It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

We need a better way to vet candiates running for office and I have an idea

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Aha! You had to qualify your answer because you know that everyone does in fact pay taxes, but you only care about one specific type of tax that people aren't paying so as to distort your message. No you are wrong. Not letting people who don't pay federal income taxes vote is SUPER discriminatory. Again, what happens to the poor in EVERY government that lets the rich run it while the poor cannot participate?


The fact someone may pay sales taxes to their local government or taxes on a gallon of gas is not the same as paying FEDERAL INCOME taxes. These are not remotely the same thing. Of course, you know this...




posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Funny that - I watched all the debates and the room was invariably stacked against Trump. Certainly did not represent the public.
18 months is way more time than is necessary to make a decision - and others thought differently to you. So much so Trump was elected. Democracy.
A stupid test that candidates can prepare for and pass with ease is not going to make a difference.

Moreover, who decides on the 'correct' answers when it comes to, say, questions about the constitution? These are not black and white questions. Ask two people, even Supreme Court Justices, to interpret the 2nd amendment and you will get different answers. Politics is not about right and wrong, it is about vision and ideals that attract the people to the extent you get elected to try and implement your vision for the country.

edit on 12/10/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 09:39 AM
link   
We hold debates to find out the answers to your questions. The thing is. The debates is not used in a way that it was 30+ years ago. It's turned into a pissing contest. Mudslinging I guess is the proper term.

I do wonder to myself how many other people who watch the debates the last few elections and saw absolutely no real questions being asked and no real answers being generated by the people we want controlling our nation.

I hate to say it. The only way your test will work is if WE the people want it to work. I don't think we do.

That's just my opinion and it's value is what you place on it.
edit on 12-10-2017 by ConscienceZombie because: silly little typos



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Trump was elected because he was able to sell a con to the public. I want to minimize the risk of that happening in the future. Though, since you are still a Trump lover and cannot realistically look at how Trump is negatively effecting my country pretend we are talking about Obama.



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConscienceZombie
We hold debates to find out the answers to your questions. The thing is. The debates is not used in a way that it was 30+ years ago. It's turned into a pissing contest. Mudslinging I guess us the proper term.

I do wonder to myself how many other people who watch the debates the last few elections and saw absolutely not real questions be asked and no real answers being generated by the people we want controlling out nation.

I hate to say it. The only way your test will work is if WE the people want it to work. I don't think we do.

That's just my opinion and it's value is what you place on it.


I've always wanted a focused debate. None of this sound bite stuff.

Give each candidate say 30 minutes to present their case uninterrupted on a very specific topic like taxes. Or healthcare. Or foreign policy. Then have a Q&A.

The problem now is that we get nothing but sound bites on like 20 topics and the candidate who is most effective at quips and one liners is the one who will "win" the debate even if no facts or logic is actually presented.



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Excellent OP Krazy.

I'd be in favor of a Constitutional Amendment instituting a process to determine the fitness of candidates legally, physically, mentally and psychologically for the Office.

The fact that some have turned your thread around to talk about taking rights and privileges away from the America people is appalling but not unexpected from core authoritarians masquerading as conservatives.
edit on 12-10-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConscienceZombie
We hold debates to find out the answers to your questions. The thing is. The debates is not used in a way that it was 30+ years ago. It's turned into a pissing contest. Mudslinging I guess is the proper term.

And that's a big problem. The candidates use the answers each of them give to throw mud at each other. With a test, it's just them and the questions. There is less of an impact when the answers are read weeks after they are given. People have better time to digest the answers and see when candidates are being petty much easier. We need to remove the entertainment aspect from this procedure and the written tests would be a great way to do it.

And hell, we can even continue to do the debates. They serve a good purpose too. As I've said throughout the thread, the more info on a candidate we have before voting, the better.


I do wonder to myself how many other people who watch the debates the last few elections and saw absolutely no real questions being asked and no real answers being generated by the people we want controlling our nation.

I hate to say it. The only way your test will work is if WE the people want it to work. I don't think we do.

That's just my opinion and it's value is what you place on it.

Just don't let the GOP or DNC (or any political party for that matter) in charge of writing or screening the questions on the test. Then we make sure the people doing it are qualified academics representing a cross section of political beliefs. These standards can be written into the department's mission so they have to be adhered to as well.



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Trump was elected because he was able to sell a con to the public. I want to minimize the risk of that happening in the future. Though, since you are still a Trump lover and cannot realistically look at how Trump is negatively effecting my country pretend we are talking about Obama.


It doesn;t matter whether we are talking about Trump or Obama, or your opinion on whether a candidate is being honest or trying to con. The people get plenty of time to decide and on this occasion, you were on the losing side of the argument. Again, that is how democracy works. You get to vote next time to try and change that.

All your idea would achieve is candidates spending a month or two swotting up on civics to pass a silly test, and layer in a whole new level of bureaucracy with exam boards along with a new avenue for corruption in passing questions to candidates, just like happened in the debates.
edit on 12/10/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Meh. That's to be expected. Some people can't even pull their heads out of their partisan asses even for ideas that aren't partisan in nature. It's just a reality that I've come to expect on ATS and politics in general these days.

A Constitutional Amendment would definitely be the best way to implement this idea (too bad it would be the toughest course of action to undertake in today's political climate), but you mentioned something that I hadn't thought of either. These candidates should probably be given a thorough physical and psych evaluation too. None of this letting some bozo doctor just fax in a one sheet paper saying, "this guy is the healthiest candidate ever".



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: UKTruth
All your idea would achieve is candidates spending a month or two swotting up on civics to pass a silly test.

And even if that is all that happens, it would still be a better situation than where things currently stand. Though I'm sure the media would have field days with the candidates' answers and you are wrong.



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Excellent OP Krazy.

I'd be in favor of a Constitutional Amendment instituting a process to determine the fitness of candidates legally, physically, mentally and psychologically for the Office.



You already have this. It is called the Electoral College.



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Oh, yeah. It would be a complete circus. I can just see it now.. some question on the 2nd amendment gets answered in two different ways depending on right and left politics and we hear every day from the liberal media about how the silly republican doesn't understand the constitution. Great. Another bucket of sh** to add to the sh** show. I'm sure the endless debate on literal vs modern readings of the constitution would be oh so balanced.

edit on 12/10/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I would be happy to require politicians to give full disclosure.
Just think.

Trumps tax returns
Obama's college admission forms
Clinton's "bill" police reports from Arkansas
Bush jrs college transcripts

Oh the fun we could have.



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 10:10 AM
link   
How about no more political parties, and no mo politicians while we're at it?


edit on 12-10-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Love it! With some tweaking here and there awesome ideas!



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

While your idea does sound like a step in the right direction, I seriously doubt that a civics test for presidential candidates would have changed the results of the last election.

I say this because of the fact that Trump supporters are generally as dumb or dumber than Trump himself and I doubt that seeing their candidate fail such a test would affect their votes in a positive way.

They would just say things like; The test was full of trick “gotcha” questions, or They’re lying about my candidates results, or Its a “fake” test, etc., etc..

Bottom line, after everything that was said and done during the last presidential campaign, if Trump supporters couldn’t tell that Donald Trump was the dumbest person in American history to seek the office, I doubt that any civics test would open their eyes or change their minds.

Stupid is as stupid does and in my mind, Trump supporters are some special kind of stupid.

The only way I can see your test idea producing a positive result would be if failing the test meant automatic elimination from the race, despite what equally stupid voters thought about the candidate or the test.

I think our best hope right now is to eliminate the electoral college and allow a majority rule when it comes to selecting our POTUS.



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 10:28 AM
link   
I love this post, Both the OP and this one. If I may add/amend a couple things from my point of view? Bolded text is mine.

originally posted by: Edumakated

The system is broken.

1) Voters need simple competency tests. I don't think anyone should be able to vote unless they can show basic understanding of our system. When you have a significant number of people who can't name the three branches of government or even the current Vice President, these people should not be voting.

2) I don't think you should be able to vote unless you are a tax payer. I also don't think you should be able to vote while being on the dole like welfare.

3) We need term limits for congress & senate. The President is a figure head. Most of the problems we have are coming from congress and senate. I don't think anyone should be able to serve more than two terms in the Senate and maybe 3 or 4 in Congress.

4) To prevent future BS, let's just all agree that anyone running for congress, senate, or Presidency should have to release school transcripts, personal and business tax returns, and birth certificate, and criminal and civil suits and their outcome, no gag orders allowed

5) Congress & senate should be a part-time. They should be entitled to cover any expenses associated with the job, but there should be no compensation. There should also be no pension or other benefits like healthcare. Congress and senate should have to use the same exact programs and benefits as the general public. I don't want professional politicians and people who don't have real jobs being in office.

6) Lobbying after being office should not be permitted for at least five years. Corporations should be disallowed from Lobbying, actually who does lobbying help except the Corps? eradicate or no?

7) Contributions by individuals is fine, but I have an issue when associations are making donations. I don't care if it is association of Realtors or Unions or NRA or whoever. I don't want our politicians beholden to large organizations. If the members want to ban together INDIVIDUALLY it is one thing, but they can't do it as an official group.

8) Fixing Tax Code: One of the reasons I am for a simplified tax system is that the tax code has become who politicians reward their lobbyist by carving out deductions and other favors within the tax system. If we have a simplified system, then we remove a huge area of corruption and graft.

9) Legislation should be simplified and focused. There is no reason for bills to be 2000 pages full of non-relevant amendments and pork. IF you want a bill on something, if you can't communicate it in less than 20 pages there is a problem. NO RIDERS, each Bill is on it's own in it's entirety

10) Every regulation or legislation should be up for review of efficacy at least every 10 years if not sooner. At that point, they can vote to either continue, amend or remove. Each new law/regulation should be examined first to see if there is a similar law/regulation already on the books and if so the old one should be thrown out if the new one is implemented.

11) The Judges higher and lower should NOT be a lifetime job. SC rulings should be examined for current applicability and overturned if it no longer applies in future society.

12) Utilities, food and drug producers etc. should not be monopolies. In fact companies like Monsanto, MS -insert world controlling monopoly here- should not be allowed. (as it is supposed to be)

13) I'm not sure how low this should go, but for sure we should never have another Bush/Clinton/Kennedy -insert any of the many generational political families here- If you have a Family member as Pres or VP at least, and I personally feel down to Senate and Congress, you should not be able to hold office for at least 3 generations. ie My great Grandfather/mother held one of these offices. Or EVER maybe for Pres/VP if you are a direct descendant or Married to an office holder or descendant. We don't want Royal Families thanks.

14) There should be an allotted amount of time each week for candidates to put commercials on TV ONCE and NO more for free, so money isn't mandatory to getting elected and you don't have so many people voting just on who they saw on TV more. Joe next door has as much "face time" as anyone, huge donations or not. Political Office should in no way, ever be about who had more money and therefore got elected. EVER. Sh** slinging automatically gets you invalidated as a candidate unless you are showing PROVABLE evidence of voting/wrong doing/comments/actions that are relevant etc.

15) Last time I looked Bribery was illegal. If you are an elected official and take money from ANY entity and you then vote on laws/regulations in favor of or against their competitors you go to jail.



Just a few of my additions/ideas. Sorry to hijack your post but I loved the ideas too much to pass on it. Please excuse typos, I'm only on my first cuppa java



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 10:36 AM
link   
I do think a rigorous process is needed for any candidate to become president and the removal of the political labels of democrat and republican so there is an honest way of voting for people you really want and not tied to a party line.

With that said I feel the electoral college could be minimized and allow the American public to take the honest vote of who is the most qualified intelligently and with the most knowledge on how govt works.

But this all is just a pipe dream.



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
How about no more political parties, and no mo politicians while we're at it?



1. No more political parties.

2. No more lobbyists.

3. Severely limit campaign donations.

4. TERM LIMITS!

The problem with 3 of these, however, is that at the current time, under our Constitution and supporting jurisprudence, they are impossible.
edit on 12-10-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Excellent OP Krazy.

I'd be in favor of a Constitutional Amendment instituting a process to determine the fitness of candidates legally, physically, mentally and psychologically for the Office.



You already have this. It is called the Electoral College.


Obviously not in light of the conversation here.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join