LsFarm wrote:Maybe you should be concerned that he has some 'cajonnes' and isn't afraid to look death in the eye, and doesn't want to hide behind the secret service?
Actually, this plays very interestingly into the issue of how his "cojones" may affect his judgment concerning the intelligent taking of risk. One person's perception of "bravery" can just as easily be another's of "recklessness."
"More balls than brains" is the way some might express this point.
At the moment, this example only involves him personally and, in that regard, the question becomes, "what good is it to elect a very brave President who charges into battle and needlessly loses his life?" Because there's no doubt that, whatever you think of his judgment, you ain't got that judgment after that (hence my comment about the importance of his VP choice).
However, should he become President, I would be concerned that he not only might overrule the Secret Service and take excessive personal risk but that his "risk tolerance" might be the kind of thing that could raise questions about the kind of response he might have to the vaunted hypothetical "3 AM telephone call." And then it's all of us who might be at risk because of his "cojones."
Reminds me of the old joke:
Q: Know how much blood it takes to have a lucid thought?
A: 4 ounces.
Q: Know how much blood it takes to have an erection?
A: 4 ounces.
Trouble is, it's the same 4 ounces.