Yeah. Look, I don't know. There's a culture gap I am having trouble traversing. We do politics here differently. Someone's private life here is private, even if you're a public figure. The only time something private has come out in recent years in Australian politics was the conservative Deputy Prime Minister who campaigned on family values, and then announced he had left his wife and moved in with a staffer who had fallen pregnant to him. Otherwise, I can think of one senior conservative politician here who had a longstanding affair - used to bring her along to functions in Canberra while his wife was back home - but the press didn't report on it.
I read a Bob Woodward book, can't remember the title, which talked about how until Richard Nixon the press in the US gave no airtime to politicians' affairs. (I anticipate back in the day such infidelities were endemic in the political class.) Once Watergate broke, the press started paying a lot of attention to politicians' private lives, which culminated in Clinton's impeachment.
I've no doubt cronyism and nepotism is rife across the political spectrum. Many political operatives are very intelligent and ambitious, and the only differentiator they have are contacts and benefactors. The thing I object to though is tying that to sexual promiscuity. If someone chooses to fuck like a rabbit, it does me no harm and good luck to them.
Which leads me to this question: Can I safely suggest that you have the view that Trump's infidelities have no proof? Wondering how you reconcile that with Clinton's extra-marital affair. Or, as a matter of facts they are beyond controversy but it doesn't matter because of his other merits?
