if someone has a record of DWI arrests, and 911 domestic calls to his house, should he be allowed to run for any office? or should the board of elections make it manditory that a candidate's dwi record be made public when running for office?
I think anyone should be allowed to run if they meet the basic requirements on age and residency. IMO, if minor infractions are more than a certain number of years ago, then it's not relevant to his abilities anyway.
If it happened just last week, then maybe it's more relevant...
I would love to see them make residency requirements stricter to prevent people using NY as just a political stepping stone to bigger jobs.
if it was a one-time thing well past the statute of limitation of a law abiding citizen since the infraction, and made restitution of their wrong, it's no contest. the question is about someone with multiple dwi arrests, or number of domestic calls to their place. should they be allowed to run for office, or if they can run for office, should their arrest record be manditory when campaigning?Originally Posted by 300miles
I cannot even begin to articulate how your juxtaposition is so incredibly flawed. I'd start by asking if you understood the difference between a charging document and/or a police report and an actual criminal conviction. But given your post, I'm gonna doubt that you even considered that salient distinction.
One beautiful thing about having a government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations is that every disaster is measured in terms of economic loss. It's sort of like getting your arm sheared off in a car accident and thinking, "Damn, now it'll take longer to fold the laundry" as blood spurts from your arteries. - The Rude Pundit
So who is the candidate your talking about?
Buffalo Web Hosting and Graphic Design
www.onlinemedia.net - www.vinyl-graphics.com
Web hosting / Web Design - Signs, Banners, Vehicle Graphics
With the way politics are played around here, who needs a judge to disclose records????? Not many secrets these days, are there?
btw, GO SABRES!!!!
of course they should be "allowed" to run for office.
That doesn't mean you have to vote for them.
should their arrest record be known while campaigning?
it doesn't matter who it is or was, it's a future thought of opinion for voters to have a some truth first.
It depends on when it happened and how often the offense was repeated. People make mistakes, but when it's done over and over again that's when there is a problem.
It's like when Bill Clinton said he didn't inhale, it happened years ago why not just say yea i experimented and so what!
“Two percent of the people think; three percent of the people think they think; and ninety-five percent of the people would rather die than think.”
some times things like this could get passed off as rumors or kicking up dirt on the campaign trail. shouldn't having many dwi arrests be something voters know about before giving time, money or endorsements to a candidate.
Ooooo and cases of domestic violence should be known. If it's a crime like that or some sort of sexual crime (not counting prostitution done 20 years ago because I think it should be legal) it always matters.
I don't want a wife beater or child molestor holding any office.
“Two percent of the people think; three percent of the people think they think; and ninety-five percent of the people would rather die than think.”
as in a previous reply, it's repeated offenses of driving while intoxicated.
A single DWI charge would have absolutely no impact on whether or not I would vote for someone.
I'm willing to bet that the majority of people have been behind the wheel when their BAC level was above where it should be. The fact that someone was unfortunate enough to get caught, doesn't make them a bad person.
as in a previous reply, it's repeated offenses of driving while intoxicated.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote