djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706 
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 4, 2016 11:10:37 GMT -5
Your dislike is clouding your judgment. Donald Trump is the worst, most unqualified, most "unsuited-to-the-position" candidate that has been put forth by any major party at least in our lifetimes. If my knowledge of U.S. history between the Civil War and World War II extended further into losing presidential candidates I'm sure that statement could also be extended into that time frame as well. And not only is he a horrible candidate, he doesn't even want the job! Or at least doesn't want to be bothered with the details of actually doing it. When Trump began talking about his run, he was generally considered a joke candidate. He should still be. He offers zero substance, and zero real thought. I don't want the joke to be on us. Except you weren't talking about Donald Trump, you were talking about Hillary Clinton. And Hillary is most certainly not qualified to run the country. She wasn't qualified in her previous job which is why she got fired. Does giving away state secrets, ambassadors dead because of faulty judgement, etc... yes she is. she is absolutely qualified. even if it were true that she gave away state secrets. www.quora.com/What-are-Hillary-Clinton-qualifications-to-be-Presidenti think you guys are confusing "qualified" for something else. a guy who converts to radical Islam and has no criminal record is QUALIFIED for a gun purchase. a career alcoholic with no history of driving drunk is QUALIFIED for a driver's license. and a sexual predator is QUALIFIED to be CEO of a major news organization. oh, and Clinton wasn't fired. she resigned, and under no pressure from Obama. |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,841
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 4, 2016 11:52:54 GMT -5
Except you weren't talking about Donald Trump, you were talking about Hillary Clinton. And Hillary is most certainly not qualified to run the country. She wasn't qualified in her previous job which is why she got fired. Does giving away state secrets, ambassadors dead because of faulty judgement, etc... yes she is. she is absolutely qualified. even if it were true that she gave away state secrets. www.quora.com/What-are-Hillary-Clinton-qualifications-to-be-Presidenti think you guys are confusing "qualified" for something else. a guy who converts to radical Islam and has no criminal record is QUALIFIED for a gun purchase. a career alcoholic with no history of driving drunk is QUALIFIED for a driver's license. and a sexual predator is QUALIFIED to be CEO of a major news organization. oh, and Clinton wasn't fired. she resigned, and under no pressure from Obama. As did a number of other SoS who served under recent two-term presidents-Rogers/Kissenger under Nixon, Vance/Muskie under Carter, Haig (maybe fired)/Shultz under Reagan, Baker/Eagleberger under G.H.W. Bush, Christopher/Albright under Clinton, Powell/Rice under G.W. Bush. |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,667
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 4, 2016 12:10:40 GMT -5
"Qualified" involves a number of different factors. One is a knowledge of and experience in government and how it works, so that the candidate can hit the ground running and not require a steep learning curve to get their bearings. As a partner as well as First Lady in both a gubernatorial and presidential administration, as a senator, as Secretary of State, along with her civilian experience there can really be no question that she has the relevant knowledge and experience to be considered "qualified." Another factor is that the candidate be steady and serious-minded, and that they are not a volatile personality that will fly off the handle. It is actually a criticism of Clinton in some parts that she is "too" calculating.
There are other factors, of course, and in each of them Clinton bests Trump, usually by large margins. If we concentrate on the knowledge and experience aspect, then Clinton is one of the most qualified candidates of the last 50 years. I would put George H.W. Bush and Richard Nixon in that group as well. George Bush is, by all accounts that I am aware of, a good, decent man with a dedicated record of public service. He is perhaps a bit underrated, though at best an average president. His main failing in my opinion is that he was right in 1980, lost to Reagan, saw what it took to get elected in this country, and basically sold his soul to get it. Nixon, if you can set aside his personal failings and demons, was actually a very good president as far as policy and accomplishments go, and I would take him over Ronald Reagan every day of the week. Just as I would take Hillary Clinton on her worst day over Donald Trump on his best every day of the week.
It is perfectly acceptable to not like Hillary Clinton. It is perfectly acceptable to not agree with her on policy. I certainly don't on several things. It is beyond ridiculous to call her "not qualified" or to suggest that Donald Trump is in any way her equal as a candidate.
|
|
Jaguar
Administrator
Fear does not stop death. It stops life.
Joined: Dec 20, 2011 6:07:45 GMT -5
Posts: 50,108
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IZlZ65.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Text Color: 290066
|
Post by Jaguar on Sept 4, 2016 12:13:23 GMT -5
"Qualified" involves a number of different factors. One is a knowledge of and experience in government and how it works, so that the candidate can hit the ground running and not require a steep learning curve to get their bearings. As a partner as well as First Lady in both a gubernatorial and presidential administration, as a senator, as Secretary of State, along with her civilian experience there can really be no question that she has the relevant knowledge and experience to be considered "qualified." Another factor is that the candidate be steady and serious-minded, and that they are not a volatile personality that will fly off the handle. It is actually a criticism of Clinton in some parts that she is "too" calculating. There are other factors, of course, and in each of them Clinton bests Trump, usually by large margins. If we concentrate on the knowledge and experience aspect, then Clinton is one of the most qualified candidates of the last 50 years. I would put George H.W. Bush and Richard Nixon in that group as well. George Bush is, by all accounts that I am aware of, a good, decent man with a dedicated record of public service. He is perhaps a bit underrated, though at best an average president. His main failing in my opinion is that he was right in 1980, lost to Reagan, saw what it took to get elected in this country, and basically sold his soul to get it. Nixon, if you can set aside his personal failings and demons, was actually a very good president as far as policy and accomplishments go, and I would take him over Ronald Reagan every day of the week. Just as I would take Hillary Clinton on her worst day over Donald Trump on his best every day of the week. It is perfectly acceptable to not like Hillary Clinton. It is perfectly acceptable to not agree with her on policy. I certainly don't on several things. It is beyond ridiculous to call her "not qualified" or to suggest that Donald Trump is in any way her equal as a candidate. This is an excellent post, thank you. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 4, 2016 12:24:39 GMT -5
"Qualified" involves a number of different factors. One is a knowledge of and experience in government and how it works, so that the candidate can hit the ground running and not require a steep learning curve to get their bearings. As a partner as well as First Lady in both a gubernatorial and presidential administration, as a senator, as Secretary of State, along with her civilian experience there can really be no question that she has the relevant knowledge and experience to be considered "qualified." Another factor is that the candidate be steady and serious-minded, and that they are not a volatile personality that will fly off the handle. It is actually a criticism of Clinton in some parts that she is "too" calculating. There are other factors, of course, and in each of them Clinton bests Trump, usually by large margins. If we concentrate on the knowledge and experience aspect, then Clinton is one of the most qualified candidates of the last 50 years. I would put George H.W. Bush and Richard Nixon in that group as well. George Bush is, by all accounts that I am aware of, a good, decent man with a dedicated record of public service. He is perhaps a bit underrated, though at best an average president. His main failing in my opinion is that he was right in 1980, lost to Reagan, saw what it took to get elected in this country, and basically sold his soul to get it. Nixon, if you can set aside his personal failings and demons, was actually a very good president as far as policy and accomplishments go, and I would take him over Ronald Reagan every day of the week. Just as I would take Hillary Clinton on her worst day over Donald Trump on his best every day of the week. It is perfectly acceptable to not like Hillary Clinton. It is perfectly acceptable to not agree with her on policy. I certainly don't on several things. It is beyond ridiculous to call her "not qualified" or to suggest that Donald Trump is in any way her equal as a candidate. here is what one of the guys at the Quora site, listed above, said: The qualifications to be President of the United States are that one must be a natural born citizen of the United States, a resident for 14 years, and 35 years of age or older. That's it. Period. Hillary Clinton certainly meets those qualifications.
As for her education and experience, she has been a Yale Law School graduate, law firm partner, cofounder of the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the United States, US Senator from New York, and US Secretary of State. That's a pretty good resume for a Presidential candidate, and it compares very favorably against the qualifications of the other candidates in the 2016 presidential campaign.
Whether you like her personality, principles, or positions is a different matter, quite separate from her qualifications. not sure i could have put it better. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 4, 2016 12:29:52 GMT -5
i think there is some confusion between the term "qualified" and "disqualified"
disqualified has a subtler meaning: UNSUITABLE. i think that people are arguing that she is UNSUITABLE, but she is clearly qualified.
and, of course, whether she is UNSUITABLE or not can be argued ON THE MERITS, just as it is for Trump.
i think that Trump is very ill suited to the office at many levels: perhaps all.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,667
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 4, 2016 12:34:12 GMT -5
Those are simply the legal requirements (qualifications) to be president. I would not consider that meeting the standard of being qualified to perform the duties of the position. I fully agree with the rest of it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 4, 2016 12:36:50 GMT -5
well, we can always fall back on the legalities- by which standard Trump is also qualified.  it doesn't make a particularly interesting discussion.  |
|
dezailoooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 28, 2016 13:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 13,630
|
Post by dezailoooooo on Sept 4, 2016 15:39:25 GMT -5
Your dislike is clouding your judgment. Donald Trump is the worst, most unqualified, most "unsuited-to-the-position" candidate that has been put forth by any major party at least in our lifetimes. If my knowledge of U.S. history between the Civil War and World War II extended further into losing presidential candidates I'm sure that statement could also be extended into that time frame as well. And not only is he a horrible candidate, he doesn't even want the job! Or at least doesn't want to be bothered with the details of actually doing it. When Trump began talking about his run, he was generally considered a joke candidate. He should still be. He offers zero substance, and zero real thought. I don't want the joke to be on us. Except you weren't talking about Donald Trump, you were talking about Hillary Clinton. And Hillary is most certainly not qualified to run the country. She wasn't qualified in her previous job s why she got firedwhich i. Does giving away state secrets, ambassadors dead because of faulty judgement, etc... why do people make statements that they really don't have any idea if they are true or not "why she got fired" I did some googling..I am also pretty aware politically..am a very good observer..Never have I seen any proof that Hillery was fired from her last job..Secretary of..and supposedly she was commended by , of all folks..opposition folks..fellow Senators [ done off the recoprd..privatly..]but on the GOP side..on what kind of senator she was..also reelected by her constituents.. As far as what kind of POTUS she would be? Who really knows on any who sit in that chair..and who makes that determination anyway. Case in point..I feel Obama has been a very good POTUS..close to great..others feel the same way. You and others may feel the exact opposite...[many do] I feel much of his opposition both by elected officials as well general public came about because there are folks out there..both elected and private..that are real unhappy there was a person of color in that office. l know many, possible you, then will call out , "playing the race card.." Sorry..doesn't change a thing..race had a lot to do with what was going down..especially first term but always there in some way or another. Considering all that..he did a great job IMHO. However...with all that being said..none of us here , I..you..other posters here have the expertise to state unequivently who is or who isn't qualified for that office...just keep open mind..wing it..hope for the best..though in the Donalds case....[can't believe that party opted out for him..he is their spokesperson and the crap he continues to spout against groups and individuals..personnel utterings..makes no sense..] |
|
dezailoooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 28, 2016 13:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 13,630
|
Post by dezailoooooo on Sept 4, 2016 15:45:42 GMT -5
"Qualified" involves a number of different factors. One is a knowledge of and experience in government and how it works, so that the candidate can hit the ground running and not require a steep learning curve to get their bearings. As a partner as well as First Lady in both a gubernatorial and presidential administration, as a senator, as Secretary of State, along with her civilian experience there can really be no question that she has the relevant knowledge and experience to be considered "qualified." Another factor is that the candidate be steady and serious-minded, and that they are not a volatile personality that will fly off the handle. It is actually a criticism of Clinton in some parts that she is "too" calculating. There are other factors, of course, and in each of them Clinton bests Trump, usually by large margins. If we concentrate on the knowledge and experience aspect, then Clinton is one of the most qualified candidates of the last 50 years. I would put George H.W. Bush and Richard Nixon in that group as well. George Bush is, by all accounts that I am aware of, a good, decent man with a dedicated record of public service. He is perhaps a bit underrated, though at best an average president. His main failing in my opinion is that he was right in 1980, lost to Reagan, saw what it took to get elected in this country, and basically sold his soul to get it. Nixon, if you can set aside his personal failings and demons, was actually a very good president as far as policy and accomplishments go, and I would take him over Ronald Reagan every day of the week. Just as I would take Hillary Clinton on her worst day over Donald Trump on his best every day of the week. It is perfectly acceptable to not like Hillary Clinton. It is perfectly acceptable to not agree with her on policy. I certainly don't on several things. It is beyond ridiculous to call her "not qualified" or to suggest that Donald Trump is in any way her equal as a candidate. well said...much agreement here..  |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 4, 2016 17:37:26 GMT -5
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,667
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 4, 2016 17:44:11 GMT -5
Okay, help me out here. Is Beck engaging in hyperbole, or can I assume that his knowledge of history is sufficient that I can now safely amend and extend my statement about Trump? I'm happy to do it. Really. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 4, 2016 17:47:45 GMT -5
Okay, help me out here. Is Beck engaging in hyperbole, or can I assume that his knowledge of history is sufficient that I can now safely amend and extend my statement about Trump? I'm happy to do it. Really. do you really need to revise it?  |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,667
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 4, 2016 17:55:21 GMT -5
YES! Are you not paying attention? I said the worst in our lifetimes. If he is indeed the worst the country has ever seen then I DEFINITELY need to revise it. I want to give the man all the credit he is due, considering how he always talks in superlatives, and especially about himself. I do not at all want to short-change the man. He doesn't take it well when he thinks someone has implied that he or anything about him is not all that he thinks he is.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 4, 2016 18:04:42 GMT -5
well, for what it is worth, i think that Beck was exaggerating. i would suspect that there were some terrible candidates in the last couple of centuries that he is forgetting about. edit: Wallace comes to mind. |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,667
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 4, 2016 18:07:44 GMT -5
Damn! That's what I was afraid of. Oh well.  |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 18, 2024 20:21:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2016 19:56:02 GMT -5
If any of that is true then why do so many Republican leaders and officials agree with me? The man has to be pretty far gone to have so many in his own party repudiate his candidacy. Doubly so considering the current polarization in the system. No clue. Maybe they have the same taste in sugary flavored powdered drink mixes? You do know that just as many Democrats are jumping ship from Hillary as there are Republicans doing it... right? |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 18, 2024 20:21:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2016 19:58:58 GMT -5
Clinton is clearly qualified for the position. some have argued she is the most qualified candidate of our generation. anyone claiming otherwise is not being objective, or using standards that are not generally used for evaluating presidents. aka making shit up. Clinton is actually clearly UNqualified for the position. Many have argued that she's the most qualified candidate of our generation. Those people are what sane people like to call "wrong". Anyone claiming otherwise is not being objective or is using standards that are not generally used for evaluating presidents. a.k.a. making shit up. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 4, 2016 21:00:12 GMT -5
Clinton is clearly qualified for the position. some have argued she is the most qualified candidate of our generation. anyone claiming otherwise is not being objective, or using standards that are not generally used for evaluating presidents. aka making shit up. Clinton is actually clearly UNqualified for the position. see post 4658Many have argued that she's the most qualified candidate of our generation. Those people are what sane people like to call "wrong".
explain how this guy is wrong: www.wbur.org/news/2015/03/19/hillary-clinton-presidential-qualificationsAnyone claiming otherwise is not being objective or is using standards that are not generally used for evaluating presidents. a.k.a. making shit up. i don't make things up. when i say something, i can back it up. but you will note that i qualified what i said. i highlighted it, in case you missed it. the making shit up comment had to do with saying that she is without qualifications. she isn't. |
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,337
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Sept 4, 2016 21:05:43 GMT -5
Clinton is clearly qualified for the position. some have argued she is the most qualified candidate of our generation. anyone claiming otherwise is not being objective, or using standards that are not generally used for evaluating presidents. aka making shit up. Clinton is actually clearly UNqualified for the position. Many have argued that she's the most qualified candidate of our generation. Those people are what sane people like to call "wrong". Anyone claiming otherwise is not being objective or is using standards that are not generally used for evaluating presidents. a.k.a. making shit up. Clearly unqualified as being say 26 years old and a British citizen?
I am wondering what standards that are used to generally evaluate Presidential candidates? And I find it unsuitable to incorrectly use words like qualified, but I'm sane, avoid most political websites and look up word definitions. I am Optimist and I approve this message.  
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 18, 2024 20:21:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2016 22:11:29 GMT -5
Clinton is actually clearly UNqualified for the position. see post 4658Many have argued that she's the most qualified candidate of our generation. Those people are what sane people like to call "wrong".
explain how this guy is wrong: www.wbur.org/news/2015/03/19/hillary-clinton-presidential-qualificationsAnyone claiming otherwise is not being objective or is using standards that are not generally used for evaluating presidents. a.k.a. making shit up. i don't make things up. when i say something, i can back it up. but you will note that i qualified what i said. i highlighted it, in case you missed it. the making shit up comment had to do with saying that she is without qualifications. she isn't. There's "constitutionally qualified" and there's "'ability to perform the functions of the office credibly' qualified" I 100% agree with you that she's constitutionally qualified... as is Donald Trump... as are you... as am I... as are MANY people. From the website: In order... So what? So did MANY people. So what? So did MANY people. WHICH "leading child advocacy organization"? Funny... seems like it's the same one that said this about her: Lindsey Graham is an idiot. I've met the man, more than once. But don't take my word for it... Google "stupid things Lindsey Graham has said" So was Madonna. Should she be President too? |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,667
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 4, 2016 22:11:59 GMT -5
If any of that is true then why do so many Republican leaders and officials agree with me? The man has to be pretty far gone to have so many in his own party repudiate his candidacy. Doubly so considering the current polarization in the system. No clue. Maybe they have the same taste in sugary flavored powdered drink mixes? You do know that just as many Democrats are jumping ship from Hillary as there are Republicans doing it... right? Voters, maybe, I can't say. Certainly not leaders and officials. I know it is difficult for you, but try to stick with the same argument being presented. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 4, 2016 22:25:56 GMT -5
i don't make things up. when i say something, i can back it up. but you will note that i qualified what i said. i highlighted it, in case you missed it. the making shit up comment had to do with saying that she is without qualifications. she isn't. There's "constitutionally qualified" and there's "'ability to perform the functions of the office credibly' qualified" i could say "no there isn't", and make a really good case for it. but i won't, because i don't think that the guy who checked me out down at Lucky's would beat out Clinton in terms of readiness for office, nor do i think Trump would.I 100% agree with you that she's constitutionally qualified... as is Donald Trump... as are you... as am I... as are MANY people. From the website: In order... So what? So did MANY people. the guy at Lucky's didn't, and neither did Trump.So what? So did MANY people. WHICH "leading child advocacy organization"? find out. i dunno. or ignore it, like i did. her resume is deep enough to skip a few things.Funny... seems like it's the same one that said this about her: Lindsey Graham is an idiot. I've met the man, more than once. But don't take my word for it... Google "stupid things Lindsey Graham has said" So was Madonna. Should she be President too? not getting the Madonna connection, sorry. but imo, Trump is the relevant comparison. so, other than the dozen or so businesses he drove into the ground, what qualifies him to drive the country into the ground? |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 18, 2024 20:21:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2016 22:26:05 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 18, 2024 20:21:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2016 22:30:50 GMT -5
There's "constitutionally qualified" and there's "'ability to perform the functions of the office credibly' qualified" i could say "no there isn't", and make a really good case for it. but i won't, because i don't think that the guy who checked me out down at Lucky's would beat out Clinton in terms of readiness for office, nor do i think Trump would.I 100% agree with you that she's constitutionally qualified... as is Donald Trump... as are you... as am I... as are MANY people. From the website: In order... So what? So did MANY people. the guy at Lucky's didn't, and neither did Trump.So what? So did MANY people. WHICH "leading child advocacy organization"? who gives a fuck? not me. i care more about what Graham said.Funny... seems like it's the same one that said this about her: Lindsey Graham is an idiot. I've met the man, more than once. But don't take my word for it... Google "stupid things Lindsey Graham has said" So was Madonna. Should she be President too? but imo, Trump is the relevant comparison. so, other than the dozen or so businesses he drove into the ground, what qualifies him to drive the country into the ground? Madonna was also on Time Magazine's list of 25 most powerful women of the past century. Didn't you read the article you posted a link to? Being on that list was one of the things that made Hillary so "worthy" in his opinion. Speaking of what Graham said... I came across this gem while researching links for my last reply: |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 4, 2016 22:33:44 GMT -5
not getting the Madonna connection, sorry. but imo, Trump is the relevant comparison. so, other than the dozen or so businesses he drove into the ground, what qualifies him to drive the country into the ground? Madonna was also on Time Magazine's list of 25 most powerful women of the past century. Didn't you read the article you posted a link to? if your point is "many people are as qualified as Clinton", i concede that. now, in turn, i would like you to concede that it has absolutely no relevance because....wait for it..... they are not running! you can post links about them all night, if you like. but please let me know in advance so i can find something else to do. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 4, 2016 22:36:06 GMT -5
PS- i can appreciate you not wanting to defend Trump. neither do i. i won't ask you how Johnson is qualified. he is. you want to talk about Jill Stein? |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,667
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 4, 2016 22:54:35 GMT -5
You're kidding, right? Democratic gubernatorial candidates in red states trying to run as more conservative because, surprise, they are trying to appeal to more conservative voters has pretty much zero relevance to the discussion. The argument is that many Republican leaders and officials are repudiating the Trump candidacy in its entirety, from speaking out against him to vowing to support Hillary to not even showing up at the Republican convention. There was a reason that the Democratic convention had an A-list of speakers every night, while the Republicans were basically left with third-rate actors, long-past never-was politicians, and preachers who like to make up most of their official biography. Grasping at straws is not an effective debate technique. Just sayin' |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 4, 2016 23:03:24 GMT -5
changing the subject sometimes works, tho. |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,667
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 4, 2016 23:08:31 GMT -5
Depends who the discussion is with. And either way, it doesn't do good things for one's reputation as a debater. |
|
