maybe this should be changed??

[handmade34]

There are no background checks from the FBI on the people that lead the country, the United States of America


In order to get jobs throughout my life, I have take polygraph tests, supplied my credit history, been fingerprinted, filled dozens and dozens of forms, written essays, jumped through hoops, been subjected to multiple background tests, had officials talk to my friends and relatives... and more...

maybe the typical rigorous vetting on the campaign trail isn't enough anymore when choosing our representatives

The president of the United States is not subject to a security screening and does not hold a security clearance. Once elected, only time and inclination separate a new president from opening the vaults and knowing the truth about everything...In the case of Donald Trump: his multiple bankruptcies, the ongoing Trump University lawsuit, and his contact with undesirable foreign nationals (Vladimir Putin would make a poor character reference on an SF-86) would probably add up to a big red X stamped across his form.

The Vice-President is similarly sworn in, no questions asked. The Cabinet picks require congressional confirmation, but if your guys have the majority in Congress, they slide right in, too. No background checks, no polygraph tests, no security clearance. No accountability, in short, for past behavior, no matter what allegations might be pending.

[sheshe2]

1. Ding Ding Ding Winner!

[pandr32]

2. I couldn't agree more

We need qualified, secure people running the country.

[EL34x4]

3. The Constitution is pretty clear on presidential eligibility.

Natural Born Citizen, 35 years old, resident of the United States for the past 14 years.

You want to add a background check administered by the FBI? Do you want the FBI to determine presidential eligibility in addition to Constitutional requirements?

Would you give the FBI the power to keep otherwise eligible individuals off the ballot if they don't "pass" the FBI's administered background check?

I'm not sure this is such a good idea.

[unblock]

5. The government cant require it, but the norm can be to volunteer to do it, just as

It’s a norm for presidential candidates to release their taxes. Of course the government can’t require this, but it’s a good norm.

Shame on the media for letting Donnie get away with skipping this one, which screamed conflict of interest and should have been met with howls and investigations by the media, but no, isn’t it exciting how he just breaks the rules, gosh, just what we want in a president, innit?



Anyway, a proper press corps would dismiss any candidate who didn’t disclose taxes or submit to background checks.

[EL34x4]

6. I don't recall the press letting Trump off the hook over not releasing his tax returns.

On the contrary, he was asked repeatedly when he would honor this tradition and release them. He'd promise to release his tax returns only to keep moving the goal posts and placing additional conditions. "I'll release them after Hillary releases her paid speech transcripts..." and whatnot.

In the end, Trump made a calculated gamble that he could get elected without releasing his tax returns. He was right but the media never let him off the hook about it.

[unblock]

8. sorry, not accepting this apologia for the media's pathetically lame criticism of outrageous things

yes, they did press him for it, and yes, they covered a whole lot of other outrageous things he did and said during the campaign.

but the media is more than capable of killing campaigns entirely over far less.

the media is capable of ignoring candidates entirely, ask most third party candidates. hell, ask hillary, she certainly didn't get anything near equal airtime.

the media is capable is scandalizing things like these, capable of running multiple stories about worst possible cases, and capable of ignoring everything else while asking, "is this the end of this candidate's political career?"


they covered this much like they covered his other outrageous actions, by simply reporting it with a dropped jaw, which seemed satisfying to those of us who could already recognize it as something outrageous, but did nothing to enlighten and inform anyone else that these are things that are disastrous in a president.

worse, they let him get away with murder, by allowing him, as you point out, to claim to use his non-release of tax returns as leverage to score political points about hillary (to get her to release speech transcripts or deleted emails or whatever). that was an outrage on top of an outrage, the one has nothing to do with the other, and it was obviously a lie because by then it was obvious he was never going to release his taxes.


compare this to coverage of hillary's "scandals". ffs, they had her on death's bed for what these days with good care is a minor temporary ailment while allowing donnie to paint himself in better health when he statistically has a rather bigger chance of dying in office of natural causes than hillary over two terms (male, overweight if not obese, terrible diet, slightly older).

never mind the coverage of the email "scandal" and the benghazi "scandal". was the coverage of donnie anything remotely like that?

ha!

[handmade34]

7. ok

a more structured "application" presented to the public in this tenuous time might be a good thing... and what would make a person an "otherwise eligible individual" that would be contrary to a background check...

mandatory tax form release may be a good start?

I understand your concern about my premise but there should have been something to flash a red light where DT is concerned...

[Yonnie3]

4. At first glance,

it seems like a great idea, but no organization of the government should be able to control who can run or be sworn in. Remember the Comey letter? The FBI is run by a political appointee. What could go wrong?

Even if they could only release such information, the opportunity for abuse is large.