Why not? We don’t know his motivations for political donations.
At the very least it might be worth questioning what he found appealing about each candidate’s view of NASA and leadership. But an outright disqualification over this?
Should we pull up voter records and see which party’s primary each person participated in?
I’d strongly prefer a society where agency leaders are picked for their expertise, not party allegiance.
> I’d strongly prefer a society where agency leaders are picked for their expertise, not party allegiance.
Me too of course, but it’s not even about that. I could understand if they chose someone because he is competent and republican.
What triggers me is the kind of snake this man is, if the Chinese offered him money to reveal secrets and he thinks he can get away with, I have no doubt he would collaborate.
You need a man you can trust at this position, someone that wouldn’t betray his country. If he’s the kind to spread money on both side of the political spectrum, regardless of his moral compass, or just dignity, I would be extremely cautious.
That’s basically not a man with conviction, or dignity.
You are right about him being a snake. I don't think anyone is dumb enough to offer secrets to Chinese for money, so doubt that would ever happen. Do you want to be triggered more? You are right about the trust issue and you will have more trust issues after watching some of this https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-arqxBG7bIl63KZ6VwKH... Read the source material though if you want to get any actual insights.
At the very least it might be worth questioning what he found appealing about each candidate’s view of NASA and leadership. But an outright disqualification over this?
Should we pull up voter records and see which party’s primary each person participated in?
I’d strongly prefer a society where agency leaders are picked for their expertise, not party allegiance.