More people are in debt than aren't in debt. Want to buy a car? Debt. Want to buy a house? Debt. Want to go to school? Debt. There is no shame in having manageable levels of debt, and that shouldn't disqualify someone from serving in public office.

It sounds like a good idea to put restrictions on having violent crime convictions, but that runs up against the way the criminal justice system is built. So many things are being upgraded to be considered more severe offenses in order to punish people harder that it ends up with some stuff being essentially unforgivable even if you recognize your failings, go through with the punishment, and never cause trouble for anyone again. A violent crime conviction can certainly be a reason to apply stricter scrutiny to a candidate, but given a certain period of good behavior it shouldn't be an automatic disqualification.

Can't argue about fraud; a fraud conviction is a sign that you're willing to bend the rules for your own gain.

ah, yeah, that's true.

i didn't have the words to explain what i meant at the time, and this explanation that you've given actually feels a lot better tbh.