• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should criminals be allowed to hold office?

That's your evidence? :lamo

Why would Obama asked that layoff notices be held up, if no layoff notices needed to go out?

I double dog dare you to tackle that question.

Here's what you're not getting:

The layoffs aren't necessarily occurring by January 6th, and right now no specific contract or plant can be identified as being cut. There's nobody to send notification to.
 
Here's what you're not getting:

The layoffs aren't necessarily occurring by January 6th, and right now no specific contract or plant can be identified as being cut. There's nobody to send notification to.

Why did Obama cut a deal with the conractors, then?
 
My prediction: layoff notices go out the day after the election, effective exactly 61 days after the election. Technically within the law.

Why did Obama cut a deal with the conractors, then?

Politics. Played by both the administration and the contractors. Why do you think Lockheed Martin is going public on this stuff? They don't want the cuts to occur at all and are willing to play hardball during election season.
 
Nixon was never convicted.

he also resigned. He was not actually removed from office. Nice try, but your example really does not mean much.

Still keep on making your claims with no backing and no impeachment or conviction. Again, public opinion doesn't mean a thing in regards to removing a sitting president from office without an election. If you wish to argue that he should be removed from office due to being a convicted felon you first have to convict him. You are skipping a very necessary step in the process.
 
Or even those who encourage criminal activity?

The Obama admin has essentially offered defense companies a payoff to break the law (violate the WARN Act) in order to not hurt his chances at re-election. Is this not criminal activity?

If you offer to pay someone to kill your spouse, are you not charged with attempted murder?

Larry Craig got run out of office for tapping his foot in an airport restroom stall. Isn't offering to pay companies (with taxpayer $$$ no less) to break the law a much more serious offense?

If he will do this to get re-elected....what will he do if re-elected and has no fear of having to campaign again in 4 years?

1) The President has an ability to waive the WARN Act as his power is to enforce the law and he can waive is as a check on Congress' ability to pass laws. Within that ability to enforce laws, the President and the Executive Branch can also detail regulations in order to enforce a law.

2) If Congress is against the President's ability to enforce the law, they can always impeach him for breaking federal or constitutional law.

3) There are many Republicans who are campaigning on repealing Obamacare. Therefore, it could be said that doing so is encouraging criminal activity because they want to decriminalize what is currently a law - the mandate to have personal health insurance.

4) Congress is much more to blame for this than the President is, since Congress won't confirm a budget for these defense companies. I don't see why we should once again blame the President for something that is the fault of Congress.
 
Here's what you're not getting:

The layoffs aren't necessarily occurring by January 6th, and right now no specific contract or plant can be identified as being cut. There's nobody to send notification to.

So why then the offer of a payoff by team obama?
 
1) The President has an ability to waive the WARN Act as his power is to enforce the law

Only under specific conditions that do not exist at this time


4) Congress is much more to blame for this than the President is, since Congress won't confirm a budget for these defense companies. I don't see why we should once again blame the President for something that is the fault of Congress.

Because congress isn't the one offering the payoff
 
Only under specific conditions that do not exist at this time

If Congress feels that's the case, it's their prerogative to impeach the President.

Because congress isn't the one offering the payoff

Actually, Congress tends to be more the reason for the military-industrial-congressional complex than the President is. After all, all those Representatives and Senators need to make sure that the companies that contribute to their campaign get plenty of contracts, especially for their state and district. Which is why we have such a hard time truly balancing the federal budget, or cutting government spending.
 
Or even those who encourage criminal activity?

The Obama admin has essentially offered defense companies a payoff to break the law (violate the WARN Act) in order to not hurt his chances at re-election. Is this not criminal activity?

If you offer to pay someone to kill your spouse, are you not charged with attempted murder?

Larry Craig got run out of office for tapping his foot in an airport restroom stall. Isn't offering to pay companies (with taxpayer $$$ no less) to break the law a much more serious offense?

If he will do this to get re-elected....what will he do if re-elected and has no fear of having to campaign again in 4 years?
As long as the sentence is completed, I have no issue with a person running for office. Laws barring said people should be repealed.
 
I thought most offices were already held by criminals....
 
So why then the offer of a payoff by team obama?
You understand you can be sued even when you haven't broken the law, right? Like, for instance, when somebody thinks you have broken the law because they don't actually understand said law. Like people in this thread.

But you know what? It's not up to me to prove a law hasn't been broken. It's up to the accuser to prove that it has. So, give me a concrete example of someone who is definitely getting laid off before January 6. For that matter, how much do you think is really going to happen within a week of the cuts going into place? This is the federal government we're talking about. It'll take them a month to decide who should decide what projects are cut. Actual layoffs are probably going to happen in freaking April.

Bottom line? It's politics. Hey, just keep quiet on this until after the election and we'll cover any legal fees that might result, and I promise we'll talk about skipping the defense cuts entirely.
 
Last edited:
Yes, criminals should be allowed to hold office provided they can win an election like anyone else.
 
You understand you can be sued even when you haven't broken the law, right? Like, for instance, when somebody thinks you have broken the law because they don't actually understand said law. Like people in this thread.

I'm beginning to think that you are confusing civil law with criminal law. One does not become a convict or criminal when one loses a civil lawsuit. Also the only people who can imitate a criminal lawsuit are such as district attorneys and the attorneys in the Attorney General offices.

But you know what? It's not up to me to prove a law hasn't been broken. It's up to the accuser to prove that it has. So, give me a concrete example of someone who is definitely getting laid off before January 6. For that matter, how much do you think is really going to happen within a week of the cuts going into place? This is the federal government we're talking about. It'll take them a month to decide who should decide what projects are cut. Actual layoffs are probably going to happen in freaking April.

I thought the issue with the WARN Act was the employees were supposed to get 60 days warning before such act might take place and Team Obama was asking the defense contractors to ignore that requirement and that Team Obama would run interference with the DoJ the DoL if they would agree to do so.

Bottom line? It's politics. Hey, just keep quiet on this until after the election and we'll cover any legal fees that might result, and I promise we'll talk about skipping the defense cuts entirely.


No, this is not "politics" it is government corruption. People go to prison for such things. I do not think you would be supporting this if the President had an "R" after his name.
 
Or even those who encourage criminal activity?

The Obama admin has essentially offered defense companies a payoff to break the law (violate the WARN Act) in order to not hurt his chances at re-election. Is this not criminal activity?

If you offer to pay someone to kill your spouse, are you not charged with attempted murder?

Larry Craig got run out of office for tapping his foot in an airport restroom stall. Isn't offering to pay companies (with taxpayer $$$ no less) to break the law a much more serious offense?

If he will do this to get re-elected....what will he do if re-elected and has no fear of having to campaign again in 4 years?

I am of the opinion that once a person pays their debt to society it should no longer be held against them in any way, shape or form. It should not be public record. It should not haunt them. It should not prevent them from anything.
 
W. was a drunk driver but I never heard the GOP wanting to keep him out of office on that. I think it is a weird way that this is being couched.
 
W. was a drunk driver but I never heard the GOP wanting to keep him out of office on that. I think it is a weird way that this is being couched.

100164.jpg
"Booze is legal. Grass ain't."
 
In reply to the thread topic. No, anyone who has commited a felony and some of the more serious misdemeanors should not be entrusted with public office, nor should they be entrusted with a public trust.

Mayor Barry?????
 
Back
Top Bottom