Well, my heart wasn't really in the "unfit for office" part anyway; I couldn't bring myself to vote for him or Hillary. And you can call him a moron if you like, but as I said, you may as well call him a bastard or a jerk or a buffoon, similarly meaningless words ("meaningless" except to convey "I don't like him").
But my question about corruption was genuine, and you treated it as such. I went to your link, but I didn't see anything about corruption there. I didn't look at each of the hundreds of entries, but the first few and the last few had nothing to do with corruption, they were merely "conflicts of interest", most apparently listed by the Office of Government Ethics. You know the difference between the two; have you fallen into the error of some other now-missing posters and just started to assume what you want to believe? Or (more likely) have you real reasons for calling him corrupt, and listed this link by mistake?
>About a week ago, Max wrote:
>Bob, if you want to present a defense of Trump you have to present a defense of Trump. Not Truman or Nixon. So, no I decline your invitation to make things so relativistic that they have no meaning. “Guilty you say – aren’t we all guilty of something”. Nor will I expand the discussion beyond the hope of clarity “isn’t everybody accused of something sometime”
>Since you ask, I have cited a few easily understood summaries explaining my use of certain phrases. I would have called him a vagina but that would have been inaccurate as he lacks the warmth and depth.
>Corrupt – docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-_vJDLlCtd94zaieFeB2qdLB9WUdNPIryWBFNuXAAZ8/edit#gid=397855752
>Unfit for office - http://cohen.house.gov/sites/cohen.house.gov/files/documents/Resolution%20of%20No%20Confidence%20in%20Donald%20J.%20Trump.pdf
>Moron - nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/fine-trump-doesnt-have-dementia-hes-just-a-moron.html
>On Sat Jan 20, Bob Bridges wrote
>>Disclaimer: I didn't vote for him, and I despise how he talks about women and Mexicans. Probably others, too, if I'd been listening. But this was my idea, so I should help it along a little:
Let's try this: Is there any recent President—since Eisenhower, say—about whom a significant portion of the voting public didn't say "unfit for office"?
>>On Fri Jan 19, Max wrote
>>>I'll repeat what I said here prior to the election.
>>>Trump is a corrupt moron and utterly unfit for office.
>>>On Fri Jan 19, Bob Bridges wrote
>>>>I mentioned this a year or so ago: By making unwelcome contributors like Karl and He Who Must Not Be Named, and forbidding politics and religion from dinner discussion, I suspect we sanitized our environment to the point where it's a little too bland. Maybe a lot too bland.
>>>>When I was a boy I became aware of the dangers of uncontroled anger, but responded the wrong way: I tried to eliminate all "negative emotions" from my personality. It was at least a decade before I saw that I'd been mistaken, and two decades more before (IMO) the harm I'd done myself was mostly undone. I'd seen the dangers of anger, but not the benefits, and threw the baby out with the bath water. I think the same thing may be going on here: Yes, we get annoyed in the face of foolish opinions (by which of course I mean opinions that I don't share), and we grow heated, and offensive, and maybe start throwing things. But never to expose ourselves to disagreement—to try to eliminate those disagreements from our discourse—is also destructive.
>>>>I repeat my motion that we inject a few deliberately controversial opinions into the forum, and ... well, controverse about them.
>>>>On Fri Jan 19, Max wrote
>>>>>Trump is President. Navy is charging those destroyer officers with homicide. We ignore it all.
>>>>>Did we grow up or just get old?