trois_pample wrote:
I mean... I understand what you're saying, but if you're the sort of person who's going to (knowingly) work to grow the influence of someone who's morally abhorrent, or work to advance policy that creates structures that are morally abhorrent, it's reasonable to think that you're going to be treated like you're morally abhorrent, because you've done a lot of harm to people. Maybe you can get a job carrying water at a right-wing think tank or something... but your judgement is so demonstrably flawed that it would be irresponsible to give you meaningful decisions to make that effect anyone else.
Ignoring abstractions and digging directly into the concretions: You have a guy who enabled and encouraged another prominent right-wing failson who (off the top of my head) stormed impeachment proceedings, trivialized behavior around Corona virus, unapologetically drove drunk, and now (if the allegations are true) was flashing nudes around of his underaged conquests and created dehumanizing games related to their exploitation... Where (specifically) do you want that guy working within YOUR organization? For that matter, where's a place that you can put him at your organization that wouldn't be an obvious demonstration of your irresponsibility?
There should be consequences for these enablers.
I agree in this case. Like I said, Gaetz was a known clown and working for him crosses a line for me. But, I am not a Republican. Would a basic Trump-endorsing Congressperson think this guy is too scummy to hire? If the answer is yes, it’s probably because of political appearances — they don’t want any association with Gaetz — and not because they think someone who would work for Gaetz is just inherently flawed. Just a guess.