Mark Small

1. It is ignorant + dangerous for a nation to not have a gatekeeping process that prevents unfit +/ corrupt individuals from rising to positions of power. In order to qualify as a candidate for a position of power within the federal + state governments, one should have to pass a

psychological exam + ethics background check. Our "president" is a psychopath with a history of white collar crimes + sexual assaults. Our Supreme Court includes a sexual harasser with a history of consuming rape + bestiality porn + a sex offender whose crimes possibly

& who would perform psych exam & who would set parameters for ethics backgrnd check? Power would go 2 those people & ppl who appoint them. dt is a sociopath w/history of white collar crimes & sex'l assaults we've only begun to learn about

1. The vote is an insufficient gatekeeping process as the "election" of Trump, Bolsonaro + others demonstrates. 2. I agree that there are problems regarding psychological exams with respect to their administration, interpretation + validity. However, these are not

The democratic system was gamed - we have to learn from it, not scrap it & hand things over to the few. And - yes, some law enforcement officers have to psych pass exams. How well has that worked?

1. Are you opposed to psych evals because they are unreliable or corruptible? 2. An ethics background check would have exposed Trump's history of sexual assaults + white collar crimes.

1) No and yes - can be corrupted + should be info upon which voters decide 2) Maybe - would depend upon who conducted invest'n

I disagree. Just because the process would be subject to corruption doesn't mean we should throw caution to the wind. Tenants, employees, soldiers, etc., undergo more scrutiny than our leaders.