• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Political Agenda or "Qualifications"?

What is more important-the agenda or qualifications of a candidate


  • Total voters
    35

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
268,481
Reaction score
85,126
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Lots of Hillary supporters are trying to claim that Hillary is more "qualified" than Trump because she's been a first lady, a senator, a SOS and he has held no political office. So I ask this question. Do you vote for a candidate because of their qualifications, or do you vote for the agenda or laws you think the politician will implement and then try to convince others that your chosen candidate's "qualifications" are superior. In my view, if a candidate supports stuff I find anathema, their qualifications are not going to matter to me. Where qualifications DO matter to me is in a primary where several candidates have the same agendas. What say you?
 

KevinKohler

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2011
Messages
24,675
Reaction score
11,620
Location
CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'd rather have an unqualified Saint over a highly qualified dictator.


This just seems like common sense.
 

Lutherf

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
41,661
Reaction score
48,100
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The qualifications to be president are:
1. 35 years old or older
2. Natural born US Citizen
3. Lived in the US at least 14 years
4. 270 or more Electoral votes

Based on that I'd say that the political agenda of a given candidate is infinitely more important than their qualifications.
 

Cephus

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
31,034
Reaction score
11,932
Location
CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Both to a certain degree, but not equally. First I look at their platform, what they want to do. Then I judge whether their experiences, not necessarily their political qualifications, but their experiences, make it likely they can actually do what they say they want to do. As for Clinton, I detest the pantsuited bitch with a passion, there is nothing about her, her platform or her person that doesn't disgust me. I don't care about her experience, there is nothing she could do to ever earn my vote.
 

Anagram

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
8,858
Reaction score
5,411
Location
St. Louis MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
In a primary, qualifications affect my vote. In a general they don't. Generally the candidates' agendas are too different to make up for one's lack of experience.
 

Painter

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
583
Reaction score
314
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Lots of Hillary supporters are trying to claim that Hillary is more "qualified" than Trump because she's been a first lady, a senator, a SOS and he has held no political office. So I ask this question. Do you vote for a candidate because of their qualifications, or do you vote for the agenda or laws you think the politician will implement and then try to convince others that your chosen candidate's "qualifications" are superior. In my view, if a candidate supports stuff I find anathema, their qualifications are not going to matter to me. Where qualifications DO matter to me is in a primary where several candidates have the same agendas. What say you?

I agree with you mostly.
Qualifications are not as important as agenda unless there is an inherent danger or an extreme negative.

I saw Bush's election in 2004 as different due to having attacked the wrong Country on purpose.
I saw McCain as different due to his hatred of Russia and desire to bring Georgia into NATO even while Russia occupied it with forces.
Today I see Trump as very different. If he did everything he said, we'd be at war on multiple fronts, using nuclear weapons, trade wars, race wars, law and order state, torture, bigger torture, bigger patriot acts. The only defense people have for him is to say "he didn't really mean it".
I can also see how lots thought Obama was the same type of threat or worse. They were wrong though, so that is great. With Obama it was made up stuff. With Trump it is Trump's own words and promises. Big difference there.

Romney, Bush 43 first term, Bill Clinton, and Bush 41 all came down to policy and agenda.
I believe that Hillary Clinton should be in this category. She has negatives but her negatives are trivial when compared to the others.

I guess it is simply all about policy and agenda until a candidate seems so bad that they must be voted against.
As a result of Bush 43, I went from an uninformed Republican to a politically obsessed Independent who votes against Conservative policies as a priority.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
25,757
Reaction score
16,641
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
If a candidate does not have the skills (qualifications) needed to enact their agenda, then their agenda is irrelevant.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
35,025
Reaction score
16,591
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Lots of Hillary supporters are trying to claim that Hillary is more "qualified" than Trump because she's been a first lady, a senator, a SOS and he has held no political office. So I ask this question. Do you vote for a candidate because of their qualifications, or do you vote for the agenda or laws you think the politician will implement and then try to convince others that your chosen candidate's "qualifications" are superior. In my view, if a candidate supports stuff I find anathema, their qualifications are not going to matter to me. Where qualifications DO matter to me is in a primary where several candidates have the same agendas. What say you?

If I don't agree with a candidate's agenda all their "qualifications" don't mean anything.
 

ajn678

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
8,002
Reaction score
3,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If a candidate does not have the skills (qualifications) needed to enact their agenda, then their agenda is irrelevant.

Would you say Obama has been a failed President then? Most of his agenda failed to pass because he could not enact it.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
25,757
Reaction score
16,641
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate

ajn678

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
8,002
Reaction score
3,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Actually from an agenda standpoint, Obama has been the most consequential president since LBJ.

Barack Obama is officially one of the most consequential presidents in American history - Vox

Actually, most of his "successes" were wildly different than what he had wanted. Obamacare being the most obvious and far reaching failures of his adminstration. All he set up was a system that gives government money to corporations so that they can continue ripping people off with the help of doctors and hospitals. No competition, no oversight, no choice.
 

Gina

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
44,019
Reaction score
29,303
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Agenda matters, but if a candidate has little to no experience for the job and then demonstrates they have no clue as to how a democratic government works, then that seals the deal. As in no way and no how are they getting my vote.
 

matchlight

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2014
Messages
9,869
Reaction score
3,495
Location
Los Angeles area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
She is exceptionally well qualified as a liar. When it comes to flagrant, habitual lying, only B. Hussein Obama is in Cankles' league. Other than that, she accomplished very little in her official positions, while causing a lot of damage.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
25,757
Reaction score
16,641
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Actually, most of his "successes" were wildly different than what he had wanted. Obamacare being the most obvious and far reaching failures of his adminstration. All he set up was a system that gives government money to corporations so that they can continue ripping people off with the help of doctors and hospitals. No competition, no oversight, no choice.

That is how governance works in a democracy, you never get everything you want.
 

ajn678

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
8,002
Reaction score
3,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That is how governance works in a democracy, you never get everything you want.

Three of Obama's biggest campaign promises were failures. He gave healthcare further to corporations, he failed to close Gitmo, and he failed to provide a path of citizenship and reform to immigrants.
 

rocket88

Mod Conspiracy Theorist
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
44,814
Reaction score
20,220
Location
A very blue state
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Three of Obama's biggest campaign promises were failures. He gave healthcare further to corporations, he failed to close Gitmo, and he failed to provide a path of citizenship and reform to immigrants.

Now the right is going to complain that Obama didn't follow through on promises, when the whole reason is because of their screeching?
 

Patrickt

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 28, 2006
Messages
3,579
Reaction score
1,082
Location
Oaxaca, Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I don't care about their stated agenda and qualifications don't interest me much. What I want to know is what they've done. Their track record of where they've been and what they did says more about where they're going and what they will do than anything they have to say.
 

DifferentDrummr

Bald eagle
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
7,437
Reaction score
1,950
Location
Confirmation Bias Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
If it's a candidate for president, they should have accomplished something while serving either in the US or state government. Not knowing how Washington works almost guarantees failure.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
268,481
Reaction score
85,126
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
If I don't agree with a candidate's agenda all their "qualifications" don't mean anything.

exactly. There is a guy I know on Facebook and in the RL who is your classic public service union hardcore. He's in a shooting sport and he's fluffing Hillary. Rather than merely say he agrees with the Democrats' pro union position, he is trying to tell anyone who listens that Hillary not only is more qualified than Trump, but that she is the MOST qualified candidate to run in decades (sorry people GHWB clearly had the best resume of anyone who has run in at least 50 years).

but when I asked him why he voted for Obama in 08, he claimed that McCain's policies sucked.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
268,481
Reaction score
85,126
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
If it's a candidate for president, they should have accomplished something while serving either in the US or state government. Not knowing how Washington works almost guarantees failure.

actually that is no guarantee of competence. Ike was perhaps our best president of the last 75 years. Nixon had the most government experience and he was a mixed bag.
 

notquiteright

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Messages
19,059
Reaction score
6,905
Location
okla-freakin-homa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
actually that is no guarantee of competence. Ike was perhaps our best president of the last 75 years. Nixon had the most government experience and he was a mixed bag.

Ike knew DC. He and Patton put down the veterans protest in DC before WWII. He never lead troops in combat but was said to be a good negotiator and ego stroker- that gained the highest allied command without battle honors- unusual to say the least. After WWII he was chief of staff in DC for Truman.

As President he greatly reduced our conventional forces and boosted 'cheap' nukes- some say that made the commies a bit bolder in Europe.(Hungary in '56) he approved coups in Iran and Guatemala. He strongly supported first France in Vietnam and then the new South Vietnamese one, the beginning of our involvement that predates Kennedy. He sided with Egypt against our former WWII allies and Israel. He sent troops in Lebanon. He expanded executive privileged...

In an era of relative peace and prosperity in the USofA post WWII I'd say Ike was a mixed bag...

But they all are... :peace
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
76,893
Reaction score
31,082
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Lots of Hillary supporters are trying to claim that Hillary is more "qualified" than Trump because she's been a first lady, a senator, a SOS and he has held no political office. So I ask this question. Do you vote for a candidate because of their qualifications, or do you vote for the agenda or laws you think the politician will implement and then try to convince others that your chosen candidate's "qualifications" are superior. In my view, if a candidate supports stuff I find anathema, their qualifications are not going to matter to me. Where qualifications DO matter to me is in a primary where several candidates have the same agendas. What say you?

Both, to one degree or another.

Hillary: Her agenda immediately disqualifies her of my vote. But, let's say she were a Republican and I agreed with her agenda...then her character would disqualify her of my vote. Her political experience is trumped by those other issues.

Trump: His agenda qualifies his of my vote. His lack of political experience is a liability, though he...as a successful businessman...shows he has the ability to hire the people he needs to overcome, or at least minimize, that liability. If he were a Democrat, his agenda would disqualify him of my vote regardless any other attractive attributes he might have.

But what it really comes down to is my belief that Hillary will do more damage to our country than Obama has managed to do, while Trump, I believe, won't be able to do near as much damage. In other words, he is the lesser of evils.
 

Phys251

Anti-vax rhetoric threatens our liberty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
43,903
Reaction score
25,922
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I'd rather have an unqualified Saint over a highly qualified dictator.


This just seems like common sense.

I agree with that as literally worded. ;)
 

Surrealistik

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
7,764
Reaction score
3,519
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'd rather have an unqualified Saint over a highly qualified dictator.


This just seems like common sense.

Thread winner.

That said, qualifications are of course important, but what a candidate actually intends to do is obviously more so.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Both to a certain degree, but not equally. First I look at their platform, what they want to do. Then I judge whether their experiences, not necessarily their political qualifications, but their experiences, make it likely they can actually do what they say they want to do. As for Clinton, I detest the pantsuited bitch with a passion, there is nothing about her, her platform or her person that doesn't disgust me. I don't care about her experience, there is nothing she could do to ever earn my vote.
I don't care about their stated agenda and qualifications don't interest me much. What I want to know is what they've done. Their track record of where they've been and what they did says more about where they're going and what they will do than anything they have to say.
A combination of these two. Agenda is the first item on the alleged checklist. If they don't match with me nothing else matters. No point in even going further.

Then comes history. Are they saying what they think I want to hear, or does their history back it up? If their stated agenda contradicts their history, then I have no reason to believe their stated agenda*.

If those two are in place, then we get to qualifications, or competency as I would call it. For good or for bad, political experience does help, but the bottom line is if they can't pull it off they're no good to me anyway. It won't matter how good their agenda is.


*- This is why I just rolled my eyes when Bernie 'made' Hillary move left re student loans, etc. Yeah yeah yeah, blah blah blah, I have no illusions she'll follow through when actually in office. She'll forget about it like it never happened.
 
Top Bottom