Challenging corruption is good, impeach him, don't throw him in jail like, IMO, you are rashly suggesting.Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Eh, I don't buy it. I agree that at some point we could experience a genuine crisis of government, but I think that to allow extreme corruption to go unchallenged does greater harm. Still, to see a former President doing time, wow, what a concept! In the end however, if something this drastic was to happen, it would [ideally] serve as evidence that the US system of government does work as it should; rather than to motivate a complete collapse. I don't generally buy into Chicken Little scenarios [a comment on the idea, not you personally ]
The recycling of Presidents doesn't seem like an operational government to me I would hope people wouldn't see it as a healthy government either. Getting rid of corruption is good but putting your President in jail with the people [stereotypical] that are in there doesn't seem good to me.
My scenario was certainly worst imagineable case, but it illustrated my point well, jailing the President would do more harm, IMHO, than good.
Clinton was jailed? He sure wasn't, so why would we have a dictator?Hmmm...large chunks of our government, and population, thought it was perfectly reasonable to attack Clinton based on lies and innuendo, on the off-chance that one of the charges would stick...and now we have a dictator, right?
Russ was right about you Zero.
To Dissident Dan
It sure did sound like something George Orwell would say (I'm proud of myself)
You seem to think that a general mistrust and lack of faith in our government is good? How can your government function without faith and trust, at least to a small degree?
Ah self-rule, I would like that, I agree with you there. Politicians do lie, and you say ignorance allows this, so are you agreeing that the majority are ignorant?The thing about self-rule is that it works better with better general knowledge of the public. Ignorance of the masses is one factor that allows politicians to lie.
Yes, people like this. If they have it and never run into a problem, they live happy lives, and die, this is good. People don't need to be constantly watching there backs so the government doesn't get them, when in fact they would never experience this side of the government.So, people should have a false sense of daddy taking care fo them?
Perhaps that feeling would be a possible outcome; although (more likely), outweighed by fear of government.Yes, it will make people think twice about defrauding, and it could possibly instill a feeling among people that there is accountability, which would give people a sense of confidence in their government, rather the scenario that you envision.