• 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?

OscarB63

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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?
 
Federal felons are barred from holding office. Most states probably have similar laws. They would not survive the campaign in any event.
 
I was under the impression that most of the people holding office were already criminals....just unprosecuted. Between insider trading, treason, and other circumventions of the law, there are a great many politicians who should currently be in jail.
 
This is america and you do need one thing to declare someone a felon. That is a conviction. The opinions of people don't make a felony conviction. If the opinions of some people who have a severe bias effecting their rational judgement mattered Obama would not be president because he would not be a citizen. however, just because someone gets it into their head he is a felon does not make him one, just like because some people think he is a secret muslim born in kenya does not make that reality.

So in much shorter terms, no. Any restrictions that keep convicted felons from being elected officials would not apply to obama as he is not a convicted felon.
 
tererun said:
This is america and you do need one thing to declare someone a felon. That is a conviction. The opinions of people don't make a felony conviction. If the opinions of some people who have a severe bias effecting their rational judgement mattered Obama would not be president because he would not be a citizen. however, just because someone gets it into their head he is a felon does not make him one, just like because some people think he is a secret muslim born in kenya does not make that reality.

So in much shorter terms, no. Any restrictions that keep convicted felons from being elected officials would not apply to obama as he is not a convicted felon.
Click to expand...

nice quibble. so you have no problem with him telling companies to break the law to better his chance at getting re-elected?
 
tererun said:
This is america and you do need one thing to declare someone a felon. That is a conviction. The opinions of people don't make a felony conviction. If the opinions of some people who have a severe bias effecting their rational judgement mattered Obama would not be president because he would not be a citizen. however, just because someone gets it into their head he is a felon does not make him one, just like because some people think he is a secret muslim born in kenya does not make that reality.

So in much shorter terms, no. Any restrictions that keep convicted felons from being elected officials would not apply to obama as he is not a convicted felon.
Click to expand...

Nixon was never convicted.
 
apdst said:
Nixon was never convicted.
Click to expand...

the really sad part is that the obama slurpers are so brainwashed that they will ignore/excuse any and all behavior no matter how unethical or illegal it is.

the same people that bleated like mindless sheep for months about Romney's legally filed tax returns have absolutely no qualms about team obama telling companies to break the law
 
OscarB63 said:
the really sad part is that the obama slurpers are so brainwashed that they will ignore/excuse any and all behavior no matter how unethical or illegal it is.

the same people that bleated like mindless sheep for months about Romney's legally filed tax returns have absolutely no qualms about team obama telling companies to break the law
Click to expand...

I guess the Obama Administration is getting desperate if they have to PAY the companies to break the law. The s.o.p of the Democratic Party when in power is they have to be paid for companies to break the law aka Campaign Contributions.
 
Shadow Serious said:
I guess the Obama Administration is getting desperate if they have to PAY the companies to break the law. The s.o.p of the Democratic Party when in power is they have to be paid for companies to break the law aka Campaign Contributions.
Click to expand...

desperate and arrogant. they didn't even try to hide that they made the offer. I guess they , accurately, assumed that his supporters wouldn't care
 
Those who steal cookies, go to jail.

Those who steal millions govern the country.

Welcome to the real world, where paradox and irony are the bread and salt of every meal.
 
OscarB63 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Let me stop you right there.

No they haven't.
 
OscarB63 said:
the really sad part is that the obama slurpers are so brainwashed that they will ignore/excuse any and all behavior no matter how unethical or illegal it is.

the same people that bleated like mindless sheep for months about Romney's legally filed tax returns have absolutely no qualms about team obama telling companies to break the law
Click to expand...

Stalin had his followers, too. Pol pot, Ho Chi Minh, Jim Jones, Mao...it's what happens when a politician sells himself asi a messiah.
 
This is one of those silly issues for me. There are arguments on either side and only the hardcore supporters of the two sides really care to battle it out.
 
OscarB63 said:
desperate and arrogant. they didn't even try to hide that they made the offer. I guess they , accurately, assumed that his supporters wouldn't care
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand the law.
 
Fisher said:
This is one of those silly issues for me. There are arguments on either side and only the hardcore supporters of the two sides really care to battle it out.
Click to expand...

There's a right side and there's a wrong side. Hint: The wrong side is suggesting this is a violation of the law.
 
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.
 
Deuce said:
There's a right side and there's a wrong side. Hint: The wrong side is suggesting this is a violation of the law.
Click to expand...

Why isn't it?
 
Deuce said:
There's a right side and there's a wrong side. Hint: The wrong side is suggesting this is a violation of the law.
Click to expand...

There is also an inside and an outside and on this I am way on the outside. LOL.
 
Deuce said:
Let me stop you right there.

No they haven't.
Click to expand...

they offered to pay any lawsuit resulting from violations of the WARN act if the defense companies would delay giving layoff notices until after the election.

this is an indisputable fact...they admitted it.

so, yes, essentially they encouraged the defense companies to engage in illegal (aka criminal) activity.

you can try to deny it all you want, but it won't change the facts.
 
Deuce said:
You don't seem to understand the law.
Click to expand...

I understand what the WARN act requires and I know that team obama told the defense companies they would pay them if they got sued for violating it.
 
OscarB63 said:
they offered to pay any lawsuit resulting from violations of the WARN act if the defense companies would delay giving layoff notices until after the election.

this is an indisputable fact...they admitted it.

so, yes, essentially they encouraged the defense companies to engage in illegal (aka criminal) activity.

you can try to deny it all you want, but it won't change the facts.
Click to expand...

As of right now, there's nobody to send notification to. Because the precise cuts haven't been decided yet. And they wont be by election day. THAT is the fact that is important here.

Also, they didn't offer to pay the lawsuit settlements, they offered to pay legal fees. (which can be incurred even when you haven't broken the law)
 
Deuce said:
Because you can't answer this question.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom