that person has been elected president.
replies(2):
edit: to be absolutely clear, i'm not saying that trump has committed _every_one_ of the _specific_ acts referenced by the parent. but he is the amalgamation of every terrible, wrong-headed political move a person can make, and he's president. my point was the initial analogy was bad, "picture a candidate who's done every bad thing a candidate can do; how do you think they'd be treated?". well, they'd quite possibly be elected president.
I personally support third party but damn the left loves to ignore how dirtball their own party is. Add Mel Reynolds, Robert KKK Byrd and others to the mix and it's laughable the party is any more a champion for anything. I honestly don't understand how either side can wage an ethics war on the other.
Someone makes a point about how dirtball politicians are in general and then it turns into criticism about the current powers that be as if the opposition is angelic. They both suck. Why can't we agree on that?
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14609910 and marked it off-topic.
can you help me understand how my reply was off-topic given the question:
> As an analogy, take every major political scandal you can think of - Monica Lewinsky, Watergate, Iran Contra, Chappaquiddick, etc - and imagine a single elected official perpetrating them all within the course of a year. How do you think they would be treated?
It's often a judgment call where to clip these threads, sort of like the temperature at which to save a boiling frog.