Its a great question and intuitive observation. I agree with your position. My observation has been the magnitude of fraud is shocking. Its almost to the point of or beyond control, ever. The $$ has created such an addictive fervor that it has become multi generational theft gangs. Often cloaked in charity work or good will.
Overall we need to have Judicial Reform, however the problem seems to be infiltration and steering committees with agenda driven power deeply ingrained.
Generally what I see is a massive population in plain view involved in organized crime supported by a system that is taking money for its position of support. Nobody is being prosecuted , for the most part. You have to pull on the sweater and eventually dismantle the organization. Guidelines are in place but for example we let $$ fund campaigns that lead to dirty election hires on top of dirty elections themselves.
I believe in the rules first. My first position revolves around auditing a candidate or existing government employee operating with term limits. If we find corruption or $$ from a dirty source, we confiscate assetts, prosecute and clean the position. Using all information to increase productivity and furnish further auditing.
We have to inspect what we expect, hold accountability and clean house. This recovers $$ and weakens the dirty influence. Our national debt represents all the fraud that has taken place. So the question becomes. . . What could you do or influence with all that money. . . Everything.
I agree corruption should be prosecuted wherever it exists, but that’s actually why I keep coming back to scope and authority.
Once the claim becomes “the entire system is captured and nobody can be trusted,” then audits, courts, and reforms inside that system can’t logically work either. 🤷♀️ This is what I have an issue with. If everything is as corrupt as claimed, then what is the point of pushing for things like voter ID and paper ballots? If the results of those don't turn out the way we want, people would just go back to "everything/everyone is corrupt!" For example, look at all the blue states that do have voter ID laws. Does anyone trust the vote results because of that? I know that VA also does paper ballots, because I live and vote here. Does that make any difference in trusting the vote results?
At that point we’re no longer talking about enforcement, but about replacing the entire system outright and that’s a very different conversation.
I’m trying to understand where the line is between corruption we can prove and prosecute now, vs. assumptions that explain everything but can’t be tested.
EDITED TO ADD:
I want to stress this isn’t an attack on Trump, but a consistency question.
If we applied the same audit first, confiscation if tainted, zero tolerance standards being described here uniformly, I’m not sure Trump himself would pass without explicit carve Outs.
Public record shows he’s had decades of complex business structures, extensive litigation over valuations and taxes, foreign financing through major banks, and campaign funding that used the same PAC and donor mechanisms every major candidate relies on. None of that proves criminal guilt but under a framework where complexity, foreign capital, or campaign money itself is treated as presumptive corruption, those factors would trigger the same scrutiny being proposed for everyone else. And remember that Trump was a self declared Democrat for many years, donating to a lot of different democrats.
That’s the part I keep coming back to: either the standards are narrow, evidence based, and applied through due process or they become so broad that no modern political figure, including Trump, could realistically clear them. 🤷♀️
I’m less concerned with who gets audited than whether the rules being
suggested can be applied consistently without exceptions, because once exceptions are required, we’re no longer talking about neutral enforcement. That's when people start yelling about dictatorship and tyranny, when the rules are not applied to everyone, equally and consistently.
Its a great question and intuitive observation. I agree with your position. My observation has been the magnitude of fraud is shocking. Its almost to the point of or beyond control, ever. The $$ has created such an addictive fervor that it has become multi generational theft gangs. Often cloaked in charity work or good will.
Overall we need to have Judicial Reform, however the problem seems to be infiltration and steering committees with agenda driven power deeply ingrained.
Generally what I see is a massive population in plain view involved in organized crime supported by a system that is taking money for its position of support. Nobody is being prosecuted , for the most part. You have to pull on the sweater and eventually dismantle the organization. Guidelines are in place but for example we let $$ fund campaigns that lead to dirty election hires on top of dirty elections themselves.
I believe in the rules first. My first position revolves around auditing a candidate or existing government employee operating with term limits. If we find corruption or $$ from a dirty source, we confiscate assetts, prosecute and clean the position. Using all information to increase productivity and furnish further auditing.
We have to inspect what we expect, hold accountability and clean house. This recovers $$ and weakens the dirty influence. Our national debt represents all the fraud that has taken place. So the question becomes. . . What could you do or influence with all that money. . . Everything.
I agree corruption should be prosecuted wherever it exists, but that’s actually why I keep coming back to scope and authority.
Once the claim becomes “the entire system is captured and nobody can be trusted,” then audits, courts, and reforms inside that system can’t logically work either. 🤷♀️ This is what I have an issue with. If everything is as corrupt as claimed, then what is the point of pushing for things like voter ID and paper ballots? If the results of those don't turn out the way we want, people would just go back to "everything/everyone is corrupt!" For example, look at all the blue states that do have voter ID laws. Does anyone trust the vote results because of that? I know that VA also does paper ballots, because I live and vote here. Does that make any difference in trusting the vote results?
At that point we’re no longer talking about enforcement, but about replacing the entire system outright and that’s a very different conversation.
I’m trying to understand where the line is between corruption we can prove and prosecute now, vs. assumptions that explain everything but can’t be tested.
EDITED TO ADD:
I want to stress this isn’t an attack on Trump, but a consistency question. If we applied the same audit first, confiscation if tainted, zero tolerance standards being described here uniformly, I’m not sure Trump himself would pass without explicit carve Outs.
Public record shows he’s had decades of complex business structures, extensive litigation over valuations and taxes, foreign financing through major banks, and campaign funding that used the same PAC and donor mechanisms every major candidate relies on. None of that proves criminal guilt but under a framework where complexity, foreign capital, or campaign money itself is treated as presumptive corruption, those factors would trigger the same scrutiny being proposed for everyone else. And remember that Trump was a self declared Democrat for many years, donating to a lot of different democrats.
That’s the part I keep coming back to: either the standards are narrow, evidence based, and applied through due process or they become so broad that no modern political figure, including Trump, could realistically clear them. 🤷♀️
I’m less concerned with who gets audited than whether the rules being suggested can be applied consistently without exceptions, because once exceptions are required, we’re no longer talking about neutral enforcement. That's when people start yelling about dictatorship and tyranny, when the rules are not applied to everyone, equally and consistently.