Top 10 Things that Should Automatically Disqualify Someone from Being President of the United States

The peaceful transfer of power is a fundamental aspect of a functioning democracy and has been a cornerstone of our nation's history.

Any individual who attempts to overturn a lawfully conducted election is not only undermining the very essence of democracy but also sowing seeds of distrust and division among the public. This behavior can lead to civil unrest, increased polarization, and a damaged international reputation.

Such an individual is demonstrating an alarming disregard for the will of the people and the principles of democratic governance. They are showing that they prioritize personal power and ambition over the collective decision of the electorate.

Attempting to subvert the results of a legitimate election is not just undemocratic, it's authoritarian. It indicates a dangerous willingness to destabilize the country for personal gain.

Any person who attempts to overturn a lawfully conducted election is demonstrating a clear lack of respect for democracy, the people, and the nation's well-being. They are unfit for the presidency, let alone any position of power.

Stealing is not only a crime but also a clear sign of greed and selfishness, traits that are incompatible with the role of a leader who is expected to serve the citizens selflessly. A person who steals from the government is likely to be devoid of a moral compass, prone to corruption, and could be easily swayed by personal interests, jeopardizing national security and public welfare.

Also, if a person has stolen from the government, it indicates a fundamental disregard for the law, which the President is sworn to uphold and protect.

This admiration often reveals a fundamental misunderstanding, or worse, a dismissal of democratic values like freedom, justice, and equality.

An individual who idolizes autocrats might be drawn to their style of governance, where power is concentrated and dissent is suppressed. This outlook is not only incompatible with a democratic presidency, but it can also be incredibly dangerous. It suggests a potential willingness to undermine democratic institutions, erode individual liberties, and adopt authoritarian measures under the guise of strong leadership.

Integrity and truthfulness are fundamental qualities for any leader, especially for the one holding the highest office in the country. The ability to communicate honestly, transparently, and genuinely with the public is a cornerstone of a functioning democracy.

A compulsive liar, by nature, undermines these principles. The constant stream of untruths erodes trust, promotes uncertainty, and creates a toxic environment both within their administration and among the public. This habit of deceit not only reflects a lack of respect for the electorate but also indicates a worrying lack of self-accountability.

Someone who habitually lies, even about minor issues, likely lacks the moral compass and ethical backbone necessary to lead a nation. Their priorities are skewed more towards self-preservation and manipulation rather than the well-being of the people they are supposed to serve.

A compulsive liar in the presidential seat leads to a deterioration of societal values, the spread of misinformation that could cost the lives of citizens, and a significant decline in national trust. They have no business being in a position that requires utmost honesty, let alone leading a nation.

Adultery indicates a fundamental inability to uphold personal commitments, which can translate into an inability to honor and fulfill public responsibilities and promises. If an individual cannot maintain their own personal vows, how can we trust them to uphold the vows they take when they enter office?

Adultery also suggests an individual is prone to deception and dishonesty, traits that are destructive in a leader who should be transparent, trustworthy, and dependable. A leader's personal life inevitably reflects on their public persona and influences their public legitimacy.

Respect, unity, and equality form the bedrock of any thriving nation. The person at the helm should be an advocate for these values, fostering harmony and inclusivity among diverse groups of people.

A president who entertains such extremist groups not only encourages divisiveness but also propagates hatred and fear. Such actions endanger the lives of marginalized communities, breed intolerance, and ultimately compromise the very fabric of the nation.

Someone who aligns with these groups indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of the values that a democratic society holds dear. It shows a willingness to put political gain above the safety and well-being of the people they are supposed to serve.

Sexual abuse is a grave violation of another person's rights, autonomy, and dignity. It is a reprehensible act that goes against the basic principles of human respect, decency, and empathy.

Anyone who has committed such an act is absolutely unfit for public office, especially the presidency.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." - Oath of office of the President of the United States as defined in the United States Constitution

Not paying workers speaks volumes about a person's respect, or lack thereof, for the labor and rights of others. The President's role is to safeguard the rights of every citizen, including hardworking laborers and contractors. Such disregard for the value of the time, money, and expertise of others is a blatant exploitation of power and privilege. It reflects poorly on a person's commitment to fairness and justice and raises serious questions about their ability to make fair and equitable decisions at a national level.

A good sense of humor is a strong indicator of intelligence. Being able to formulate a good joke requires abstract thinking, creativity, open-mindedness, and the ability to make connections between ideas. Similarly, being able to take a joke requires a level of self-confidence and the ability not to take oneself too seriously.

Someone who neither makes jokes nor can take a joke is probably an angry, small-minded, thin-skinned dimwit who is constantly lashing out at others and has no business having power over others, let alone the nuclear codes.

Intellectual curiosity and a respect for knowledge are vital traits in a leader. The ability to understand complex issues, make informed decisions, and appreciate the expertise of others is essential for the effective governance of a country.

An anti-intellectual stance, on the other hand, undermines the importance of education, science, and critical thinking. This attitude leads to misguided policies, a disregard for evidence-based decision-making, and an overall decline in the quality of leadership.

A leader who rejects intellectual pursuits lacks the ability to engage with diverse perspectives, solve intricate problems, and adapt to new information. They also foster a culture that devalues education and dismisses the significance of intellectual growth.

An anti-intellectual leader not only hinders their own ability to govern effectively, but they also set a dangerous precedent for future generations. They should have no place in an office that requires the ability to navigate complex issues and make informed decisions for the betterment of the nation.

A leader who indulges in or even tolerates such theories not only undermines the public's trust in their administration but also spreads fear, paranoia, and division.

Conspiracy theories, by their very nature, are based on unfounded claims and suspicion, not on facts or evidence. A president who promotes such ideas is essentially disregarding the importance of truth and factual information, which are fundamental to informed decision-making and policy creation.

Moreover, the propagation of conspiracy theories often leads to societal division and hostility, as these theories typically target specific groups, individuals, or institutions. This kind of environment is not conducive to a united, peaceful nation.

The company one keeps is a reflection of one's own values and principles.

Being closely associated with a large number of criminals raises serious red flags. It indicates a potential disregard for law and order and suggests a propensity to surround oneself with individuals who have proven themselves untrustworthy and corrupt.

This association may also hint at the individual's own involvement in illicit activities or, at the very least, their willingness to turn a blind eye to such actions.

It raises concerns about their decision-making skills, their ability to discern right from wrong, and the influence these unsavory individuals might have on policy-making and national governance.

An individual with such a dubious circle of associates would be under constant suspicion, creating an environment of mistrust and insecurity. Their presidency could foster a culture of corruption and nepotism, leading to a decline in public faith in the office.

A person who has a pattern of associating with convicted criminals demonstrates a lack of judgment that is incompatible with the responsibilities of a president. They have no business being in a role that demands integrity, let alone leading an entire nation.

Biden's dog was simply a "prop," and it became a major problem with the dog viciously biting numerous White House staff. It was finally removed, so Biden no longer has a dog. He does not know what's happening anyway.

Only one President in the last 120 years hasn't had a dog while in the White House. That guy was a terrible person and a terrible President.

This should be #1. It's probably the only valid reason here.

I am not a Trump fan, but I can see where this is going.

This could all be under one category, though.

When someone in the family business gets "all the funding we need" out of a foreign adversary, it can be a warning sign that someone from said family is going to give preferential treatment to that adversary should they assume office.

So if that adversary were to, say, meddle in elections, place bounties on the heads of our nation's soldiers, or even attack one of our allies, it's not certain that such a compromised leader would be able to put the needs of the nation above their personal interests.

And it's not just about the worry of such a president wanting to preserve existing relationships. Once they become president, having the kind of influence the office holds can be very corrupting in the wrong hands.

It would be very easy for such a person to engage in "pay-for-play" schemes where an audience with the president could be secured in exchange for becoming a patron of the family business. It would also be easy to look the other way when it came to the nefarious actions of murderous autocrats when there is the potential for a family member receiving a hypothetical $2,000,000,000 "investment" after the president's term is over.

They dragged the country through the mud for years over something they knew was completely false from the beginning.