Political Agenda or "Qualifications"?

[Moderate 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?

The funny part is most Democrats would say they think we should vote for the most qualified and yet these same people saying this are the same ones who voted Obama in while both McCain and Romney had much more qualifications than Obama did.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

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.

Nothing is a "guarantee." Having government experience just improves the odds.

 

[tres borrachos]

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'm not a Hillary supporter. Yes, she is far more qualified than Trump. He has zero qualifications for the job. She has a lot. It's silly at best to pretend she isn't qualified.

I'm not voting for either one of them.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

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.

Not to mention, anyone who has earned the rank of general or admiral in the military will automatically have learned a great deal about the workings of Washington. That experience is probably almost has good as having served in the government itself.

 

[TurtleDude]

Not to mention, anyone who has earned the rank of general or admiral in the military will automatically have learned a great deal about the workings of Washington. That experience is probably almost has good as having served in the government itself.

anyone who has built as much as Trump in the areas where he has built it is well versed in how government works

 

[TurtleDude]

I'm not a Hillary supporter. Yes, she is far more qualified than Trump. He has zero qualifications for the job. She has a lot. It's silly at best to pretend she isn't qualified.

I'm not voting for either one of them.

why don't you tell me what you think are the qualifications for the job. other than Natural born American citizen etc.

what attributes make you qualified for the job

 

[calamity]

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?

Other. First and foremost the candidate must be sane and act like a professional, not act like he needs to be placed on medication or missed out on spankings as a child. Agendas and qualifications come next, in that order.

 

[radcen]

why don't you tell me what you think are the qualifications for the job. other than Natural born American citizen etc.

what attributes make you qualified for the job

She better understands the intricacies of the inner workings of government, meaning she can better maneuver accordingly.

The Donald can say he'll hire competent people to know this aspect for him, but anyone with an ounce of objectivity knows that he doesn't pay any mind to others.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

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 like experimentation.
It can lead to good or bad results.

I've met my fair share of "qualified" morons and unqualified geniuses.

 

[TurtleDude]

She better understands the intricacies of the inner workings of government, meaning she can better maneuver accordingly.

The Donald can say he'll hire competent people to know this aspect for him, but anyone with an ounce of objectivity knows that he doesn't pay any mind to others.

anyone who voted for Obama obviously didn't find that issue very important in 2008

 

[TurtleDude]

Other. First and foremost the candidate must be sane and act like a professional, not act like he needs to be placed on medication or missed out on spankings as a child. Agendas and qualifications come next, in that order.

that's just silly partisan hackery there

 

[radcen]

anyone who voted for Obama obviously didn't find that issue very important in 2008

1) That was then, this is now.

2) He had some Senate experience, albeit not enough.

 

[TurtleDude]

1) That was then, this is now.

2) He had some Senate experience, albeit not enough.

bottom line-HIllary supporters are going to adopt whatever argument they think will convince others why she is "qualified" including her years of mediocre to incompetent government service. We who find her an abomination are going to note that we don't want 4 more years of what have seen for the last 8 especially when she wants to double down on the worst aspects of the Obama regime.

 

[tres borrachos]

why don't you tell me what you think are the qualifications for the job. other than Natural born American citizen etc.

what attributes make you qualified for the job

1. An understanding of the Constitution
2. Experience managing highly matrixed organizations
3. An understanding of foreign relations and diplomacy
4. An understanding of laws - how they are made, how they are passed
5. A general understanding of how our Supreme Court works
6. An ability to work with other people, to listen, to process information, to respond correctly

 

[Russell797]

I support ideas not people. The particular person is just a place holder.

 

[TurtleDude]

1. An understanding of the Constitution
2. Experience managing highly matrixed organizations
3. An understanding of foreign relations and diplomacy
4. An understanding of laws - how they are made, how they are passed
5. A general understanding of how our Supreme Court works
6. An ability to work with other people, to listen, to process information, to respond correctly

1) Hillary has shown a willingness to ignore the constitution.

2) hillary has had almost no experience in an executive function

3) Hillary has more experience in dealing with foreign diplomats than trump

4) where does this come from-anyone who does as much business as trump is well versed in legal issues

5) there is no evidence Hillary has a superior understanding of this other than she has a law degree, I think most people with a college education understand how the USSC works

6) I believe Trump is superior in this area.

 

[radcen]

bottom line-HIllary supporters are going to adopt whatever argument they think will convince others why she is "qualified" including her years of mediocre to incompetent government service. We who find her an abomination are going to note that we don't want 4 more years of what have seen for the last 8 especially when she wants to double down on the worst aspects of the Obama regime.

And on the flip side Trump sycophants are going to rationalize his lack of experience and blindly pretend he is qualified. Trump doesn't have the slightest clue. He refuses to even talk specifics, just bombastic rhetoric and pleas to "believe me".

Sorry, but between the two, today, 2016, Hillary wins in the qualified department, hands down. It's not even a contest.

Agenda is a different matter.

 

[tres borrachos]

1) Hillary has shown a willingness to ignore the constitution.

2) hillary has had almost no experience in an executive function

3) Hillary has more experience in dealing with foreign diplomats than trump

4) where does this come from-anyone who does as much business as trump is well versed in legal issues

5) there is no evidence Hillary has a superior understanding of this other than she has a law degree, I think most people with a college education understand how the USSC works

6) I believe Trump is superior in this area.

I'm not voting for Hillary.

Yes, Hillary ran the State Department, so she does in fact have executive experience. The State Department has almost 70,000 employees and an annual budget of over $65 billion.

Hillary is a lawyer. Hillary was a lawmaker. Trump has no experience in writing laws, passing laws or enforcing laws.

Whatever knowledge Hillary has of SCOTUS is more than Trump has.

Okay, you think Trump works well with people. I've seen just the opposite. He offends people.

You asked me why I think Hillary is more qualified, and I told you.

 

[radcen]

1. An understanding of the Constitution
2. Experience managing highly matrixed organizations
3. An understanding of foreign relations and diplomacy
4. An understanding of laws - how they are made, how they are passed
5. A general understanding of how our Supreme Court works
6. An ability to work with other people, to listen, to process information, to respond correctly

1) Hillary has shown a willingness to ignore the constitution.

2) hillary has had almost no experience in an executive function

3) Hillary has more experience in dealing with foreign diplomats than trump

4) where does this come from-anyone who does as much business as trump is well versed in legal issues

5) there is no evidence Hillary has a superior understanding of this other than she has a law degree, I think most people with a college education understand how the USSC works

6) I believe Trump is superior in this area.

1) Hillary has shown a willingness to ignore the Constitution. As do many other politicians who pass laws and bet on them not being challenged, but I digress. Anyway, Trump has demonstrated his lack of understanding what is Constitutional and what is not, based on many of his comments.

2) It's a wash.

3) Hillary has more experience in diplomacy than Trump.

4) Trump knows whose palm to grease to get what he wants done done. Hillary knows better how to maneuver a bill through the process, and what happens behind closed doors.

5) Trump seems to get sued, and lose and/or settle, a lot. His attorneys know the law, Trump probably knows the basics, but he gambles a lot hoping he'll get away with it. I'm sure Hillary has a basic understanding, hell she's been briefed enough on her's and Bill's issues, I'm sure.

6) Both get an F in this aspect.

 

[roughdraft274]

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?

People will say whatever is needed in order to justify their vote.

If it was the other way around we'd have conservatives droning on about lack of experience (as they constantly did about Obama) and liberals talking about how their person is smart and would find the right people for the job and get things done.

My problem with Trump isn't lack of experience. He's a huge asshole with a thin skin who cares far more about his business and himself than the country.

 

[TurtleDude]

People will say whatever is needed in order to justify their vote.

If it was the other way around we'd have conservatives droning on about lack of experience (as they constantly did about Obama) and liberals talking about how their person is smart and would find the right people for the job and get things done.

My problem with Trump isn't lack of experience. He's a huge asshole with a thin skin who cares far more about his business and himself than the country.

maybe so, my problem with Hillary is that she is a huge asshole who is hungry for power and wants to use the government to accentuate her power and to destroy people whom she thinks has crossed the Clinton crime family.

 

[TurtleDude]

1) Hillary has shown a willingness to ignore the Constitution. As do many other politicians who pass laws and bet on them not being challenged, but I digress. Anyway, Trump has demonstrated his lack of understanding what is Constitutional and what is not, based on many of his comments.

2) It's a wash.

3) Hillary has more experience in diplomacy than Trump.

4) Trump knows whose palm to grease to get what he wants done done. Hillary knows better how to maneuver a bill through the process, and what happens behind closed doors.

5) Trump seems to get sued, and lose and/or settle, a lot. His attorneys know the law, Trump probably knows the basics, but he gambles a lot hoping he'll get away with it. I'm sure Hillary has a basic understanding, hell she's been briefed enough on her's and Bill's issues, I'm sure.

6) Both get an F in this aspect.

4) hillary has had almost no bills she sponsored come to law. One was renaming a post office. She was one of the least effective senators of the era in terms of that.

 

[radcen]

People will say whatever is needed in order to justify their vote.

If it was the other way around we'd have conservatives droning on about lack of experience (as they constantly did about Obama) and liberals talking about how their person is smart and would find the right people for the job and get things done.

My problem with Trump isn't lack of experience. He's a huge asshole with a thin skin who cares far more about his business and himself than the country.

maybe so, my problem with Hillary is that she is a huge asshole who is hungry for power and wants to use the government to accentuate her power and to destroy people whom she thinks has crossed the Clinton crime family.

What a choice, eh?

I pretty much agree with both of these.

 

[radcen]

4) hillary has had almost no bills she sponsored come to law. One was renaming a post office. She was one of the least effective senators of the era in terms of that.

I'm not going to look it up, but I believe that. She was still privy to the inner process, though.

 

[roughdraft274]

maybe so, my problem with Hillary is that she is a huge asshole who is hungry for power and wants to use the government to accentuate her power and to destroy people whom she thinks has crossed the Clinton crime family.

Of course. The only difference is that my statement is true and yours is fear mongering.

The idea that one of the most powerful women in the entire world needs to be president to get that little last bit of power to make her happy is just silliness.

Let me ask, do you think the Clinton have ever had someone killed to advance their agenda?