Should A Felon Serve In Congress?

I absolutely agree with Bill's comments. The candidate's race, his unemployment record, general sympathy with his situation should NOT be a consideration with this, or ANY candidate. Running for public office in an attempt to find employment -- and very highly paid employment at that -- should be the last consideration of a public official. If his purse is his main objective, he is not a suitable candidate. Entering politics in a desperate attempt to get work should be automatic disqualification for any candidate -- of any color, gender, ethnic background, culture, lifestyle, religious proclivaity, or social status. I don't care how handsome, charismatic, eloquent he is. He is not to be trusted in a public office.

The most important thing is education, qualifications, experience, and a sincere desire to better the status America and Amerricans. Whatever happened to the concept that our governmental leaders were the servants of the people? The type of felony should also be considered. Obviously, an embezzler should not be put into a position of managing large sums of money. Has this man been rehabilitated so his prior problems would not continue to plague him in his new role?

It would be expecting a lot (but wouldn't it be wonderful) if personal character and integrity were present in all of our elected officials. Far too often some of them should be brought up on charges. We need people in government (at ALL levels) that deserve the public trust. The scarcity of such individuals has destroyed American's trust in our government leaders. Is it any wonder we are so dissatisfied with the highest officials in the land. And is it any wonder American is becoming the laughing stock of other nations?

A better question would be: "Do you think any person should be allowed to run for a public office without psychological screening to determine intelligence and mental stability?"

My answer to my own question would be a resounding "NO!!!"

I'm neither democrat, nor republican, but I also realize that the other parties don't have enough political clout to create a true balance of power. Given the state of society today, it seems that we would be better off without any of the current forms of government, world wide. What this world needs is a reboot! Maybe I'm too much of a futurist, but I think we would be much better off with no national boundries, no national governments, etc. Instead, I'd prefer a Global Terran Alliance that eventually expands to become a Galactic Terran Federation. We need to start looking more seriously to our future. The BP incident in the Gulf Of Mexico is quickly killing our planet, and regardless of what many may think, our earth is bleeding... uncontrollably. Estimates last week said that the gulf was roughly now 30% contaminated with crude oil. Where does it stop? This is far beyond a national issue... it literally effects the entire world, whether it's people know it or not. It's only a matter of time before the Everglades are over run, and once the currents carry the spill out to sea in the Atlantic, the final domino effect will inevitably begin. But I digress...

If you've listened to the interview with this (so called) plant, it's easy to discern that he doesn't have the education, much less the intelligence, to raise the amount of money needed to run for public office, regardless of his legal status. What we have here is a silent war. The two parties are so hateful of one another than nothing worthwhile is done. It seems that they would rather serve out their terms in office bickering like spoiled children. Even worse is the fact that many of the constituents follow suit and do the same thing themselves, rather than wising up to these jack@sses and holding their worthless @sses responsible for wasting our time, money, and causing us more grey hairs.

Otherwise, I totally support the statements made to this thread by "MOM - LOL@Silly.St.Sarah.of.Wasilly" . It's reprehensible to call someone a felon that hasn't been convicted. It's stigmatizing to all that have to live with that title. When someone has paid their dues, people should leave well enough alone.

"If you're going through hell, keep going..." --Winston Churchill

The question should read: "Should you vote for or support such a tool for congress?"

There is a big problem with American politics and it is the voters. American's vote for candidates like they are voting for American Idol. They will consider things like, he is black(yes, that will get him votes), that he is unemployed, an underdog.

Just with those three reasons alone he will get many votes. What a lot of American's will not do is take their voting power serious, look pass the drama and ask "How is he qualified to be a member of congress?".

They ignore important details like education. Why is education so important? The bills that a written are very complex and are written using legal terms. Does he have the ability to read and understand the cryptic laws, or does he have to have someone else read it for him and give him the "layman's version". Ever wonder why such poor bill's get passed, that's the reason right there.

How about experience? Has the person held an office prior? Does he have a financial background? Will the economy be fixed by voting for people with no strong financial background. These are only a few of the things you should look for in a candidate.

So lets sum up this candidate. Uneducated, poor work history, military(+), no financial background, never held a public office. Those are great reasons not to vote for him. Even without the alleged charges he should get no votes. Include the charges and you vote for him, I hope you are affected drastically by the economy or a law that is passed. Maybe after that you will wake up and take the precious gift we have of voting serious.