3 ms·

> being run by a bunch of criminals who delete incriminating evidence. I have no problems accepting the fact that politicians might hire crooks to do some thin

> being run by a bunch of criminals who delete incriminating evidence. I have no problems accepting the fact that politicians might hire crooks to do some things that are extra legal. The fact that they're incompetent criminals who get caught and who don't understand the internet, that worries me.

sillysaurus3 10y ago
Can you help me understand your point of view?
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  It might be kind of silly, but I think that the US government has to do a lot of shady things to ensure that we have a high standard of living and more of our share of natural resources. Look up the origin of the term "banana republic" if you don't believe me. Or just look through how many things we did in South/Central America due to the doctrine of manifest destiny. So if we have to do something bad to ensure a steady supply of oil at a reasonable price, sure. I can accept that. But we should be discerning enough to figure out who to hire, and how to GET AWAY WITH IT to avoid repercussions. If you're the president, there's a lot more at stake here than your campaign - we're talking about full blown war.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    The banality of evil and all that.
  - PKop 10y ago
    That's shadiness for the country's benefit you're describing, not shadiness for personal benefit to avoid criminal prosecution so you can get elected president... Shadiness to cover the tracks of previous shadiness to hide your own emails from FOIA requests.
    - jimmywanger 10y ago
      The question here is competence, and lack thereof. I think that skill in shadiness is transferrable across motives. If you can't plan a robbery of a convenience store for your own wallet, why should I let you plan the robbery of a bank to give it all away to charity? The ends (sorta) matter in a moralistic sort of way. But the means matter much more. You're playing for higher stakes here, not just criminal prosecution, but a low level brush war in the middle east if you mess things up.
  - ookdatnog 10y ago
    > So if we have to do something bad to ensure a steady supply of oil at a reasonable price, sure. I can accept that. aka robbing from the poor and giving to the rich
- albinofrenchy 10y ago
  Its the Lil Wayne metric -- be good or be good at it. Every politician is presumably some level of corrupt; you might as well prefer the ones smart enough not to leave evidence everywhere.
- 794CD01 10y ago
  Evil can be harnessed to good with appropriate incentives. You can't incent a stupid person to be smart.
imron 10y ago
> do some things that are extra legal. Illegal. I have more problems with politicians hiring crooks to do illegal things for them, than with criminals being incompetent.

sillysaurus3 10y ago

Can you help me understand your point of view?

jimmywanger 10y ago
It might be kind of silly, but I think that the US government has to do a lot of shady things to ensure that we have a high standard of living and more of our share of natural resources. Look up the origin of the term "banana republic" if you don't believe me. Or just look through how many things we did in South/Central America due to the doctrine of manifest destiny. So if we have to do something bad to ensure a steady supply of oil at a reasonable price, sure. I can accept that. But we should be discerning enough to figure out who to hire, and how to GET AWAY WITH IT to avoid repercussions. If you're the president, there's a lot more at stake here than your campaign - we're talking about full blown war.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  The banality of evil and all that.
- PKop 10y ago
  That's shadiness for the country's benefit you're describing, not shadiness for personal benefit to avoid criminal prosecution so you can get elected president... Shadiness to cover the tracks of previous shadiness to hide your own emails from FOIA requests.
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    The question here is competence, and lack thereof. I think that skill in shadiness is transferrable across motives. If you can't plan a robbery of a convenience store for your own wallet, why should I let you plan the robbery of a bank to give it all away to charity? The ends (sorta) matter in a moralistic sort of way. But the means matter much more. You're playing for higher stakes here, not just criminal prosecution, but a low level brush war in the middle east if you mess things up.
- ookdatnog 10y ago
  > So if we have to do something bad to ensure a steady supply of oil at a reasonable price, sure. I can accept that. aka robbing from the poor and giving to the rich
albinofrenchy 10y ago
Its the Lil Wayne metric -- be good or be good at it. Every politician is presumably some level of corrupt; you might as well prefer the ones smart enough not to leave evidence everywhere.
794CD01 10y ago
Evil can be harnessed to good with appropriate incentives. You can't incent a stupid person to be smart.

imron 10y ago

> do some things that are extra legal. Illegal. I have more problems with politicians hiring crooks to do illegal things for them, than with criminals being incompetent.