[flagged]
Musk, at least, has provided value to society - which does not at all outweigh his spread of violence, hatred, criminality, and taking away freedom.
Why is Musk banned by the constitution of the US from becoming the president of the US, and why does similar logic not also apply to being in charge of major government processes? Especially given that the same administration that is happy with Musk doing all this is unhappy with migrants (a category that includes Musk) and even their children born in the US?
Even at their best, both Musk and Trump are lax with the rules.
Are you saying that nobody born outside the US can be "in charge of major government processes"? Why not? Are people born in the US inherently more capable or loyal? Should our nation of 'all are created equal' give them more rights?
This is not a judgement call, it's noticing hypocrisy (and broader incoherence) and suggesting why neither Musk nor Trump can fully trust the other.
(The same rule would also preclude me from becoming president of the US, but as I live several time zones away from the nearest part of the US, and have no desire to change this, and don't want that kind of job, it matters less).
Congress could pass a law about it, but I'm not sure why they would. I'm not sure what the authors of the Constitution were thinking, but that was a very different situation. For example, the US had just separated from the UK; perhaps, having just rid themselves of a British king, the authors didn't want someone born in the UK as president.
He promised these people the world only to get in day one and say "sucks to suck".
Why do you think GOP voters didn't realize Trump was corrupt? Obviously they knew and voted for him anyway. The question is, why? Why did they abandon all common sense and good sense?
Biden's pardoning of his son and pre-emptive pardoning of his family sets a very low bar for corruption.
Given the stakes, as in 2016, a lot of voters didn't see a difference. While I thought I did in November, I don't think I can say I do now.
I'm sure you know the reasons that's not comparable - meaning, I'm not going to make some pedantic argument about it. One bad event doesn't define everything. How many bad events are connected to Trump? Everyone who is not a saint is equally a sinner? - That's very egalitarian of you, but maybe too much so in this case. :)
I agree it was corrupt and it made me angry, though he did have an argument: He said Trump would target his son corruptly.
That's a real possibility: Trump has a long track record of such things and of a desire to do more; he openly said he would do it if elected. I think the GOP did corruptly attack Hunter Biden because he is the President's son - IMHO it's attacking family members of enemies; Hunter seems to have broken laws, but many do without the massive investigations by Congress and DoJ, news coverage, etc. And now Trump has directed the attorney general to investigate the Biden administration.
I never drew equality, just analogy. No, they're not equivalent. But it's a lot easier to throw stones when one is not themselves in a glass house.
> He said Trump would target his son corruptly
Anyone can say this about anything. His son broke the law. It's a silly law. Which is all the more reason to change the law, not the sentence.
Anyone can say it but Biden has lots of evidence, as outlined, which others don't have. I'm talking more about protecting Hunter against future prosecution and persecution, not cutting his sentence short (though I wonder what comparable convictions get).