather climbing UP one or another to pull a lever. A centrist democratic panderer; an ex-trotskyist commie; or a billionaire huckster who could be the antichrist?

            As a test I just opened a fresh deck of playing cards and shuffled it with one joker (53 cards). I prayed to the Cosmic Determinant and said ‘How do you want me to vote, Oh Ye Implacable One?’ and lo and behold, eyes closed, I pulled out the Joker. Is the Joker God or the Devil? Sort of a mercurial duality, no? Neither God or the Devil, or rather both.

            Oh boy, this bodes strangely.

            Well, that gives you a sense of the fix I’m in. It is essentially a ‘metaphysical crisis’. I am THINKING of serving terrestrial power and a brutal materialism, and perhaps there is no other choice, but in my heart I desire to serve a glorious Idealism.

            I am joking around a bit, please excuse me, but really I think it is hard to know what precisely to ‘serve’ in this world. I suppose you have it figured out though. How relieving that must be.

  3. I’ve had the (opportunity? privilege? misfortune?) of being around a very mixed group of voter-aged people lately, and the support and respect for Trump is across the board: age, politics, even race. The impression I’ve had is that Trump has bipartisan support from all political persuasions and age groups, and people don’t believe the negative things said and reported by the media (news or entertainment) because that’s just the big machine trying to maintain the status quo.

    I’ve even heard several variations of “the right-wing media like Fox hates Trump, so they’re trying to slander him.” It’s weird.

    This is the coming-home-to-roost of the paranoid, conspiracy-theory philosophy of politics that is now completely mainstream. No one believes anything “the system” says. No one believes that their vote counts. No one trusts any politician. They don’t care that Trump is rude, nasty, or unprofessional, because they get all of their news from comedians, talk-show hosts, and pundits who are themselves rude, nasty, and unprofessional. Trump, to them, is just “honest” and “tells it like it is.” He’s going to “blow it all up.”

    The mostly-Leftist media can blame themselves for the coming Trumpocalypse, because they exhausted their entire supply of sky-is-falling, paranoid rhetoric on Reagan and both Bushes, and lost all credibility in doing so. George W. Bush was vile, conniving, pure evil, plotting the destruction of the civilized world, and also somehow stupid and bungling, and this was what we were told for 8 years until a good, right-thinking president came along and there was no discernible difference. Now there’s a candidate who actually resembles all of the horrible things everyone said about Bush, and no one’s going to believe the wolf-cries.

    • Most interpretation of events is a kind of guess. I read what you wrote and I understand that you are guessing, as we all must guess. In my mind this touches on a puzzle: It is very difficult to interpret not only ‘our present’ (what’s going on and why), but ourselves, and this ‘reality’.

      It is an interesting fact that the world we live in is largely entirely mediated. It is a world of electronics, of opinions recieved from all manner of different sources, from entity we never actually see. Very behind the scenes. There is not one bit of information that does not come to you and me without significant ‘spin’. Intentionality. It is possible that the people that you were interviewing get all or nearly all their info from those heavily mediated founts. (In my own case, and I would qualify as one of the youth, I tend to read ‘outdated material’, alot of it prior to WW2, and yet I too expose myself to the electronic media. I think I must be very atypical though for what I read, and the quantity, and the variety.

      I believe NOTHING. Tell me what I should believe? What? Who? It is a given that everyone providing info is feeding you a line. Everyone is in their own tendentious interprative world, driven by the set of predicates they subscribe to. People find some sourcewhich accords with their pre-established stance. Then, they drink and drink and drink it down and imagine themselves ‘well-informed’. From their base they demonize those who man other tendentious positions and sets of ideas (interpretations), and they all get locked into ridiculous, fruitless, and really rather boring battles. It appears as static overall.

      No one should believe ‘the system’ nor any ‘system’. Simply because a system is a coercive, interested system. To understand things one has to rise above systems. How? How to purify seeing? How to see correctly? It is not at all easy or simple. Seeing (intepreting) is vastly complex. This is philosophical, existential and even spiritual endeavor. Who is interested in it? Who can pull it off? In the ‘mainstream’ who even CARES?

      Our votes don’t count as much as we have been trained to think they will, or should. Why? Because of the underlying structures that drive the very system. These are not determined by voting, or (pseudo-) democratic processes. They are determined by ‘power concentrations’ which enter the political arena only to ‘have their way’, to persuade, and it could be said to deceive, to mislead. Do you doubt this? When you have seen that happen (watched the performance) enough times you logically lose faith. And so should you. Only an idiot will consciously allow themselves to be deceived.

      No one trust any politician, and only a looser would. The sort of person who can function, and does function in that environment (madness really) is likely a sociopath of one sort or another.

      I think in some way you got Trump’s number. But I think you are failing to understand that among the tendentious populus there are individuals and groups who do not buy or accept the line that is being sold. I’ll give one example but it comes from a sector that is doubly unpopular: the white identarians, the ‘race realists’, and people like this. This is where things get really sticky and difficult to sort through.

      I can give a small example but you won’t like it: All this talk of ‘David Duke’ caused hundreds and thousands to Google him, and then to watch his videos and to read his discourse, visit his site, leave comments, and many liked what they read. They agreed. David Duke had a Klan membership for 4 years in the 70s and thereafter was a legitimate politician. But there is so much bruhaha, and so much charge around him, that a suspicious audience, who see much and believes little, were introduced to the man, and thus to his ideas, his perspective.

      What this indicates is that the standard methods of villification and establishing PC limits to what a person is allowed to think (see, feel, understand) are recognized as bogus. So, they go toward the fringes of ‘allowable discourse’ to look for perspectives that seem truer. I am one of those people actually, and naturally (on this blog) I am largely ignored. To converse with me is ‘guilt by association’.

      Fact is, ‘the system’ has no ideology that it can offer. And the various camps employ pseudo-ideologies to trap the gullible. A huge fracture appears to have appeared. Who can say what it means and what it represents?

      The ‘rudeness’ of Trump is possibly irrelevant to many, I mean if we were to speak truthfully. In a strange was it IS refreshing, simply because it punctures a form of hypocricy: image and spin, front and deception.

      The problem – and you seem to recognize this – is that in many senses this group you have become aware of has limited ‘ownership interest’ since, in fact, they understand themselves as mere cogs. They are mere cogs though! A vast, a huge, a powerful system subsumes them. It hardly cares about them, and how could it? WHY would it? It really wants to overpower their opposition and ‘to have its way with them’.

      In my view, the more this is talked about and brought out into the open, the more that a chance exists to build bridges between different view-structures. But ‘you’ won’t allow that to happen. ‘You’ shut down those conversations and retreat into pet interpretive stances.

      Well, there you have my thoughts.

      • Oh, crap! Conversing with you makes me guilty by association? Alizia, many of your comments are relevant and thought-provoking. Still, you are groping in darkness where no answers will be found. Even if you were to find an answer in the muck of darkness, no person could know what it means (i.e., it would be ineffectual or pointless).

        • __________________________
          Instruct me, for Thou knowst; Thou from the first
          Wast present, and, with mighty wings outspread,
          Dove-like satst brooding on the vast Abyss,
          And mad’st it pregnant: what in me is dark
          Illumine, what is low raise and support;
          That, to the highth of this great argument,
          I may assert Eternal Providence,
          And justify the ways of God to men.
          ___________________________

  4. It’s a problem. My family is all voting for Trump and when I try and argue with them about it, they tell me that I am a liberal snob. Well, it’s true. I tend to vote for liberal candidates and I can be snobbish — but it doesn’t mean I’m wrong.

  5. My comment is further down here but I am wondering why the RNC can’t act on this latest Trump attack. Had Obama campaigned like Trump, he would have been booted. If Hilary was spewing things out of her mouth like Trump, she’d be annihilated. It didn’t take long for people to see through Ben Carson and stop him in his tracks. When it comes to the job of The First Lady, I think Melania’s past should come into play but then again, did she ever imagine “The Donald” would run for president? At first I thought he was running as a ploy to get everyone to vote Democrat. Now, I’m afraid that he could become president and to me, he’s always been an arrogant idiot. The other night, Marla Maples tried to regain her 15 minutes of fame.

    • If Zoltar is not forthcoming, I offer this: (1) Clinton is much more interested in her own personal power than anything in our Constitution (such as freedom of speech); (2) Sanders is much more interested in his warped sense of social justice than anything in our Constitution (such as freedom generally); Cruz is much more interested in beating the bad guys than in anything in our Constitution (such as freedom of religion and freedom of association and being); Trump is much more interested in promoting himself than in promoting anything in our Constitution or anything about any virtuous thing anywhere. These are our “frontrunners”. If one of these persons is elected, and the rest of us are alive to experience it, and are still sane, it is very likely there will be a constitutional crisis. We can predict the crisis, but we can’t begin to predict the details until we know who is elected.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.