Two Things I Will Remember GH Bush for: 1) his Eternal Hoax on the Public and 2) how he conceals it

[anobserver2]

73. The 3rd point - practical matters: Hard to "un-do" what an elected official has done

The 3rd point I wanted to make is this:

It is hard, if not impossible, to " un-do " what an elected official has done, if that elected official deceived voters
by faking a college degree.

In others words, as I mentioned earlier on the thread, it seems that if you get away with it by winning one election, then, you're home free in this country.

Because how can authorities " un-do " any bills you may have authored? Or un-do any death warrants you signed as a governor in a state that has the death penalty? Or bring back those who gave their lives in a war while you were
Commander in Chief pushing for that war? Or un-do a re-count that decided a US presidential election in favor of: a governor's brother?

It's not possible to un-do all these things. You can't un-do presidential elections or these other things by ousting the politician who is found LATER to have faked a college degree.

Whereas, by contrast, in the private sector, such matters are not at stake. The CEO found to have faked a college degree can still be outed and ousted because: the company is not dealing with matters of life and death impacting the public, or the creation of new laws impacting the public. The company can take away someone's financial bonus, and salary, and stop any projects or eliminate past products, but all these acts are not what can be done once someone has won elected office.

So, one would think: there should be a lot more vetting the first time someone runs for office. But, there isn't.

Yet, I notice in other countries, they are very much aware of the problem, and there are harsh penalties against politicians found to have faked a college degree.

In addition, I think I read there is one country, maybe it was Canada, where they have a procedure requiring every candidate for office to " register " their credentials and experience on a resume with the political party endorsing that candidate, and, if anything is later found to be fake, the party is required to publicly withdraw its support for that candidate. I read about that happening to a candidate.

In our country, with no required vetting of candidates, and with the rise of technology, it would not surprise me in the least if someday we have a president who claims he or she obtained multiple college degrees online - and in fact was never online at all, as someone else took the classes and did the work. Who's going to know?

The one positive I see on the horizon is more women, more minorities, more people who have to work really hard to get where they are to become candidates - who had jobs in the private sector (that were not handed to them by friends of the family), and who really did go to school - and earn a degree - if that is claimed.

The other positive I see is hopefully more people who did not go to college at all, and are willing to disclose that as a candidate, because I think more and more, that type of candidate will be able to appeal to a bigger and bigger base of others who did not go on to college. Perhaps like the late Sonny Bono they owned a small business/restaurant or had experience in another industry, whatever. I think people like that have a bigger future in politics - along with more women and more minorities.

In others words, real people who tell the truth about themselves -- and their credentials. That is my hope.