Presidential candidates should have to pass a background check

[njhoneybadger]

[jberryhill]

1. And who do you want to put in charge of deciding whether they pass?

So the idea here is to have some authority decide whether or not a candidate can become president, right?

[Javaman]

4. the fbi maybe?

that's pretty much what they do anyway, regardless of whether they tell us the results or not.

[jberryhill]

6. I see

So, the FBI and the intel agencies when Cheney was VP should have decided whether or not Obama would be allowed to be president. Is that correct?

[trixie2]

10. You are right on the money

[jberryhill]

12. There's been a couple of folks who have posted this idea

And they don't seem to realize what a spectacularly flawed and undemocratic idea it would be.

I think it has to do with the notion we get growing up that there are "adults in charge of things", or that there is some supply of neutral, fairminded people who should decide things for us. They tend to elevate personalities over process, ultimately.

There is nothing - utterly nothing - about Trump's depravity which was unknown before the election.

[RKP5637]

19. Excellent point!!!

"I think it has to do with the notion we get growing up that there are "adults in charge of things", or that there is some supply of neutral, fairminded people who should decide things for us."

[jberryhill]

26. Some people never outgrow that

The god/daddy/king thing exerts a real pull on the way a lot of people think things work.

There is some "wise person" or group of them which figures out the rules and applies them. The entire point of our political and legal system is that one cannot depend on the character of the people in it, but that there are processes for working stuff out.

[njhoneybadger]

22. Good points, "In a democracy people get the leaders they deserve"

[Javaman]

23. I'm not saying it's correct, I'm just stating what they already do.

whether or not they release that information is another matter all together.

I have two friends that were FBI agents and they pretty much told me that's what they do on every candidate.

so take that for what it's worth.

[RKP5637]

2. Definitely!!! The most powerful position in the world, and some can just slither into office. n/t

[jberryhill]

14. So then...

...the "most powerful position in the world" is simply the office of whomever decide who gets to run for president.

They do this sort of thing in Russia and other countries where political opponents are deemed legally unfit.

[RKP5637]

17. It would be a cat fight, wouldn't it, to propose/enact something like this and ripe for

political manipulation. Are there any additional requirements needed in this century? This moves into a subjective area, doesn't it. And then who is that deciding authority. How about a security clearance to run for president, but then would that fall into manipulation too? Is there anyway to make the requirements more stringent?

[jberryhill]

20. What didn't we know about Trump before the election?

WE are the "security clearance".

Was there insufficient information to the effect that Trump was a raging douchebag before the election?

The idea of putting "someone in charge" of who can be president is a fundamentally broken idea.

Oh, Oh, I know, we'll use the most objective and fairminded group there is - the Supreme Court! You like that idea?

[RKP5637]

24. Yeah, SCOTUS, that'll work for sure. The Electoral College was in charge, and that failed

significantly. I agree, ""The idea of putting "someone in charge" of who can be president is a fundamentally broken idea."" I would like to see the Electoral College gone. Wasn't the notion at one time that the Electoral College was supposedly a seasoned and knowledgeable mechanism to prevent someone such as Trump from becoming president?

[mainstreetonce]

3. Absolutely

While it is true that anyone can meet the few basic requirements set out by law,I believe both political parties should require any candidate they endorse to pass a background check.

[ehrnst]

5. Including full financial disclosure. No exceptions. (nt)

[trixie2]

9. This I can agree with

[EllieBC]

11. Yes.

If you want to be President your life and finances must be open!

[Greybnk48]

7. This should be a no brainer now!

After Trump AND Pence, both of them nuts!

[trixie2]

8. Sounds good in theory

But then we would see a huge uptick in arresting ones opponents. People like Nelson Mandela or Dr. Martin Luther King.

[NewJeffCT]

13. I think tax returns

should be mandatory - going back at least 7-10 years. If there have been any financial issues in the past (i.e. bankruptcy), then all tax returns and related filings going back to at least 3 years before the bankruptcy must be made public. So, if Trump's first bankruptcy was in 1992, he should provide tax returns from 1989 on forward.

Documentation to any sort of criminal charges and convictions should be made public as well, as well as any lawsuits where the candidate had to pay out money.

[The_Counsel]

15. Seems Like a Great Idea, BUT...

...why can't we, the voters, just make better decisions, given the info we have (or DON'T have, as the case may be)?

I mean, when Dolt45 refused to release his tax returns like every OTHER candidate he should have been dead in the water during primary season, no...?

[crazycatlady]

21. You think the GOP primary voters are adults?

Biologically they are. Psychologically, that's up for debate.

[WillowTree]

16. Great idea. Will you be starting the Constitutional amendment process?

[Wounded Bear]

18. I see a LOT of problems with that suggetion...

I've thought it myself a few times, but it is probably unworkable.

I DO support mandatory release of taxes and all financial records, though. That would, of course, have disqualified Bernie in 2016.

[Captain Stern]

25. I'm all for it, with one condition.

I get to be the guy that does the background check, and decides whether or not a candidate passed.

Only me. I don't trust anybody else to do it.

[jberryhill]

27. I agree with you completely, except for one thing

Your idea has merit, but with the minor change from you being the one who does it to ME being the one who does it, I think it will work fine.