Jimmy Carter is a very moral man. A good person that people can look up to in his personal life. But he was an awful president. Not morally awful, but in the actual results and impact his presidency had upon the American people. He was certainly a more moral man than Bill Clinton. But you'd get very few people arguing that his leadership as president was better than Clinton's. So what did his moral superiority matter? Did the moral leadership of men like Robert Byrd, JFK, Bill Clinton, or Ted Kennedy (who's actions and cowardice caused woman to die) matter to the same people wailing about Trump's morality today? People have no problem throwing aside their lack of morality when they talk glowingly about them today.

If you need a life saving operation, do you look to the doctor who volunteers at the soup kitchen, never looked at another woman other than his wife, of gives half his salary to charity? Do those things matter? Or do you look to have the very finest doctor for the operation, who's had the best results even if he's a louse? You should look for the same thing in a president, because the results are ALL that matters. Argue the results. That's fine. But save the morality judgements because they don't matter.

If you're looking for a moral leader, go to church. That's where it's important. Or at least look to someone you actually know. Or better yet grow up and quit looking to someone most have never been closer than 100 miles to to admire. 

To compare Presidents without considering the times, challenges and situations experienced is AGAIN disingenuous. The current president would most likely have started nuclear war if he was dealing with the Bay of Pigs. I also think you are overlooking a great deal by mentioning the "impact on the country" without also mentioning the national debt.

A moral president would be less likely to sacrifice the country for their own gain. Being immoral doesn't make you a great leader.

Nobody on the left supports open "boarders." And the word is spelled "borders." Also, "Globalist" is a dog whistle for "Jew," just as "America First" is a dog whistle for "anti-Jew." If Trump, who received a six figure salary from his father in first grade, isn't an "elite" I don't what the fuck is. And if Trump, who was elected by plurality despite the primate crassness and imbecility he displayed weekly on The Apprentice (and in fairness, in part because of), doesn't count as a "brainless Hollywood actor" than nobody does. 

And then I stopped reading. 

Thomas your statement doesn't cite facts. The only things close are the restatements of the Trump campaign promises. Why even cite something you later credit to "MSM"? Define "in their pocket" and then name one person in the FBI, IRS or other organizations, whatever those are, that was in the pocket you define. I would say that trying to paint the FBI as in Hilary's corner is stupid. There is a mountain of proof to the contrary. Please don't respond to the questions I posted above as they are all rhetorical.

As far as I can tell, the pendulum analogy you made was supposedly swinging away from a globalist view and toward a domestic view, but that doesn't make any sense in the context of when you made the pendulum analogy. Anyway, I was hoping to find a supporter that could clearly state a position and stick with it, but I will just have to continue looking.

But you'll do it in your second sentence by comparing Trump with JFK! LOL.

There are countless ways to measure the impact on the country. Not sure why the national debt had to be mentioned. It wasn't a major issue in the Carter years, which was who I was discussing. I'd be glad to talk about it though. It's a problem under Trump just as it was when it doubled under Obama. 

That's a false premise that I never came close to implying.A complete straw man.... The point was that being moral doesn't make you a great leader. Results are all that matter, not the morality behind making the decisions. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.