Home | About | Donate

Ethics? Trump?


#1

Ethics? Trump?

Christopher Brauchli

Grub first: then ethics
— Bertolt Brecht, Three Penny Opera


#2

Any American that believes Trump is 'not' a pathological liar, is a part of the problem in this country.

Ethics be damned in our government is 'not' an option for the masses. It is only a blueprint for the Ethically Challenged Elites that care 'not' for anyone but themselves and 'their' money, their god.


#3

Mr. Brauchli--thank you for the clarity. Excellent!


#4

True. And since TPTB in D.C. are trying to avoid both ethical judgements against them, while simultaneously claiming moral, ethical, and spiritual authority with typical red meat issues--LGBTQIA rights, to abortion, to justifying war to create peace, they need to be called out on this from exactly a moral perspective as well as logical.

I.E. Let's point out that saying, "Well, there are alternative truths, you have yours, and I have mine" is an unethical stance.

To search for truth is a noble, ethically sound endeavor. However when we throw your hands up, and say "to each his own essential truths" we are throwing away our ethics, our search for the truth, in favor of TPTB and authoritarianism and whatever false truth they want to push. To deny scientific and other essential truth---that is so unethical for those who still think there is even a smidgen of a chance that a failing democracy can somehow be righted before implosion.

Let's call out these ethically wavering, truth avoidance stances pushed by the "moral majority".

Who needs "moral majority" unethical, hypocritical pretense, when instead we can have the truth?


#5

The 'I may be wrong but you can't (legally) prove it' game may be disgusting and unethical yet it has a very familiar historical ring to it. Every exploiter, occupier and fascist at heart type has created such instruments as an excuse. But when it comes to public exposure in societies where democratic principles have at least some semblance of recognition, what's legal is not by default effective. There can be serious consequences since public opinion and reaction can be the ultimate adjudicator. The legal area can be easy by comparison. Thus the 'good Reverend' Alan Dershowitz can take time out in his golden years struggling to defend the criminal Israeli government in the court of public opinion but have a much easier case giving a fire and brimstone sermon from his legal pulpit on how the Constitution allows the president to dismiss the FBI director without cause.

But the public isn't buying these excuses the Trump administration is throwing up as an ad hoc Maginot Line to cover their own butts. Increasing the class divide by transferring yet more wealth and resources from the non-privileged to the privileged while treating the non-privileged like an enemy, using the traditional 'first 100 days of grace' in office to screw the public in every way they could = consequences. Whether or not the perpetrators can get past their mindset to even understand that. Cast (system), Royal (system), upstairs/downstairs (system), capitalist (system), god intended it this way (system). All the same cultist religion. Exploitation.


#6

Thanks for explaining this topic. However I would like an understanding on another topic.

On the topic of whether or not Comey has illegally leaked information the Press, I believe that Mr. Trump expected and approved of Mr. Comey leaking to the press.

The only condition that Mr. Trump placed on Mr. Comey passing on info. is that Mr. Comey ensures that there are no tapes before he leaks. Mr. Trump didn't say "if you leak to the press".

It seem to me therefore, that even if the argument is legitimate that Comey leaked, Mr. Trump has lost the right to accuse Mr. Comey since (!) Mr. Trump's tweet initiated, suggested and expected him to leak. (2) He said nothing to suggest that he would have a problem with that action. He has therefore invalidated any claim of illegality towards Mr. Comey for carrying out the idea that Mr. Trump himself planted in Mr. Comey's head.