Ethics Quote Of The Day: George Will

trump-salute

“Ted Cruz’s announcement of his preferred running mate has enhanced the nomination process by giving voters pertinent information. They already know the only important thing about Trump’s choice: His running mate will be unqualified for high office because he or she will think Trump is qualified.”

-Conservative columnist George Will, in a piece nicely consistent with the Ethics Alarms position that the Republican Party’s ethical duty is to refuse to nominate Donald Trump, whatever the cost.

Will’s observation is concise, logical, and absolutely true. Nothing I can add will improve on it.

36 thoughts on “Ethics Quote Of The Day: George Will

  1. I personally have never expected a perfect presidential candidate on any side of the political spectrum. Nor has it ever been my overriding criteria that the president must be a card carrying genius, super policy wonk, or rocket scientist. I don’t care what the president looks like or if he or she speaks flawless and inspired English all the time.

    I have only hoped that our president… and our presidential candidates… be true and faithful advocates for the American people, be reasonably intelligent, humble enough to know his or her limits, to have management skills sufficient to know how to to pick appropriately qualified advisers, and to be honest/ethical. (This being the Ethics Alarms, I would be remiss to not include that criteria on top of honesty although they may be nearly the same or at least closely related.

    At the risk of understatement, I am disappointed at what I see in our presidential prospects for 2016. When will the nightmare end?

    • The nightmare won’t end until the game is changed. The game is perfectly rigged right now to elect unprincipled buffoons who are loyal, not to logic & reason, but to their political party and money. In changing the election process, the only losers are the Democrat and Republican parties. Considering at least 60% of voters are loyal to one or the other, a majority of voters will band together protect that system.

  2. The nightmare will end when the media stop crucifying every candidate whose political views differ from theirs. Most all of the capable and qualified people, in my opinion, decline to run, because they basically say, “I don’t need this crap.”

    • Great point, CJ. I think you’ve identified the reason for the terrible dearth of political leadership in my age group (Clintons and Trump- baby boomers). Very few wanted to bother with politics as a career.

      • I strongly believe he did too.

        Jack, I don’t see your reasoning on George Will’s quote. Yes, it’s concise and yes it’s logical (to a point) but how can something that hasn’t yet occurred be absolutely true?

        • ???

          If I say that if someone shoots the President, a crime will have been committed, that’s absolutely true. If I say when someone hits me in the head with a hammer, I will be injured, that’s true. If I say someone who gets into a car for his driving test and pushes the breaks to start and tries to steer with his mouth while putting the key in his ear has proven that he doesn’t know how to operate a car, that statement is absolutely true.

          The act of endorsing, enabling or supporting the election as President of an obvious incompetent proves that the individual doing so has bad judgment, flawed intelligence, or skewed values, and is thus unqualified for either VP or President, by definition.

          No?

          • I grok your first graph. But your second graph confuses me. Sorry. Maybe it’s me.

            Should Trump get the nod, is it not possible he would select someone of impeachable integrity, such as Obama did with his nomination for Supreme Courth justice?

      • Jack Marshall said, “I still think Chris Christie made a deal.”

        I agree.

        There is certainly more there than what is being said openly, I really don’t think Christie would have chosen to do the things he has done without a VP deal. I’ve followed Christie enough over the years that I believe Christie’s endorsement of Trump was out of his “normal” character and 100% politics; I was a bit stunned when Christie endorsed Trump. Based on my observations of Christie over time, it’s written all over his face that he’s going through the motions every time he talks about Trump.

      • A deal? Maybe AG… Does anyone remember Trump’s “Get on the plane and go home, it’s over there.” comment? He wanted to distance himself from Christie damn near the moment the endorsement was made.

            • I DID watch the video; that is exactly why I said what I did.

              You do NOT know the whole context in which that statement was made, period! You do NOT know what Christie said into Trump’s ear just before that, he might have said “I’ve got to get home for the funeral!”.

              You’re jumping to nonsense conclusions based on assumptions. I don’t like Trump one damn bit, but this one is an unethical smear.

                • Humble Talent said, “If you really believe that after watching the clip and seeing the looks on their faces, I have a bridge to sell you.”

                  Nice.

                  I explain valid reasons for why I disagree with you and now I’m an idiot? I can join you in your asshole game, I’ve got plenty of experience.

                  • “Gentlemen! Gentlemen! Less heat! More light”
                    —Howard K. Smith, when during commentary on the 1968 Chicago riots during the Democratic Nation Convention, Gore Vidal called William F. Buckley a crypto-Nazi, and Buckley shot back, “Listen you queer, you call me a crypto-Nazi again and I’ll punch you in the face and you’ll stay plastered!”

                  • “I explain valid reasons for why I disagree with you and now I’m an idiot?”

                    If that’s how you want to frame it, I won’t disagree. I would have settled for naive. But your “valid reason” amounts to an appeal to ignorance. “We don’t KNOW what happened, so we can’t make reasonable guesses.” It’s a logical fallacy.

                    You’re right, I don’t KNOW what was said, but it was probably less than a full sentence and Christie looked surprised. If YOU want to interpret that to a “Donald, I have to make a funeral” and an “OK.” Then yeah, I think you’re naive, bordering on deluded.

                    • Humble Talent said, “You’re right, I don’t KNOW what was said…”

                      You willfully acknowledge that you “don’t KNOW what was said” and yet you continue to make assumptions; but somehow in your mind you seem to be trying to justifying your thinking that I’m an idiot or naive or deluded; as a buddy of mine says, engage sarcasm detector, everyone can follow that kind of magical thinking “logic”; disengage sarcasm detector. You’re arguing like you’ve come down with a case of Progressive Magical Thinking.

                      I said “you’re jumping to nonsense conclusions based on assumptions”; if you weren’t forming a nonsense conclusion based on assumptions, then prove me wrong with all the facts.

                      Without the proper context of the whole conversation your initial comment was a nonsense smear based on one cherry picked statement and a lineup of assumptions.

                      How this conversation progresses, it it progresses, from here is your choice.

                    • Look, Zoltar, this isn’t some strange mysticism or Schrodinger’s slight, we have the whole conversation, less a couple of words, and the context they were issued in. At this point, I think it all speaks for itself, and I’m going to walk away, I also think less of you as a result of this conversation, and I don’t care that you don’t care, I want you to know that. I have no idea what your skin was in this, it’s a dumb conversation, and it’s already wasted more of my time than it should have.

                    • Humble Talent said, “I also think less of you as a result of this conversation…”

                      Ditto.

                      Humble Talent said, “…it’s a dumb conversation…”

                      You’re the one that started this trip down your path of assumptions with your unethical smear.

  3. All I can say is the best thing to invest in for America’s next 10 years is ammo. And don’t expend any of it until you have to. Given the trash that the democrats have put up since Carter and what Republicans put up as soon as they act with the same lack of decorum and respect as Democrats?

    Yeah. Be a good marksman. And be a better leader than Rick Grimes.

  4. Apparently, almost a majority of Republican voters in Indiana will not be qualified.

    http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/03/republican-party-indiana-primary-roundup

    If you are wondering how Trump could have possibly won Indiana, well remember when you posted about how David Boren, President of Oklahoma University, expelled two students for racist hate speech because it created a hostile educational environment- in an off-campus bus. I participated in online discussions about it. I heard so many people spout ignorance, claiming that a university’s code of conduct supersedes the First Amendment. Very telling was this comment by Morgan child.

    You know, “Volokh,” (I just love saying his name; it clears the throat) the overwhelming majority of men masturbate. I’d place you in the top 5%. Writing all those words so soon after the event must have been, well, titillating. No doubt, you were all in a rush.

    However, I could give a dam* about the Constitution: I don’t hold it sacred. I think the Germans have the right idea: Step up on a soap box and start talking about killing Jews; they arrest your as*. They don’t wait for “Holocaust II” to be shown on cable.

    The “students” were dealt with appropriately. OU was right to send the message that they and their ilk are not welcome or representative of what OU WANTS to stand for.

    There is such a thing as being “dead right.” You, my friend, are a corpse with exacting logic; but let me remind you, a vending machine can dispense the law; it takes a whole human being to render justice. What we all witnessed on the video is not worth defending. A cancer’s only “right” is to be cut out.

    Emphasis added.

    Should it be surprising that Donald Trump actually has a base? I mean, all of these voters want the cancer to be cut out, and Donald Trump is promising to take a broadsword and cut out that cancer. Trump is going to protect us all, they say.

    If morgan child opposes Donald Trump, I would like to know why, as morgan child shares the ethos of Donald Trump.

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.