3 ms·

And has been since just about the dawn of the Republic. Turns out you don’t have to be a Saint to be leader of the free world. Might go as far to say that a Sa

• craftyguy 8y ago
  Since we've presumably never had a 'saint', how would we know that they wouldn't be better for the job? It's hard to imagine that someone who had integrity and respected other genders would make a worse leader, so I'm interested in why you'd thing so.
  • zaroth 8y ago
    There’s a pretty wide margin between having integrity and respecting other genders, and Sainthood. IMO, I think that down on planet Earth two people may get into a sexual relationship that is anywhere from uncouth to unwise to unacceptable to illegal. As long as these affairs are consensual my own position is who the heck am I to judge? Further, someone who is so abjectly in control of their passion — someone who is so dispassionate — I think would have a hard time fighting so hard day in and day out for a grueling 4 or 8 years. Good leaders tend to have the personality, charisma, confidence, and ambition that they will go after the things they want even if it means some rules or social mores will be broken. To even think oneself possible of leading the Free World does require a certain arrogance. I certainly wouldn’t want a President feeling imposter syndrome in the Oval Office, even though it is certain to happen to some extent.