- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
If to hold office, one had to pass Character eligibility metrics, what would you support?
Posted on 1/21/24 at 5:32 pm
Posted on 1/21/24 at 5:32 pm
“In the future” doesn’t apply to the 2024 election at all, so keep your leanings to yourself.
Simply, “IF” we were to introduce a character constitutional amendment what metrics would you support…For example, to run for a federal office (senator/rep/pres), to be appointed to the Supreme Court, ambassador, or similar the person had to qualify under a new amendment to the constitution that establishes “ qualifying character”…. What metrics would you support as disqualifying eligibility?
Examples:
1. Never been divorced.
2. No children out of wedlock.
3. Never a lower credit score than 700 after 30.
4. Never a felony conviction.
5. Never been disbarred or had a professional license revoked
6. Never had an academic expulsion.
7. Never had a tax lien
8. Never proven to have had an affair
9. Never applied for dual citizenship
10. Never been pardoned
With 300 million people I know we might inadvertently disqualify a notable person, but for the most powerful positions in the world, I think we should aim for the cream of the crop.
Those who have shown a lifelong unwavering commitment to honesty, integrity, & responsibility should be elevated over those who have established negative histories.
Someone who divorces is more likely to get divorced again, someone who has an abortion is more likely to have an abortion again, someone who commits a felony is more likely to commit a felony again….recidivism is not just criminal its behavioral. People who have shown the propensity to have a negative characteristic or more likely to repeat…that is the point of the disqualification.
If everybody agreed and we were to introduce a character clause in the constitution, what character metrics would you support? (Feel free to add)
Simply, “IF” we were to introduce a character constitutional amendment what metrics would you support…For example, to run for a federal office (senator/rep/pres), to be appointed to the Supreme Court, ambassador, or similar the person had to qualify under a new amendment to the constitution that establishes “ qualifying character”…. What metrics would you support as disqualifying eligibility?
Examples:
1. Never been divorced.
2. No children out of wedlock.
3. Never a lower credit score than 700 after 30.
4. Never a felony conviction.
5. Never been disbarred or had a professional license revoked
6. Never had an academic expulsion.
7. Never had a tax lien
8. Never proven to have had an affair
9. Never applied for dual citizenship
10. Never been pardoned
With 300 million people I know we might inadvertently disqualify a notable person, but for the most powerful positions in the world, I think we should aim for the cream of the crop.
Those who have shown a lifelong unwavering commitment to honesty, integrity, & responsibility should be elevated over those who have established negative histories.
Someone who divorces is more likely to get divorced again, someone who has an abortion is more likely to have an abortion again, someone who commits a felony is more likely to commit a felony again….recidivism is not just criminal its behavioral. People who have shown the propensity to have a negative characteristic or more likely to repeat…that is the point of the disqualification.
If everybody agreed and we were to introduce a character clause in the constitution, what character metrics would you support? (Feel free to add)
Posted on 1/21/24 at 6:53 pm to Kujo
Your supposed purity test is low quality thought process
Posted on 1/21/24 at 6:55 pm to Kujo
None of that shite.
I would support none of it.
I would support none of it.
Posted on 1/21/24 at 6:55 pm to Nosevens
quote:
Your supposed purity test is low quality thought process
I see a lot of people on here talk about how our society has become immoral and we need to change. Why should that not apply to our elected leaders? Do we want them promoting immorality?
Posted on 1/21/24 at 6:58 pm to Kujo
Obama would pass all
Bush would pass all
Romney would pass all
Biden would pass all
DUMB
Bush would pass all
Romney would pass all
Biden would pass all
DUMB
Posted on 1/21/24 at 7:11 pm to boomtown143
Well what “non-subjective, non-protected class” attribute would you suggest?
You sure they each pass the respective credit rating test?
Pretty sure Obama had a citizenship with Kenya, so tweak that maybe?
You sure they each pass the respective credit rating test?
Pretty sure Obama had a citizenship with Kenya, so tweak that maybe?
This post was edited on 1/21/24 at 7:14 pm
Posted on 1/21/24 at 7:23 pm to Kujo
Who controls the governing rules? Democrats or Republicans?
Posted on 1/21/24 at 8:28 pm to Tiger Vision
quote:
Who controls the governing rules? Democrats or Republicans?
No one governs. It’s just to add to the restrictions of eligibility, like age rules.
Definitive, non-subjective measures that aren’t prohibited by existing laws (like racial discrimination).
Since the public has been desensitized to immorality, this just helps keep us honest.
We know that there is selective application, ie an affair, if republican it’s an issue, if democrat “what does that have to do with performing the job?”
Elevate those who honor their word, commitments, and respect for the law.
Posted on 1/21/24 at 8:32 pm to Kujo
Never slept with someone to get a job
Never showered with their daughter
Never tried to keep an exonerated defendant on death row
Never kept anyone in prison past the release date so the state could use them for cheap labor
Never deliberately killed nursing home patients
Never ordered a lockdown and then violated the lockdown order
Never engaged in insider trading
Never showered with their daughter
Never tried to keep an exonerated defendant on death row
Never kept anyone in prison past the release date so the state could use them for cheap labor
Never deliberately killed nursing home patients
Never ordered a lockdown and then violated the lockdown order
Never engaged in insider trading
This post was edited on 1/22/24 at 9:18 pm
Posted on 1/21/24 at 8:36 pm to Kujo
I have only one standard...
Butt stuff?
Butt stuff?
Posted on 1/21/24 at 8:50 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
Never slept with someone to get a job
Could be some type of conflict of interest, “forced resignation from office”. I know Kamala slept with Willie to get her appointments & career started, but there’s no definitive admonishment to use as a metric.
quote:
Never showered with their daughter
Most fathers bathed their daughter at some point. I did when she was less than a month old. Also difficult to prove.
quote:
Never tried to keep an exonerated defendant on death row Never kept anyone in prison past the release date so the state could 7se them for cheap labor Never deliberately killed nursing home patients Never ordered a lockdown and then violated the lockdown order
Thank you for taking the time to reply, but these are too random and not a common attribute to filter.
quote:
Never engaged in insider trading
Sure, but that should fall under felony conviction unless you want to include “felony arrests” that were pled down to misdemeanor convictions.
Posted on 1/21/24 at 8:54 pm to Kujo
The opposition would engineer fake violations just like they are now.
Posted on 1/21/24 at 8:58 pm to Kujo
quote:
6. Never had an academic expulsion.
7. Never had a tax lien
Nah.
If I only knew that an individual was evading taxes or got kicked out of college, I'd be much more likely to vote for them.
Posted on 1/21/24 at 9:02 pm to TrueTiger
Anything introduced would apply to both parties and would be a generic metric
Posted on 1/21/24 at 10:18 pm to Kujo
I don’t support litmus tests.
They’re for weak people who can’t make personal evaluations.
They’re for weak people who can’t make personal evaluations.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News