Vetting Presidential Candidates
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 3:49 pm
So Trump want's extreme vetting for immigrants. Well, I've got a couple of requirements for vetting potential presidential candidates.
Trump claimed last night that as part of his tax plan, he would get rid of the carried interest provision in the tax code. Hillary and Obama are on record supporting the exact same thing, but Congress has never put forth a bill for Obama to sign. From what I looked up, carried interest is generally used by partnership-structured funds, like hedge funds, to lower their taxes and is not often used for real estate transactions. The only way we'd know if Trump is actually taking advantage of this loophole is for him to publicly release his tax returns. It's very unlikely that Trump is using this particular loophole since he's always claimed he's made his money as a "real estate tycoon". Since he won't release his tax returns, we can't tell if anything he wants to eliminate in the tax code might or might not affect him and his wealthy brethren personally. The conflict of interest here is that potentially he's eliminating tax breaks for rich investors OTHER than himself, and keeping the ones that benefit him personally, such as taking a billion dollar loss and then not paying taxes for 18 years. That's not going to help most people in the middle class either. So, why don't we get Congress to require vetting of all presidential candidates by making it a "requirement" that the tax returns of every presidential candidate be made public after the primaries?
http://fortune.com/2016/10/10/president ... -interest/
Now, as part of that vetting, why don't we also require drug testing as well? Most large employers in the country require drug screening for future employees, and since we are essentially "hiring" a person to run our country when we vote, why not make drug testing a requirement for every presidential candidate?
The only reason I brought this up was after watching both presidential debates and noticing something. Trump in particular was always sniffling his nose, like it's constantly running. Sniffle, talk, sniffle, talk, sniffle! It was the same in the first debate. Either he has a very long lasting sinus infection OR he's using cocaine. His doctor claimed he was the paragon of health and made no mention of a chronic sinus infection. Other signs of cocaine use are that he's always grandiose and agitated, pacing constantly and staying up to Tweet acidic remarks at 3 AM all the time. I mean, when does he actually sleep? As long as the right wingers are proclaiming that the supposed ill health of Hillary Clinton would impact her performance as president, I think that we have a right to know if Trump is a drug user, especially since he may be the one who ends up driving the national car (God save us all).
Also, why does his body mass index look so high? It was clear last night that his BMI is way into the unhealthy category, which certainly correlates with heart attacks and stroke. Add drug use and well.............
I also came up with this thought long before I Googled it, so Howard Dean isn't alone with this particular "theory".
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pre ... se-cocaine
Trump claimed last night that as part of his tax plan, he would get rid of the carried interest provision in the tax code. Hillary and Obama are on record supporting the exact same thing, but Congress has never put forth a bill for Obama to sign. From what I looked up, carried interest is generally used by partnership-structured funds, like hedge funds, to lower their taxes and is not often used for real estate transactions. The only way we'd know if Trump is actually taking advantage of this loophole is for him to publicly release his tax returns. It's very unlikely that Trump is using this particular loophole since he's always claimed he's made his money as a "real estate tycoon". Since he won't release his tax returns, we can't tell if anything he wants to eliminate in the tax code might or might not affect him and his wealthy brethren personally. The conflict of interest here is that potentially he's eliminating tax breaks for rich investors OTHER than himself, and keeping the ones that benefit him personally, such as taking a billion dollar loss and then not paying taxes for 18 years. That's not going to help most people in the middle class either. So, why don't we get Congress to require vetting of all presidential candidates by making it a "requirement" that the tax returns of every presidential candidate be made public after the primaries?
http://fortune.com/2016/10/10/president ... -interest/
Now, as part of that vetting, why don't we also require drug testing as well? Most large employers in the country require drug screening for future employees, and since we are essentially "hiring" a person to run our country when we vote, why not make drug testing a requirement for every presidential candidate?
The only reason I brought this up was after watching both presidential debates and noticing something. Trump in particular was always sniffling his nose, like it's constantly running. Sniffle, talk, sniffle, talk, sniffle! It was the same in the first debate. Either he has a very long lasting sinus infection OR he's using cocaine. His doctor claimed he was the paragon of health and made no mention of a chronic sinus infection. Other signs of cocaine use are that he's always grandiose and agitated, pacing constantly and staying up to Tweet acidic remarks at 3 AM all the time. I mean, when does he actually sleep? As long as the right wingers are proclaiming that the supposed ill health of Hillary Clinton would impact her performance as president, I think that we have a right to know if Trump is a drug user, especially since he may be the one who ends up driving the national car (God save us all).
Also, why does his body mass index look so high? It was clear last night that his BMI is way into the unhealthy category, which certainly correlates with heart attacks and stroke. Add drug use and well.............
I also came up with this thought long before I Googled it, so Howard Dean isn't alone with this particular "theory".
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pre ... se-cocaine
Anyway, IMHO the "90%" statement is purely political, there's no way to trace the hacker w/o a very deep forensic analysis of all computers involved or Wikileaks spilling info about their source.
Is it too late to take him up on his "idea"? I say they both have to take a drug test before the debate.