- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- 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?
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 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.
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.
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.
If I don't agree with a candidate's agenda all their "qualifications" don't mean anything.
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.
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'd rather have an unqualified Saint over a highly qualified dictator.
This just seems like common sense.
I'd rather have an unqualified Saint over a highly qualified dictator.
This just seems like common sense.
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.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?