# Resolved: John McCain does not have the integrity to be President **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 11, 2008, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149 "2008-09-11T20:18:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/61 "2008-09-12T01:47:23Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > But you, like Sullivan, are assuming. You only know what he did publicly and you are forcing your opinions on it. Of course I only know what he did publicly, and it is my opinion that he didn’t do nearly enough. If you stand up to your party privately, and it works, then you can feel free to stay in the background of obscurity and not puff your own feathers out about it. But if you attempt to do so privately (and neither of us knows if he did or not), and you aren’t successful, I believe, as a **public servant** , you owe it to your country to step out from behind the curtain and be vocal and relentless about calling, well, a pig, a pig. John McCain had a perfect opportunity to prove himself the maverick that he purports to be, by standing up to the bad actors in his party when they were at their worst, when they were clearly doing serious damage to this country, even at the expense of losing “power” in the White House. He didn’t. And not only did he not speak loudly and clearly in denouncing (man, I’m going to hate that word after this election - ugh), Karl Rove, making him a pariah in their party, but he hired the guy who waged the evil campaign against him by Bush, and has now admitted that he’s seeking and heeding advice from that very same Karl Rove on his current campaign. It’s shameful. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/62 "2008-09-12T03:17:08Z")
Let me get this straight. McCain didn’t denounce the Swiftboat campaign forcefully enough and so he has no integrity. Obama can pledge that he won’t opt out of public financing and then goes back on his word immediately after it becomes apparent that he can win and yet he’s the shiznit? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/63 "2008-09-12T03:32:12Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Let me get this straight. McCain didn’t denounce the Swiftboat campaign forcefully enough and so he has no integrity. Obama can pledge that he won’t opt out of public financing and then goes back on his word immediately after it becomes apparent that he can win and yet he’s the shiznit? Well, Obama opting out of public financing did not entail slandering the service of a war hero. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/64 "2008-09-12T13:45:19Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > Did you even bother to read the linked article? I believe that both in 2004 and now, in 2008, John Kerry is doing what he knows is best for the country, and that’s why he’s not supporting John McCain. Wouldn’t it be better if you could pick a position and stick with it? You, or Andrew Sullivan, seemed to imply that Viet Nam vets should support each other for President. This is putting principle “above party”. But Kerry didn’t do that, either now or in 2000. But he gets a pass on it. McCain does it in 2004, and therefore he is not qualified to be President. You complain that McCain did not denounce the Swift Boat ads. Then you are shown that he did. Without missing a beat, you denounce McCain because denouncing the ad at a press conference is “staying in the background of obscurity”. I can’t say I am surprised that you are going to reflexively condemn anything and everything McCain does. At least you have done us the favor of showing that your opinion is not thoughtful. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/65 "2008-09-12T14:30:03Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Wouldn’t it be better if you could pick a position and stick with it? > > You, or Andrew Sullivan, seemed to imply that Viet Nam vets should support each other for President. This is putting principle “above party”. But Kerry didn’t do that, either now or in 2000. But he gets a pass on it. McCain does it in 2004, and therefore he is not qualified to be President. > > You complain that McCain did not denounce the Swift Boat ads. Then you are shown that he did. Without missing a beat, you denounce McCain because denouncing the ad at a press conference is “staying in the background of obscurity”. > > I can’t say I am surprised that you are going to reflexively condemn anything and everything McCain does. At least you have done us the favor of showing that your opinion is not thoughtful. > > Regards, > Shodan That’s a very disingenuous argument. It was not about Viet Nam vets backing one another or sticking up for one another in a kind of old boys club or loyalty test. The Swift Boat claims were _lies_, regardless of what certain members of this board have had pounded into what passes for their fear-ridden brains. The “McCain has a black baby” thing in South Carolina was a _lie_. The lipstick on a pig so-called issue is a _lie_. The “stopped the Bridge to Nowhere” is a _lie_. The “he’ll raise your taxes if you make more than $42,000 a year” is a _lie_. The “wanted sex education for kindergarteners” is a _lie_. This isn’t about Viet Nam vets. It’s about truth. Nice try at changing the subject, Shodan, but it doesn’t work. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/66 "2008-09-12T15:37:00Z")
McCain is becoming even more brazen in his lies. He was on the _The View_ today and said Palin cut a half billion dollars of earmarks as governor. Joy Behar then interjected, “But she pursued other earmarks”, and McCain said “No she didn’t”. The fact is, she [requested over $350 million dollars of earmarks](http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html) for 2008 and 2009. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/67 "2008-09-12T15:50:07Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > McCain is becoming even more brazen in his lies. He was on the _The View_ today and said Palin cut a half billion dollars of earmarks as governor. Joy Behar then interjected, “But she pursued other earmarks”, and McCain said “No she didn’t”. The fact is, she [requested over $350 million dollars of earmarks](http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html) for 2008 and 2009. Did any of them call him on his lying in the sex education ad or the pigstick canard? ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/68 "2008-09-12T16:17:57Z")
> [@Oy](#): > > … The “he’ll raise your taxes if you make more than $42,000 a year” is a lie. Can you provide a cite for that. One of my biggest hangups with O is the thought that a tax increase will be a fore gone conclusion to pay for things like UHC, et al. Has he come out and said that this is a non-issue? Thanks ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/69 "2008-09-12T16:23:03Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Let me get this straight. McCain didn’t denounce the Swiftboat campaign forcefully enough and so he has no integrity. Obama can pledge that he won’t opt out of public financing and then goes back on his word immediately after it becomes apparent that he can win and yet he’s the shiznit? No, McCain didn’t stop his own party from destroying the reputation of a fellow Viet Nam vet, with **lies** about his brave and honorable service. He stood mostly silently by and watched a very close friend who had been the first (and as far as I know, only) man to stand **hand in hand with him** at his former prison cell. Perhaps you would need to know and understand the depth of the personal relationship that John Kerry and John McCain shared, in order to understand the depth of the dishonor that I ascribe to McCain for allowing that swift boating to destroy him the way it did. > [@](#): > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5231361&postcount=36](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5231361&postcount=36) > > Together, Kerry and McCain urged President George H.W. Bush to make the U.S. military the sole group responsible for investigating the hundreds of reports of “live sightings” of Westerners in Vietnam. Previously, family members had taken their appeals to other branches of government or to freelance POW hunters. > > The empowerment of military investigators proved crucial because it brought more rigor to the search and helped defuse some of the enormous emotion that swirled around the issue, said Vallely, the Kennedy School expert and a Vietnam veteran. > > \ > > [McCain] became a lightning rod for the anger of bereft relatives who would not give up hope. From the back of the committee room, one activist shouted at McCain that he was the “Manchurian Candidate” — a brainwashed war hero who was betraying his onetime comrades. > > \*\*Those barbs infuriated McCain. On such occasions, Kerry would lean over and lay a hand on his friend’s arm. > > "It was like, ‘Just stay calm,’ " McCain recalled. “He kept me from saying or doing something that probably would have been inappropriate. And I appreciated it, very much.”\*\* > > \ > > The same sort of diplomacy was needed on a subsequent trip, when jailers weren’t going to let McCain down a hallway to see the cell where he had been held at Hao Lo, the infamous “Hanoi Hilton.” > > \*\*Again, Kerry talked his way past the guards. “He is just really a good diplomat,” said Mark Salter, McCain’s chief of staff, who was on the trip. > > In front of the bare cement enclosure where McCain had been held, the two former combatants shared a moment, as others on the trip hung back.\*\* > [@](#): > > [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/08/AR2008070802687.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/08/AR2008070802687.html) > > Those who know them say they once shared a genuine affection for each other, born in large part from their shared experiences serving in the Vietnam War and their work together in the early 1990s on a Senate committee investigating the fate of prisoners of war and of those missing in action during the conflict. > > “This was not a light, collegial Senate friendship,” said a friend of Sen. John F. Kerry, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss Kerry and his relationship with Sen. John McCain. Kerry and McCain “went through the wringer together. . . . They talked openly about having healed the old wounds and the old divisions about Vietnam.” > > . . . > > At one time the relationship was unusual for two senators from opposing parties. When Kerry faced an extremely tough reelection race in 1996 against Republican Gov. William F. Weld, McCain opted not to campaign against his Democratic friend. **Four years later, when McCain was running for president, Kerry returned the favor by organizing Senate combat veterans to defend McCain from criticism of his record.** > > . . . > > If the vice presidential offer/non-offer strained Kerry and McCain’s relationship, the ad that the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ran during the 2004 campaign attacking Kerry’s military record threatened to end it entirely. > > McCain quickly spoke out against the ad, calling it “dishonest” and “dishonorable” and comparing it to the criticism of his military service during the 2000 presidential primaries. **But he did not allow Kerry to use his image in rebuttal ads – a decision that many Kerry supporters viewed as insufficient payback for Kerry’s support of McCain in 2000.** > > “John McCain pretty thoroughly revealed his character when he refused to defend his Vietnam ‘brother’ from the slimy Swift boaters,” said Jim Jordan, who managed Kerry’s presidential bid for much of 2003. > > . . . I would say that level of (in my opinion) betrayal is a whole hell of a lot different from a candidate reneging on a campaign financing deal. Dear Shodan, What **Oy!** said. Regards, Shayna ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/70 "2008-09-12T16:27:53Z")
> [@Oy](#): > > That’s a very disingenuous argument. It was not about Viet Nam vets backing one another or sticking up for one another in a kind of old boys club or loyalty test. That’s what was being implied. I’ll take this, therefore, as an indication that it has been adequately refuted. > [@](#): > > The Swift Boat claims were _lies_, regardless of what certain members of this board have had pounded into what passes for their fear-ridden brains. Well, some of them. Unfortunately for your and **Shayna** ’s position, it has already been pointed out that McCain denounced the Swift Boat ad. It seems that announcing this at a Washington press conference isn’t public enough to affect her hatred of Republicans who run for President. What’s your excuse? > [@](#): > > This isn’t about Viet Nam vets. It’s about truth. So why then do you think Sullivan and **Shayna** brought the subject up? Oh, that’s right - I forgot. Someone pointed out how contradictory it was, and so it was dropped in favor of a different smear. Oh well. Tomorrow it will be some other bullcrap. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/71 "2008-09-12T16:33:37Z")
Pssst, **Shodan** , look up ^. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Lendervedder](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_lendervedder/32/8488_2.png) [@Happy\_Lendervedder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Lendervedder)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/72 "2008-09-12T16:33:47Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > Can you provide a cite for that. One of my biggest hangups with O is the thought that a tax increase will be a fore gone conclusion to pay for things like UHC, et al. Has he come out and said that this is a non-issue? > > Thanks [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hdX1csHuXbUFJ6REp97MjBsJouHAD932F24O0](http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hdX1csHuXbUFJ6REp97MjBsJouHAD932F24O0) From the story: > [@](#): > > Under Obama, the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers, those making roughly $600,000 or more, would see their taxes go up on average by $93,709 in 2009, according to an analysis done by the Tax Policy Center, because Obama would begin implementing his tax changes even before the scheduled expiration of the Bush cuts. > > Under McCain, those same taxpayers would see an average reduction of $48,860, reflecting in part additional cuts he is proposing. > > By contrast, the bottom 20 percent of taxpayers, those with taxable income of roughly $19,000 per year or less, would see their taxes cut by an average of $567 under Obama’s program and $21 under McCain’s plan, the tax center estimates. > > **For the 20 percent of taxpayers right in the middle of the income scale, making roughly between $37,600 and $66,400, the tax break would be $1,118 under the Obama plan and $325 under the McCain plan in 2009** , according to the analysis done by the tax center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, two Washington think tanks. (Bolding mine) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/73 "2008-09-12T16:47:32Z")
Maccaca. By that I mean: when someone who you support says something that may be taken in either a good way or a bad way, you (and I use the pronoun here in its indefinite sense) tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. And when you don’t like them, then you tend to assume the worst. Now, a rigorously intellectually honest analyst of the “lipstick” comment might say: I think it’s very unlikely that Obama was referring to Palin, especially since he’s used the phrase so many times before. But I concede it’s possible he was using it now with an intent for a double meaning to slip through. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/74 "2008-09-12T16:59:22Z")
Intellectual rigor is not simply refusing to arrive at a conclusion because certainty is not possible, certainty is \*never \*possible. Someone with gifts for parsing (and here I’m using “you” in the direct, accusatory sense) can always pry the words apart and introduce an element of doubt, however feeble. Happily, some lies are so blatant, so thoroughly false, that we can bat such carping aside without a second thought. As in this instance. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/75 "2008-09-12T17:06:01Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Intellectual rigor is not simply refusing to arrive at a conclusion because certainty is not possible, certainty is \*never \*possible. Someone with gifts for parsing (and here I’m using “you” in the direct, accusatory sense) can always pry the words apart and introduce an element of doubt, however feeble. > > Happily, some lies are so blatant, so thoroughly false, that we can bat such carping aside without a second thought. As in this instance. I don’t agree. Obama’s a smart guy - very smart. Do you believe there’s not one sliver of possibility that he recognized a new double meaning for his old, standbye phrase? ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/76 "2008-09-12T17:27:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Maccaca. > > By that I mean: when someone who you support says something that may be taken in either a good way or a bad way, you (and I use the pronoun here in its indefinite sense) tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. What was indefinite about Allen’s use of it? There is no good way you can call a non-white person a monkey. However, I agree that Obama knew that Palin had walked into a punch. I mean, he paused for the laugh. Were Palin more experienced she would know that “lipstick on a pig” is a common political metaphor often used by Obama and held back her standard “Hockey Mom” joke or made the difference something like earrings or hairspray, but she can’t even drop her “Thanks But No Thanks” line, even as it’s proven to be a lie from sea to shining sea. She needs more and better material. ---
**Author:** ![Slacker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6bbea6/32.png) [@Slacker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slacker)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/77 "2008-09-12T17:28:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t agree. Obama’s a smart guy - very smart. Do you believe there’s not one sliver of possibility that he recognized a new double meaning for his old, standbye phrase? I don’t see how he thought it would benefit him. Or how it would have even made sense. Do you really think his speech notes look something like: _Talk about change. Knock McCain’s attempt to steal the change theme. Talk about how we’ll get more of the same. Insult Sarah Palin’s physical appearance. Return to change talk…_ I really can’t see how any thinking person can argue for McCain on this one. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/78 "2008-09-12T17:37:53Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > Oh yeah, that was really forceful and effective, no? Please. He had to be _asked_ for his opinion, then hedged. Oh, please. Read the first few paragraphs. There is nothing in that story that implies he had to be asked. He was asked about whether the WH was involved with the ad, but that does not appear to be what initiated the discussion. > [@](#): > > Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry’s military service “dishonest and dishonorable” and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well. > > The White House declined. > > “It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me,” McCain said in an interview with The Associated Press, comparing the anti-Kerry ad to tactics in his bitter Republican primary fight with President Bush. And how is this “hedged”: > [@](#): > > Asked if the White House knew about the ad or helped find financing for it, McCain said, “I hope not, but I don’t know. But I think the Bush campaign should specifically condemn the ad.” McCain couldn’t know if the WH helped finance the ad, and he specifically says Bush should “condemn” the ad. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/79 "2008-09-12T17:41:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t agree. Obama’s a smart guy - very smart. Do you believe there’s not one sliver of possibility that he recognized a new double meaning for his old, standbye phrase? I do. I think it’s quite likely that he either used it intentionally, or at the very least immediately realized the implicit connection after he said it. Frankly, I don’t understand why other Obama supporters are so rabid in their denials that there’s \*any way \*it was other than a coincidence. Of course it might’ve an been intentional bit of humor. The better response is, “yeah? So fucking what?” ---
**Author:** ![Burton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Burton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Burton)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2008, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149/80 "2008-09-12T17:43:39Z")
He was a victim of lies and sleaze himself in 2000 and supposedly repudiates this kind of behavior. However now that he finds it works in his favor… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-john-mccain-does-not-have-the-integrity-to-be-president/463149.md?page=5)