←back to thread

275 points belter | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
duxup ◴[] No.43581973[source]
It feels like every pick of this administration is just someone who has a motivation for corruption.
replies(6): >>43582200 #>>43582614 #>>43583303 #>>43583574 #>>43583968 #>>43584245 #
nine_zeros[dead post] ◴[] No.43582200[source]
[flagged]
danaris ◴[] No.43582324[source]
I mean, genuinely, the problem here is not that Trump is a convicted criminal. There are many people who are "convicted felons" who are far more ethical, intelligent, and possessed of better leadership qualities than he is. In particular, a) anyone convicted of nonviolent drug offenses should not be considered suspect in anything like the same way, and b) more generally, if you base your determinations of people on what's legal, you put yourself at the mercy of whatever the current government decides is acceptable. This government should make very clear why that is not the best idea in the world.

No; the problem with Trump is the specific types of laws he broke. He broke laws around honesty, fair dealing, obstruction of justice, and, of course, the integrity of elections and our democratic process. He is, very plainly, opposed to democracy and the rule of law, preferring to replace it with cronyism and nepotism.

That's why he's bad for the country, not simply "because he's a convicted criminal."

replies(7): >>43582357 #>>43582374 #>>43582394 #>>43582410 #>>43582428 #>>43583358 #>>43585104 #
1. wat10000 ◴[] No.43585104[source]
I'm generally in favor of giving people a chance and not just judging them based on the law regardless of morality.

But there's only one POTUS. There are multiple people out there who could do a decent job of being POTUS. Many of them are not convicted felons. We wouldn't lose much if we filtered out the entire convicted-felon category from this particular job.

replies(1): >>43586710 #
2. danaris ◴[] No.43586710[source]
Consider the situation where Trump is President, and someone is running against him.

He gets the police to arrest this opposition candidate, let's say for marijuana possession with the intent to sell (a felony), and with procedural chicanery ensures that the court trying the case is run by a Trump-appointed judge.

The opposition candidate is convicted of this charge.

Under your suggestion, they would then become ineligible to be elected.

It gets even worse if the corrupt President has a compliant Congress (which it seemed like he did for a little while, but that's less sure now). If he can ram through a new law making "criticizing the sitting President" a felony, then basically anyone who would oppose him and his regime would clearly be guilty.

In general, the sitting government decides what is a crime and what is not. If you make a law that says that those convicted of crimes cannot run for public office—either "any public office" or "only this specific public office"—then the sitting government, if it is seeking to act in its own interests rather than those of the people, has a perverse incentive to preferentially criminalize things that those who disagree with them are more likely to do, and to encourage (or coerce) bias in policing and trials to ensure conviction.

replies(1): >>43586834 #
3. wat10000 ◴[] No.43586834[source]
I did not suggest making felons ineligible for office. I'm supporting the idea that it would generally be OK for voters to reject a convicted felon candidate on the basis that they are a convicted criminal, without thinking too hard about what crime they were convicted of. I don't expect that to apply in an environment where the things you describe happen, but it would apply perfectly fine now.