I absolutely think that our leaders have a responsibility to be open, honest and have our country's best interest foremost in their decision making.

Not naive at all! I believe that effective leadership that moves us forward requires upstanding good character. So qualities of honesty, fortitude, bravery, confidence, empathy, knowledge and intelligence, generosity, humility, respect are essential for me.

I am an optimist, a notorious Pollyanna - when things go wrong I try to find something positive. When our roof developed a leak my husband became annoyed, complaining about the cost of a new roof. My first thought was that we were lucky it happened while we were home and able to minimize the damage.

However that optimism totally fails me when it comes to politicians. I wish I could say that they serve our country but it seems to me they are only interested in maintaining their power base.

I vote in every election - local and national - but not with much enthusiasm.

It's difficult for politicians to be honest. They must talk out of both sides of their mouths in order to try to appeal to everyone, when really they are indebted to the corporations and big money which helps them get elected. Why would anyone want to be a politician?

Along with all the good attributes necessary to be a good leader one should include being ethical. I am not sure how come so many people get elected to office and then seem to put ethics aside.

I agree with socks. I don't think anyone could maintain a honest and ethical position (even if they truly wanted to), because they have to become beholdin' to donors, special interest groups, and all those big dollar folks who fund their campaign so they can get elected in the first place.

Plus they do have to depend on assistants, deputies, whatever you want to call them, and THEY are under the influence as well (of perhaps different special interest groups and lobbyists among other things :-) There's been a couple of times in my life when I couldn't believe what someone I really, really trusted in my workplace did to me. It wasn't related to money. It was all about power and ego.

take away any but the barest of donations, let the politicians be influenced by their dist voters, not the money men....i'm sure we all could do without the dreary commercials...they tell you NOTHING....

Anything about politics and character and ethics is SO dependent on a persons' belief system, which (in my opinion) puts the subject right there with religion. Those of us who are looking for negativity....will find it, while those of us who feel more optimistic about words our leaders say.... sorta find what they are looking for. I, too, am Pollyanna-ish. I usually find the "good thing" in tough events like the roof leak.... or our dishwasher developing a leak 3 days after our return from a 2 month long trip. I, also am very empathetic about the "life-wrenching" job our leaders have to face on a regular basis... as they make decisions that can cause loss of life or other disasters. So, maybe my choice of candidate would be to choose someone who could convince me that they really want to make a difference for all people. Better environment, better working conditions, better health and education and closing the gap between the poor and the rich-rich so that we really have a functioning middle-class. Ethics, honesty and character, etc., etc.,Pretty and subjective words. That "Power" word, tho, does give me pause.

I think honesty is critical in a leader! I wish the government gave each candidate an equal amount of money to use in their campaign...and then outlawed all donations. I also wish we could give our congressmen a huge salary increase (i.e., 100%); then not allow any donations, speaking fees, etc. Accepting donations should be grounds for immediate removal from office.

As long as they are allowed to accept donations, there will be corruption. They should also outlaw insider trading for members of Congress!

I'm not sure what your intended meaning is, but "Insider trading" is a specific term used in regards to financial markets, and it is a federal securities law violation. That applies to everyone.

If only...........<sigh>

Yes. I want to be able to respect our leader.

To answer your posting question, yes, our leaders should be trustworthy. I'm highly disinterested in someone having the power to push buttons which get us blown away be anything less than stellar at honesty. One of the most important and influential leaders of the world should be someone whom the world can trust. And will make us look good. It's embarrassing when there are things like Watergate or the flub in rescuing the hostages in Iran, but there's a difference between the two. One is highly dishonest, and the other just didn't work out well. Should it have, he would've been heroic. I cannot imagine what world leaders thought of him after Watergate exploded.

(I just tried to pick two that were really far away, but what I remember in my lifetime. I didn't realize they'd be opposing parties. Nixon did a lot for opening dialogues across the world. Not all bad.)

Snidely, I don't know what "term" to use, but Congressmen use "inside information" to allow them to make huge profits in the financial market. They also claim immunity from compliance with investigative subpeonas by the SEC. In my opinion, that fits within the legal definition of "insider trading". And it's wrong!!!

Great thoughts! I'll add that I'd like to see the days of career politians come to an end. Term limits, and then back to the real world.

I have a rather deep distrust of politicians and their motives as a whole and always have.

It not only in government where I am not happy with some things, but it is trickle down to local politics, organizations like PTA, Scouts, etc. Hardly a day goes by when I don't read about someone stealing from where they either work, or an organization. It starts as a person grows up, and should be taught that value of trust and respect. As I got older, I trusted people less, sad to say. Even relatives and friends. Honestly, I really don't know of a single person who I would like to see as President. There should be a limit to how much and who contributes to any campaign, even local. All contributions should be listed by who and how much, Also media must respect anyone's viewpoint. All ads must be identified by who is sponsoring that ad and contact information, including name, address, phone numbers and email.

In the upcoming Presidential election, I hope more Americans take a close look at each candidate and vote for the one who will do the most good for the country; we are in dire need of someone who can repair the damage of the last 8 years. Too many people blindly vote for their party and it's not always the best candidate for the job.

If a person has a strong moral code, values, and character, s/he is not forced to speak out of both sides of mouth. It would not even be considered by a moral person. IMHO speaking out of both sides is lying. Everyone has choices to do the right thing or not. Those aspiring to hold public office should do so because they have a strong desire to serve our country not to garner power for themselves.

There is a website that tells you exactly how much is donated to a person's campaign, and by whom. It's called Open Secrets (I've linked to a specific person, but not one I endorse. I just picked someone not Obama and not Mitt. They don't the next cycle going yet, but will soon). There are other websites that will tell you how politicians have voted on specific past legislation.

If it's not about Hilary then why mention her name?

A certain candidate and his/her spouse belong in prison, not in the White House. Yes. I said it.

Do you folks talk to your politicians between elections? If they get a dozen opinions about a subject, they may pay little attention ... but if 100 ... or 1,000 ... they'll start to pay attention.

Was it Nathan Hale who said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance!"?

Light a fire under their tails ... and we might get better government.

And shame them about taking all of those millions from the millionaire/billionaires to become elected ... then claim that they don't keep track of the sources of the funds, and that they buy no special privileges.

Also, I suggest that it is important that we require of our leaders that they have major concern not just for our country's best interest, but that of the world in general.

When Bush Junior went into Iraq the second time, we heard about Weapons of Mass Destruction, and of Saddam providing a sanctuary for Osama and his crew, but a number said that Saddam, running a secular regime, barred Osama, as he knew that if his crowd became powerful, they'd ride his crew out on a rail, to install a religious-based regime. Didn't hear much from U.S. commentators about "oil", though, but it was considered a major reason in various parts of the world.

While Saddam's supporters were mainly Sunni ... and when the later regime took hold, they were almost entirely Shia, so the Sunni's noses were out of joint ... and provided quite a bit of the support for ISIS.

I think that we should do some serious thinking about how to combat ISIS, as they are masterful in the use of social media, and have been baiting us ... and we've been, to a substantial extent, taking the bait.

It's essential that we out-think them, and out-smart them in the publicity area, as well as combatting them in other ways.

ole joyful

I typically don't talk to them OJ, but it's time. I just got through poking around the bills recently passed in my state and I just started crying. Seriously. Everything being passed is horrible and unhelpful. I feel helpless.

Just as an aside that is somewhat related to this topic: in the general population, sociopathy occurs in 1 out of 4 people on average. However, with elected officials, Fortune 500 CEOs, and people in positions of great power, sociopathy is a much more frequent occurance. Does this mean we should be scared of having a sociopath as a president? (NOT saying whether or not HIllary is one)

Yes and no. Because they do not experience remorse or guilt, and literally have no conscience, they'd have no compunction in making decisions that non-sociopaths would find extremely difficult even when those decisions are deemed best for the country. On the flip side, they're absolutely self-serving, so if something that is best for the country doesn't match their vision or goals, they'd have no compunction is squashing it and anyone in support of it.

So, from a trust perspective.....who knows? We can assign traits like "good character, moral, upstanding, etc" to someone if we perceive his/her actions as appropriate and beneficial for our society or for the world, even if that person actually doesn't truly possess those traits.

How would you know if someone standing for national or state office is "trustworthy"?

We may know something about a local candidate, but we are not able to personally verify information about the character of people we have never known. Once you get past the township level of government, it's guesswork, complicated by a deluge of unverified 'information'.

Trouble is, when choosing an upstanding candidate in the local dimension ...

... when they get to Parliament ... they talk ... and vote ... as the Party tells them.

So the quality of the candidate gets pretty much discounted on the flight to the capital ... that's "flight" as in "plane".

ole joyful

Susan,

So now is the thread about the missing thread gone?

This thread was reinstated?

Susan, where you given a clue about what happened and/or why it happened?

Not meaning to highjack this thread. Just wondering.

(the other) Sue

I like my congressional representative. I liked this person in the state legislature previously. Before entering public office, my representative had a long record of accomplishment, much of it in public service. There have been no scandals. I have no idea if my rep. is honest or just good at keeping secrets secret. OTOH, there are some knocks against one of the leading candidates for senator. Not dishonesty, per se, but about previous issues while in office. This person is a skilled politician, however, who I can see successfully running for president in the future. I don't know that this candidate is actively dishonest, but I seriously doubt pure as the driven snow. Would this person make a good president? Quite possibly. Great leadership skills and ability to take decisive action and deal with the consequences rather than backpedaling.

Can you trust someone, especially someone in high public office, without honesty being the number one trait? I think so. Commitment to public service, ability to work with people who disagree with and dislike one, and an ability to act independently of donors seem more important to me. Not that honesty is unimportant, but I just don't think it's the top of the list. Effective politicians are often put in the position of having to make a deal with the devil for the greater good. They have to be able to balance the bad of action A with the consequential good and not behave as if it's a perfect world where they can achieve only good and never take a step wrong. People who try to do the opposite, if they make it into office, are marginalized immediately.

I have a close friend whom I consider honest, ethical, trustworthy. Not just me, the community, anyone she knows would consider her so. She is a "good Christian", active volunteer, etc.

A couple of years ago in a club to which we both belong there was a little contest & I was one of 3 finalists. When they passed out the little paper ballots, I happened to get 2. Friend says to me, you could vote for yourself twice.

None of us is perfect. I would still trust her with my life. I voted for her in a recent election of officers...& she won.

Public people face a lot more scrutiny, & challenges than we average people. I would like for people leading our country to be honest & trustworthy, but I also know...again...none of us is perfect.

I think by and large most politicians, especially those at the national level, are only trustworthy in the sense that they can be trusted to put staying in office above all else, and can be trusted to do whatever the people funding their never-ending campaigns demand of them.

I realized a few years ago why the most unforgivable label that could be applied to a politician is for them to be called a flip-flopper. Because if you find a candidate who agrees with you on your important issues, and then spend 10's of millions of dollars of your hard earned money buying the office for that person, and then that politician, due to changing facts or circumstances, votes differently (AKA flip-flops) , you've wasted that money that you otherwise could have used to fix up your yacht.

A good first step would be comprehensive campaign finance reform, where the central rule would be: If you cannot vote in a given election, you cannot donate even one dime (directly or indirectly) to a candidate in that election.

A good second step might be term limits, but only if they are done in a meaningful way. As in once your allowed terms are over and you are out of office, you must be all the way out. No joining a company and coming back as a 'lobbyist', no serving as a senior adviser to your hand-picked replacement, and none of the other dozen ways they'd doubtless come up with to skirt the law if they couldn't get their Supreme Court buddies to throw it out.

But this is just wishful thinking since for either of the above to become law would require the selfsame, power-mad politicians to enact it. Which is about as likely as the next President being a Sasquatch who rides to office on a unicorn.

Susan, where you given a clue about what happened and/or why it happened?

Not really. I asked Tamara why the first thread (this one) had been pulled, and received a nice reply saying that she would look into it, but it's possible it was deleted because it was related to politics.

The next thing I knew, my thread had been reinstated and the one about the missing thread had disappeared.

Josephene, I was going to answer your question, but Maire_Cate did it perfectly.

It's shocking how much corruption and embezzlement is reported on our local news. From churches to a Make-A-Wish chapter, treasurers are absconding with the funds. And of course NEPA had that godawful "Kids for Cash" scandal in which judges were profiting from sentencing teens to residential "schools." Disgusting.

Jewel, from where does your information on sociopathy come? I'm curious.

Bee, if you add the words "cheater" and "liar" to the description of your friend (these words are appropriate based upon her suggestion to you), you may find the other words you used don't apply too much.

jewel's stat is obviously wrong. It would seem to be a made-up internet stat, something that 76.25 percent of internet users often do.

Sociopathy is not an excuse for ignoring laws or reasonable ethics. Most candidates for top political offices are well educated at the best schools. They may choose to ignore particular legal requirements or to pursue extra-legal behavior, that doesn't mean they don't know better.

PS - my experience is that looking for an honest politician with integrity is like looking for a _____ in a ______ . In theory , it's possible to find one, but in practice, very unlikely.

Absolutely!

There has been a lot in the news about body cameras for police officers, I think it would be a good idea for politicians to be required to wear one at all times. Sure it would probably cost millions, because frankly they are unable to do anything and not have it cost millions, but if it prevents even one shady backroom deal it would save billions.