Posted by strikeout26 on 8/14/2018 10:44:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 8/14/2018 10:30:00 AM (view original):
Posted by strikeout26 on 8/14/2018 10:25:00 AM (view original):
You would think, but then you guys run a candidate who has been groomed her whole life and she is still woefully unprepared. I guess experience in politics isn't that important. Also, come to think about it, I recall a 2008 election where you guys ran a "woefully unprepared" candidate. Did you vote for Obama?
Obama’s wasn’t unprepared. He was a US Senator and a constitutional law professor. That you would equate his and Trump’s qualifications for President really hurts your credibility.
Clinton had been a Senator and US Secretary of State. Like Obama, she was qualified. She wasn’t a likeable candidate though, so we lost our minds and elected this idiot.
It doesn't hurt my credibility at all. You are biased and can't see the truth. Obama was a 1 term US senator. This is hardly enough to qualify him for the president of the US. He had no background whatsoever in finance or economics. Trump is much more prepared in these areas. Obama obviously had a much better understanding of US law and Constitution. Obama had little to no experience in negotiation.
HRC was ridden with scandal as sec of state. Obviously having experience doesn't mean that you will be a good president if you do a poor job with your experiences.
______
You are biased and can't see the truth
Everyone on earth is biased. That doesn't mean we can't see the truth.
Obama was a 1 term US senator. This is hardly enough to qualify him for the president of the US
The cool part about Obama is that we no longer have to speculate whether or not he was qualified to do the job. He clearly was based on the fact that he did a great job. You may not (I'm guessing I could probably ditch the "may") agree with the policy positions he took, but I don't think there are any serious people left who genuinely believe Obama was a bad president.
He had no background whatsoever in finance or economics.
The amount of subtext that can be packed into a nine-word sentence is amazing. And there are so many directions I could go with this. Do we examine the fact that macro-level economic policy and the day-to-day financial aspects of running even a relatively large corporation are COMPLETELY different animals?
Do we talk about Obama's capacity to understand complex concepts (economics, healthcare, etc) that might not have ever been his area of expertise and compare that capacity to Trump's? I'm sure you remember the time Obama held a town hall on healthcare, stood on stage for two hours straight taking questions, and clearly knew more about the issue than everyone else in the room. Could Trump do that on ANY policy position?
Speaking of Trump, do we give him some sort of credit for running business after business into the ground? Not paying his contractors? Not honoring his agreements?
Obama had little to no experience in negotiation.
If you ranked the most powerful positions in the all of the US, in my opinion, it would go:
President
SCOTUS
High level cabinet
Fed Chair
Senators
Governors
House of Reps
and on down
Obviously, the Senate Majority leader probably sits right next to SCOTUS in terms of power and the Speaker of the House outranks minority party Senators, but that's beside the point.
Obama was a Senator. Then he was the Democratic nominee for President. Are you implying that someone could get to be one of the 150ish most powerful people in the country and then be a major party nominee to be the most powerful person in the world and be an inexperienced or bad negotiator?
HRC was ridden with scandal as sec of state.
The scandals weren't actually scandals. Benghazi? Literally nothing she could have done about that. Emails? Nice to see everyone freaking out over Trump and the rest of his admin using personal, unsecured phones and email addresses.