Trump's new Sec. of Labor has some baggage...

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-30-2018, 03:18 PM)Dill Wrote: Mike, do you think that respect for and adherence to ethics in office is just another thing like taking shoes on or off the right way, when it comes to determining who is fit for office?  I have never heard of a prosecutor who lost his job for refusing to take off his shoes, but they can be prosecuted for corruption--for ethics violations. 

Also, if you are an honest politician accountable for appointments, then it is unlikely that you will appoint a prosecutor who puts on his shoes the right way, but has a history of ethical issues, over a prosecutor who puts on his shoes the wrong way but is known for his integrity. You appoint the former and his bad behavior will eventually blow back on you. 

Sometimes, of course, the politicians are corrupt and so they will appoint someone equally corrupt to protect them.  But the response to that situation is not a shoulder shrug and an assertion that "we will always find something about people we don't like."  The point is to define standards and uphold them.

Appointing people to public office is not (or should not be) as random as you imply here.  

Sure it's much deeper than what I mentioned, but you didn't give any names of who would be a good fit.
People at his level will always have cases in the past that will cause everyone to question their ethics.

Even Hillary has defended a child molester in her past.
So by standards we are using for Acosta, she's definitely not fit to be a POTUS for the same reasons.