Forum Thread

Montana Gov Steve Bullock candidate for president

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 16 - 18 of 18 Prev 1 2
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    Dutch Wrote: No Schmidt this is not vetting at all!!!!!. Real vetting is something what Mueller did, even that was lousy. As far as I've seen none of the candidates has got what it takes. I've not heard from anyone anything about foreign policies, let alone what they think about Putin, Kim, Netanyahoo etc. Let alone the money spent on our war machine as well our deficit etc. Real vetting, then you do an "real" background check as well how they got their money (rich parents?) as well their "motivations" (the real one, like "ego", fame, enrichment etc.) Also what do they know about the world around this island and their way of governing; what do they know about our past "wars" and history of the world (not what they teach here) (the why and how), Stalin, Napoleon, Cote d'Ivoire? etc etc. What do they know about deficits, trade, human interface, negotiation (how to do it), international law, customs (way of life) of other countries, mentality, adaption to "life" on this planet in all kinds of situations, stamina, don't believe in fantasy ( like living on Mars, or Jesus things), lives in the "reality" of poor and rich and how to manage such, etc etc. Looking at all of this then I must say Obama had most of these qualities.

    I am not sure how you get to a granular level of vetting without making it a legally required 1000+ topic process. Example. Have 100 top level topics, with each topic having 100 sub level topics, and each sub level having 100 more sub-sub-level topics. Legally mandating each candidate to answer every question.

    It is true our vetting process is nearly 100% political. The top 10 issues come and go every 4 years. There is no mandate that any candidate have any qualifications beyond being born in the US (there may be a couple other restrictions). Trump took a big gamble by not releasing his tax returns. I would argue its easy to take big risks when any person more-or-less only wants to win on his terms, and considers loosing to be a win-win anyway. Trump may have liked the romantic "idea" of being president and beating Hillary Clinton, but deep deep down Donald Trump would rather have lost if he could have completed deal that allowed him to build Trump Towers Russia, and several more around the world.

    The whole "Run for president campaign" was a con from the start, that is why Trump felt 100% free to say\do extreme things on the campaign trail. He wanted the media exposure and world wide attention to promote his brand "Trump" He wanted Nike to come to him and offer him a deal to pay him millions per year to have a line of "Trump" shoes. He wanted Coke or Pepsi to create a Trump line of soft drinks paying him 1 cent per ounce in licencing fees that would net him 10s of millions per year. The list of possible Trump products is endless, and all Trump has to do is be the front man; get up, go on TV shows and do media interviews, free to make up outrageous stories that are total fiction. Screw being president, that is hard work for the primary purpose of helping other people. Trump has never done anything like that in his life and is completely counter to his self-serving personality. If its not about him, its not even worth $1. Having Trump as president is as smart as having a wolf supervise a chicken farm.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    It is true our vetting process is 110% $$$$$$$$$$$$$$, and how much a candidate has of it.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    Dockadams Wrote: It is true our vetting process is 110% $$$$$$$$$$$$$$, and how much a candidate has of it.
    Amen, as well how much B.S. you can spew out and "bribe" people with $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.