That’s an interesting point (about Clinton). If you can’t demonstrate it makes him less able to perform the essential duties of the POTUS, then why does it matter?
You could argue that “being of upstanding moral character” is pretty high on the list of desirable traits, though – possibly even essential. Once someone lies about one thing (whether it’s to his wife, the media, etc.), doesn’t it compromise his/her integrity?
Your argument seems to be that if one has an irrational religious belief set, then it compromises his/her rationality in the same way. It’d be interesting to see a study on that. In other words, compare the rate at which those who cheat in their marriage are dishonest in their occupations with the rate at which those who have faith-based religious beliefs make irrational choices in their occupations.
If you can’t demonstrate it makes him less able to perform the essential duties of the POTUS, then why does it matter?
That is an unreasonable test. When we are employing or appointing someone to a sensitive position we have to use our own character assessment. We compensate by alloting the task to an hopefully diverse interview panel. Such panels are not usually required to be able to demonstrate that their assessment is true.
Anyway, Clinton gave his reason for stating that he did not have sex with that woman : oral sex does not count_. Quad est demonstrandum, because for a President representing the USA to the world, it certainly does count.
Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by nerds like you. Learn more.