5 ms·

Biden’s focus ought to be making sure a crazy person like Trump is never elected again and that if he is, that government institutions cannot be abused the way

Biden’s focus ought to be making sure a crazy person like Trump is never elected again and that if he is, that government institutions cannot be abused the way they were under Trump. It should be made easier to prosecute a president for illegal activity. Things like showing tax returns should be formalized. New regulation needs to be put in place to limit the spread of falsehoods and conspiracy theories over facts. Social media currently benefit economically from this and that has to stop. The economic incentive to spread crazy and extremist ideas has to be removed.

kortilla 6y ago
> It should be made easier to prosecute a president for illegal activity. It’s already easy. The House made their case and the Senate disagreed. The same thing happens in real court (prosecution makes a case and jury disagrees). It absolutely should not be so easy that the house alone can remove the president with a simple majority. > Things like showing tax returns should be formalized. Why? Anything really insidious isn’t going to be on a return anyway. And if it’s required for the President, why not literally every other government position?
- dodobirdlord 6y ago
  It probably should be required for any government position where the holder of the office is expected to exercise their own individual discretion. The Federal government won’t grant a security clearance to individuals that owe substantial amounts of money, especially to foreigners, or who have deep personal ties to foreigners or ownership stakes in foreign businesses. I for one would like to know whether candidates would be eligible for a security clearance (though of course the President themself is not subject to most rules about classified information).
  - dannyw 6y ago
    I doubt tax returns would’ve stopped trump from winning in 2016. Ultimately the will of the people should prevail; that’s what a democracy is.
    - dodobirdlord 6y ago
      Perhaps, but though the Constitution lists only minimal requirements for the presidency it's clear that the authors had the belief that the will of the people should be curtailed in plenty of circumstances.
- harimau777 6y ago
  Trump was never taken to court because the position of the Justice Department is that the President is above the law. That could be changed. The Senate was not equivalent to a jury since juries do not generally have the same incentives to pervert justice that the Senate did. > ...why not literally every other government position? The President has dramatically more power than almost any other government position. That being said, I could see it being required for Supreme Court justices and members of Congress.
  - jakeogh 6y ago
    court... over what? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21153531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21153531
    - harimau777 6y ago
      Obstruction of justice
      - jakeogh 6y ago
        Specifically?
- cgrealy 6y ago
  > The House made their case and the Senate disagreed. That is ignoring the open partisanship displayed by the Senate. The Republicans openly admitted they would be giving the impeachment process a fair hearing. And to be fair, I doubt the Democrats would have done any different had the positions been reversed. I'm not sure there's a better solution. I'm not sure you want an "impartisan" non-elected body to make a decision as fundamental as removing the President from office.
- TrackerFF 6y ago
  I think it's safe to say that one of the major reasons Trump won, was because he was hailed as some mastermind business person, who'd "run America like a business". That mantra started with Mitt Romney, but he ran against a strong candidate - so it never really took off. But then it turns out, Trump is a really weak businessman, with almost 4 decades of bankruptcies and crushing debt to his name. His business failings have been known forever, but his personal debt is new information. Normal people joining any position which requires security clearance can get denied, on basis of relatively small consumer debt. Why? Because it makes you risky, and susceptible of corruption. Based in his personal debt alone, Trump would never, ever get any security clearance of any kind. Also, letting the senate decide seems like a broken system when it's absolutely clear that both sides will pick party of country, any day of the week. If anything, the Trump administration has been the great stress-test of how things work in practice. Better to patch up the system now, than to wait for the next smarter and more cunning wannabe-dictator.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    > Based in his personal debt alone, Trump would never, ever get any security clearance of any kind. Nobody cares. Obama wouldn’t have gotten clearance because he smoked pot.

kortilla 6y ago

> It should be made easier to prosecute a president for illegal activity. It’s already easy. The House made their case and the Senate disagreed. The same thing happens in real court (prosecution makes a case and jury disagrees). It absolutely should not be so easy that the house alone can remove the president with a simple majority. > Things like showing tax returns should be formalized. Why? Anything really insidious isn’t going to be on a return anyway. And if it’s required for the President, why not literally every other government position?

dodobirdlord 6y ago
It probably should be required for any government position where the holder of the office is expected to exercise their own individual discretion. The Federal government won’t grant a security clearance to individuals that owe substantial amounts of money, especially to foreigners, or who have deep personal ties to foreigners or ownership stakes in foreign businesses. I for one would like to know whether candidates would be eligible for a security clearance (though of course the President themself is not subject to most rules about classified information).
- dannyw 6y ago
  I doubt tax returns would’ve stopped trump from winning in 2016. Ultimately the will of the people should prevail; that’s what a democracy is.
  - dodobirdlord 6y ago
    Perhaps, but though the Constitution lists only minimal requirements for the presidency it's clear that the authors had the belief that the will of the people should be curtailed in plenty of circumstances.
harimau777 6y ago
Trump was never taken to court because the position of the Justice Department is that the President is above the law. That could be changed. The Senate was not equivalent to a jury since juries do not generally have the same incentives to pervert justice that the Senate did. > ...why not literally every other government position? The President has dramatically more power than almost any other government position. That being said, I could see it being required for Supreme Court justices and members of Congress.
- jakeogh 6y ago
  court... over what? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21153531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21153531
  - harimau777 6y ago
    Obstruction of justice
    - jakeogh 6y ago
      Specifically?
cgrealy 6y ago
> The House made their case and the Senate disagreed. That is ignoring the open partisanship displayed by the Senate. The Republicans openly admitted they would be giving the impeachment process a fair hearing. And to be fair, I doubt the Democrats would have done any different had the positions been reversed. I'm not sure there's a better solution. I'm not sure you want an "impartisan" non-elected body to make a decision as fundamental as removing the President from office.
TrackerFF 6y ago
I think it's safe to say that one of the major reasons Trump won, was because he was hailed as some mastermind business person, who'd "run America like a business". That mantra started with Mitt Romney, but he ran against a strong candidate - so it never really took off. But then it turns out, Trump is a really weak businessman, with almost 4 decades of bankruptcies and crushing debt to his name. His business failings have been known forever, but his personal debt is new information. Normal people joining any position which requires security clearance can get denied, on basis of relatively small consumer debt. Why? Because it makes you risky, and susceptible of corruption. Based in his personal debt alone, Trump would never, ever get any security clearance of any kind. Also, letting the senate decide seems like a broken system when it's absolutely clear that both sides will pick party of country, any day of the week. If anything, the Trump administration has been the great stress-test of how things work in practice. Better to patch up the system now, than to wait for the next smarter and more cunning wannabe-dictator.
- kortilla 6y ago
  > Based in his personal debt alone, Trump would never, ever get any security clearance of any kind. Nobody cares. Obama wouldn’t have gotten clearance because he smoked pot.