"Do you still think a candidate's personal life is a vital criteria for selecting a President now that I pointed out hitler's personal kindness to his friends and pet dog?"
I've probably read as many biographies of Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini as the next guy. All three had their so-called gentle sides...but all three had their ruthless sides.
Let's turn to Hitler. This is a guy who eliminated his "friends" as soon as they became political threats. His anger at times with his co-workers, allies and subordinates was legendary. Guys like Himmler, Goering, Bormann...they all got the wrath at times. Ernest Rohm got the "long knife". He had a lifelong problem in developing relationships with women, the famous Eva Braun being something of an exception, but their relationship was hardly traditional for german society (and he could be rough on her too). As for Blondie, his German Shepard, yes...that was the one living creature the he was never recorded being brutal, angry or cruel to....
Hitler was not loyal to the friends of his youth, including jews he had known on the way up.
So we have a guy who could be civil to some people some of the time, treated his mistress pretty well most of the time, and always treated his dog well.
If I was going to vote for Hitler for my leader, I think some of these attributes would be worth noting before I pulled the lever.
Let me turn the question around on you....Supposedly Bill Clinton's sexual activities were a big deal to the conservatives in the 1990s. They indicated some kind of character issue. Do you agree? Forget the lying under oath, just the womanizing.
And, let's say a candiate has been married five times and they all ended badly. Is there any set of personal circumstances that would cause you to pause? To worry about a person's decision making process? About their ability to build trust and alliances?
Or is it all irrelevant all the time? |
