The one question for which I really need an answer

[malaise]

How is someone who had to pay $25M for defrauding people about a fake university allowed to run for office?

And let me add that Mother's Boy was involved in using campaign money for himself and mother.

Both of these should be reasons to ban a person from running for office or holding cabinet positions. The same should apply to child abuse, domestic violence. and some other disqualifying past actions.

[Shrike47]

1. Changing the Constitution is difficult and slow.

[Eric J in MN]

2. The US Constitution

...is interpreted to mean anyone can run who meets its requirements.

The Supreme Court struck down term limits for US Reps as adding a qualification.

[malaise]

4. I know but there should be disqualifying practices

just like for most professions and jobs.
And this is true for quite a few other countries as well.

[Eric J in MN]

7. There could unintended consequences.

Suppose there were a Constitutional amendment saying anyone who pays a fraud settlement or judgement can't run for president. The candidates would face bogus lawsuits from people trying to disqualify them.

[jberryhill]

11. Precisely

Rules define games.

[diva77]

15. We need more regulation of media. Scientific journals have peer review. We need something

like that - perhaps a "truthiness rating system" and mandatory fact checks in order for a program to be classified as "news."

[jberryhill]

16. Lol

Yes, on top of someone deciding for whom I may vote, let’s have someone deciding for me what is true.

I guess we should put a church in charge of that, since they are in tight with God, right?

That’s after we figure out which religion is true.

[diva77]

26. we're already suffering the dire effects of unregulated "news" - I don't think things should

remain as they are -- we're witnessing our own destruction -- how do we reclaim the airwaves, then? How do we get rid of Fux? How do we whittle down the consolidated right wing media? Got any ideas?

[jberryhill]

27. That's just absurd

You think getting rid of the First Amendment is going to help?

You want to return to the "Golden Age of News" that gave us President Nixon and President Reagan?

Please tell me, since you want to 'reclaim the airwaves' the year in this country's history in which the media suited you.

[diva77]

28. I didn't say I wanted to get rid of the 1st Amendment. However, we used to have

some safeguards such as the Fairness Doctrine (gone in '87).

I'm asking for ideas. Something other than free speech has overcome the airwaves -- corporate dominance. Truly, what do you suggest?

[jberryhill]

29. The Fairness Doctrine...

...did not prevent the cult of Reagan, nor did it prevent creatures such as Nixon being elected.

Furthermore, it would not apply to Fox News, which is a cable network and does not use the public airwaves.

Could you please point to a time in our history when there was not "corporate dominance" of major media?

I suggest not fucking with the First Amendment, which is exactly what you are suggesting.

[diva77]

30. At least when the Fairness Doctrine was in effect, you didn't have Rush Limbaugh and his

clones and religious and sports radio dominating the radio, for example. There were local radio stations that broadcast local issues and music. Mom and Pop stations don't have the money to hold a place on the dial, and therefore free speech has been replaced by $$$$$$$$$$$.

If I don't respond to further posts, it's because I don't see the need for such a strident exchange.

[ck4829]

45. "Absurd"? We need to retire this word from American politics

We've got a reality TV show guy in the Oval Office and people waving confederate and even, oh right, swastika flags questioning the loyalties of liberals and Muslim Americans.

[LanternWaste]

34. I'd pretend what you responded to and your reponse are relevant to each other too.

I mean, we both know they're not. But we pretend what we have to pretend to maintain our pretense of cleverness.

[malaise]

12. Agree

Not simple but it's disturbing how these crooks claw their way to the top of the political system

[demtenjeep]

19. Used to be that Americans had honor and morality and would never had elected some thing like that

remember the Dean Scream?

People use to have common sense

[malaise]

20. Unbelievable for real

you ca't be a bank clerk but you can be president

[demtenjeep]

21. right?

I told my students before he stole the office that no one would really take his candidacy seriously


boy was I wrong

[malaise]

22. Same here

Sometimes I think this is merely a really bad nightmare

[StarfishSaver]

35. That's the issue

The problem is not that someone with that kind of history ran for president. The problem is that enough people voted for someone with that kind of history to elect him president.

[stopdiggin]

53. exactly. we've had nut jobs running for office since forever ..

Yep. You solve this "problem" by having an electorate that isn't willing to vote for slime balls. Period.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

55. Nixon got elected.

Joe McCarthy got elected. So did Andrew Jackson, Warren G. Harding, Rod Blagojevich, Spiro Agnew, James Traficant, Huey Long, "Boss" Tweed, and many, many others.

There have been any number of reprobates, grifters and all-around awful people in American politics since the very beginning. People have never had more common sense or honor or morality than they do now; it's just that the Internet and the 24-hour cable news cycle have made it easier for bad people to work their foul designs. Hell's bells, there were people, including more than a few right here on DU, who wanted industrial-strength grifter Michael Avenatti to run for president. It's too damned easy to fool people who want to be fooled because they think they're getting a savior.

[jberryhill]

3. How about not voting for people like that

Over 35.

Citizen by birth.

14 years US residence.

That’s it.

The minute you want to put someone in charge of deciding who is allowed to run for President, you open up a can of worms.

This is like the proposal that people keep posting for a mental health check by a totally non-political doctor who everyone in the country trusts, just as soon as we find that doctor.

[malaise]

5. There are basic standards for most professions

Many wouldn't qualify to be a bank clerk, let alone a lawyer or accountant.

[jberryhill]

9. Yeah, and?

I’m sorry you don’t understand the fundamental problem with having other people decide for whom you are allowed to vote.

I don’t need someone else making my decisions for me. I am an adult.

So, who is it that you want to make your decisions for you?

I’m capable of deciding for myself who is qualified. Thank you.

[malaise]

40. And yet you have no problem

with your crooks deciding who should be in charge of other sovereign countries.

i swear we're all mad.

[jberryhill]

42. I don't even know what that is supposed to mean

I have all sorts of problems with the people I voted against who are running this country.

That does not mean I want other people deciding for whom I might vote. If you don’t see the fundamental problem with that, that’s not my problem.

But if you put some other gatekeeper in the path of who may run, then THAT position is sure to be occupied by crooks before long.

[greymattermom]

39. I had a background check

to be a volunteer.

[Turin_C3PO]

6. Yes, it's up to us to disqualify a nutcase/criminal in the voting booth.

[BSdetect]

8. I share your concern. In any decent system such charlatans would be disqualified.

When I see what drump gets away with it is shameful.

[FiveGoodMen]

37. In any country of decent people, such charlatans wouldn't stand a chance of being elected anyway

1 in 3 of us would welcome Hitler, if he were here today.

[OnDoutside]

10. Because the Republican Party is complicit in keeping him there ?

[panader0]

13. I have two misdemeanor pot possession busts or I'd be running.(30 years ago)

Where's my Adderall?

[malaise]

14. Precisely

So someone does decide and for millions of pot users who were sent to prison while some of these charlatans have DUIs

[jberryhill]

17. How about faking an illness to avoid the draft?

[keithbvadu2]

18. IOKIYAR

IOKIYAR

It's ok if you are a republican.

[JI7]

23. becsuse the US is full of hateful bigots who support him

[malaise]

24. Look at all these criminal appointees

Rachel is talking bout some of them now given the not vetted Defense Secretary mess.

[struggle4progress]

25. We're losing track of how big a mess this really is

Trump charity to dissolve under deal with N.Y. attorney general
DECEMBER 18, 2018

Trump-Scam Accusers Say His Kids Had Key Role in Duping Clients
January 31, 2019

Trump Exaggerated Financial Assets in Statements to Insurers and Lenders
March 29, 2019

Trump is a fraud

By Michael Gerson
January 28

... The president was elected, in part, by giving his supporters an impression of business acumen. This was, in fact, the image carefully cultivated by book publishers and TV producers. And by Trump himself as a presidential candidate, who claimed to be a peerless negotiator, an unrivaled businessman and an excellent manager.

These claims can now be believed only by the ideologically addled.

The problem for Trump is not only that he lost the most visible and important confrontation of his presidency — in negotiating with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) over the government shutdown. It is that his methods are so blunt and transparent. His typical tactic is to raise the stakes of a negotiation impossibly high — a government shutdown or nuclear war — then to make a maximal demand and trust in the triumph of his stronger will. It is a form of negotiation ended by someone saying “uncle.” That Trump ended up in abject humiliation was perhaps fated by biology: You can angrily hold your breath for only so long.

If, in the next stage, the loser acts unilaterally under the pretense of a border security crisis, it will merely prove that Trump is a dangerously sore loser. For the MBAs taking notes, this complex negotiating strategy is known as: Throwing the game off the table if you can’t win ...

[malaise]

32. Precisely

I can't believe what we're watching

[spanone]

31. the man has never paid 'the price' for anything....

[malaise]

33. Justice is coming

This is madness

[reACTIONary]

36. In Iran...

...candidates need the approval of the ayatollah to run.

Is this what you are suggesting? Who will be our ayatollah?

[malaise]

41. No Wall Street n/t

[reACTIONary]

43. You want Wall Street to be....

... our ayatollah?

Perhaps I misunderstand your comment.

[malaise]

47. You did misunderstand

It's not what we want - it is what it is

[reACTIONary]

48. I very truly doubt ...

... that if wall street had any significant say in the matter that Trump would be president.

But more to the point, if you don't think Wall Street is doing its job of properly vetting candidates, who should?

Who do you recommend to be the the American ayatollah?

[malaise]

49. I am anti-religion - all religions

my only point is that money is the only Western god.

[reACTIONary]

51. Me too... but I don't think the problem is...

... confined to the West.

[malaise]

52. Touche

Good point

[stopdiggin]

54. Wall Street didn't pick this guy

Yeah. The "money buys .." argument kind of breaks down with Trump. There was a LOT of money that would have preferred another candidate. STILL is a lot of Wall Street that would rather have .. ANY kind of stable figure.

[Caliman73]

38. It should have disqualified him in the eyes of voters.

The problem is that too many people gave him a pass on an entire lifetime of criminal and unethical behavior.

[treestar]

44. The Founders must have thought that would take care of itself

That when that behavior was known, the person would have a bad reputation and no one would even consider them for any office.

[reACTIONary]

50. Actually, the founder had a plan for that...

... Called the " electoral college". Didn't really work out so well.

[treestar]

56. Exactly

It is not working the way they intended. I doubt they intended state by state winner take all electoral votes if they get the popular vote.

[librechik]

46. 2016 was soooo crooked we may not know the full extent for many years

And count on Repubs to try to stop us from even doing anything or talking about it. "We won't respond to your subpoenas--or anything else. This democracy shit is OVER unless we say so. And just try to stop us."

Funny, that has been really hard to do, and why? make no mistake: THEY ARE ALL IN ON IT! Especially Ryan and McConnell, who locked the door and swallowed the key. CASE CLOSED!

Even the wall crawlers who say nothing KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. They are afraid to lose their cushy government jobs. How pathetic is that,especially for "small government" types who live to kick granny off wefare. What are their gerrymandered bogus jobs compared to the fate of the nation? Apparently everything.

They have good reason to fight the exposure of their crimes. I guess. But there doesn't seem to be much we can do about it.