No, as defined by the people he harmed who are coming out today to tell people not to vote for their abuser
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect
yes gauge his propensities on the basis of the duration of their resentment. Exactly why we execute people if their victims decree it. You're insane.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @geniecoefficnt
There's a big big difference between executing someone and not voting them into office! Not being voted into office isn't some kind of horrible punishment, I haven't been voted into office, nobody I know has been voted into office
8 replies 11 retweets 146 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect
we're talking about the likelihood of a repeat offense, remember? And the relevance to that of the victims' emotional state. Try to keep things straight.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @geniecoefficnt
Yeah and the threshold for how willing you are to judge someone based on their past should be very high when it comes to throwing them into prison but very low when it comes to electing them into office Why is this so hard to understand
3 replies 17 retweets 135 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @geniecoefficnt
His victims, who know him a lot better as a human being than you or I do, think he's unfit for office based on their experiences I think it's perfectly fair to take their advice in that regard, because electing someone is a big fucking deal
4 replies 5 retweets 105 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @geniecoefficnt
Has nothing to do with him being free to live his life He can live his life without having a position of public power over other people, most people do
2 replies 5 retweets 105 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect
ah, so now you've tossed out the notion of redemption - no waiting periods, no "clean record" exemption - he's barred for life. You've switched arguments, but aside from that, somehow I suspect you'd find exceptions to this fixed rule in any number of circumstances
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @geniecoefficnt
I don't have a fixed policy I have in mind that I think should be written into the constitution, but I think that if his victims don't trust him to hold public office the decent thing to do is for the voters to listen
1 reply 1 retweet 41 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @geniecoefficnt
I think it's *more likely* that if it had been 20 years since it happened and he'd actually done something in that time to demonstrate he'd changed his victims would be willing to forgive him, but that's ultimately up to them, not me
2 replies 2 retweets 53 likes
I think it's completely fucking obvious why calling them unreasonable for not forgiving him just because five years passed and he has his GED now is bullshit though I actually can't imagine forgiving someone under those circumstances
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @geniecoefficnt
"why are you still mad about this, i said i have moved on" is not an apology! actual contrition begins with publicly stating what you've done. he tries to minimize his crimes, calls it 'just a little cyberbullying.' he's not even at the first step of contrition.
2 replies 4 retweets 67 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.