Discussion»Statements»Rosie's Corner» We all have infirmities of one kind or another. Some you can see and some you can't. What infirmities can you tolerate in a president? Why?
What "infirmities" can we tolerate in each other? That they don't behave as we would have them behave, that they don't take the same newspaper or do not purchase the same products? That they are more industrious and successful than we are? That their parents did not come from here and they were born into poverty? That they do not subscribe to our religious beliefs or lack of beliefs? That they don't vote for the same candidates that we vote for? That they don't assume that everyone will think and act just like them? Surely a president is just another neighbor with his or her own "infirmities" as we may see them. But really are their "infirmities" any of our business? Are they not entitled to have their own infirmities just as we have ours?
I don't see our president, whoever he/she may be, to be separate or apart from ourselves. Nor do I choose to engage in seeking out their "infirmities" , just as I would not presume to look for "infirmities" in my next door neighbor. They all have their own life to lead and their own jobs to do - just as I have myself. They are who they are , I am who I am. W e are all in this together whatever our infirmities.
None of the things you mention are infirmities - they are lifestyle choices. Infirmities relate to physical and/or mental impairments to one extent or another. FDR had polio and couldn't walk, but he was one of the best presidents this country ever had.
I respectfully disagree. Saying that we may choose to recognize anything as an infirmity is like saying there are alternative truthsfacts.
This post was edited by SpunkySenior at October 15, 2018 9:38 AM MDT
When we begin trotting out "infirmities" all we are doing is attempting to render a person, or persons, less than they are. For whatever reasons of our own.
And I would not subscribe to your belief about FDR. But had nothing to do with his paralysis. Seems to have been a very positive "can do" type of person which I think was good. However many of his policies the country never recovered from.
I'm not suggesting that we trot out the infirmities of others. Nor am I saying he is less than they are. What he was was an intelligent, thoughtful person IN SPITE of his inability to walk. His "infirmity" didn't stop him from running this country - even if you think his policies were wrong, If you collect or are planning to collect Social Security, you can thank him.
He reduced the rate of unemployment from 25% to 2%
He established agencies entrusted with a specific goal (The Agricultural Adjustment Administration was established in order to support farm prices. The Civilian Conservation Corps was created in order to help young men find employment. Other agencies were made to insure bank deposits, regulate the stock market and even provide relief to the unemployed people
He created the largest government owned industrial enterprise (think Tennessee Valley Authority in order to build damns and power stations. It controlled floods, modernized agriculture and brought electricity to the Appalachian Mountains.
He supported the Allied forces against Nazi Germany
He rallied America against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan
If you think those were things that were bad for this country, I'd like to know which country you would prefer to live in.
We had a President who was a cripple. We‘ve had several that were stooges. If nailed down to one “infirmity“, for me, the most intolerable would be megalomania.
In my opinion, any physical infirmity or impairment would be acceptable. It's the mental infirmities that would preclude a person from serving as president.
officegirl 