Maybe all presidential candidates in the past have been flawed, but they really seemed flawed this election. Many of us may prefer a different candidate, who defends issues important to them, without all the scandals involved. At least both candidates admit mistakes were made. Trump said he wishes he hadn’t said what he did about women in a conversation in 2005; Clinton says she wishes she hadn’t used a private server for government communications.
Trump claims what he got caught saying on tape was locker room talk. He admitted such talk was wrong but then he takes away from the sincerity of such an apology by referring to women’s looks, etc. It makes you wonder if he still engages in such talk about women though married. I can vote for a flawed candidate but I can’t vote for a candidate who still engages in such talk. The words Clinton often uses to apologize don’t work in my relationships.
I get why both don’t always come out and admit their every wrongdoing. Can you image if everything you have said and written was made public!
If Trump admits he touched a woman against their will, he would either have to pay a lot of money or be criminally charged. If Clinton admits she took risks with government secrets, she could be criminally charged. If only each candidate could be totally open about their wrongdoings and regrets. At least then we could ask about future actions and if willing to be held accountable to new standards.
One may argue if you believe both candidates are flawed, protest by not voting at all.
That is an individual decision. Some may vote for a flawed candidate because they believe a candidate’s polices are better for society as a whole against the other candidate. In this case not voting can be seen as a vote for the least desirable candidate.
I am not an expert on which policies are beneficial to our society as a whole. I would suggest two issues that may matter for our future.
Do you believe certain national leaders are evil-bent? Are there certain leaders who would advocate violence toward others who don’t share their personal beliefs to stay in power? If you believe people are capable of such beliefs against basic human rights, it informs how you negotiate with those who possess nuclear weapons, etc.
Secondly, we must admit that some are better able to support their family because of advantages they had growing up that others didn’t no fault of their own.
In an ideal world the fortunate would use their favorable circumstances to help those who have had less favorable circumstances. Is money better in the hands of government though taxes to help the less fortunate or in the hands of those more fortunate who may be willing to take risk creating jobs, etc.? The human element can’t be avoided. How does each candidate propose handling the deficit to not kick our debt to the curb at the detriment of future generations?
What I do know is the success of our nation never depends upon one individual.
Thankfully, we have checks and balances in government where one individual is not in total control. What can change the world is not the President but hundreds of millions collectively caring for the less fortunate. We have millions of people with good hearts, but we need millions more who strive to constantly go the extra mile with others in a broken world. Individuals must find someone or Someone who serves as a constant example and encouragement to love and respect others like we would want to be loved and respected if in their circumstances.