Would you vote for Michelle Obama?

[quade 4]

Elisha

No one gives a crap about qualifications if the person is corrupt as death.

I think people do care about subjective opinions.

Yours is. Mine is not.

They care, just not the way you think. It's funny too because you just dismissed out of hand the word qualified used objectively, yet you appear to have no issue whatsoever making a completely subjective claim.

Double standard much?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

quade

***No one gives a crap about qualifications if the person is corrupt as death.

I think people do care about subjective opinions.

Yours is. Mine is not.

They care, just not the way you think. It's funny too because you just dismissed out of hand the word qualified used objectively, yet you appear to have no issue whatsoever making a completely subjective claim.

Double standard much?

Well, I think both the subjective and objective qualifications matter.

Objective being largely the experience that HRC has. I said before, and still believe that from an "experience and understanding of how to do the job" perspective, HRC is the most qualified candidate for Pres that I've seen in my life. Perhaps in the entire history of the country.

Subjectively, her behavior her entire adult life has shown her to be ambitious, fairly ruthless, and largely lacking in integrity. No worse than GWB, or her husband. Certainly not worse than Nixon.

But, even using that fairly subjective metric, she is head and shoulders above Trump. His treatment of investors, vendors and employees (including illegal immigrants) in the companies he has run (and run into bankruptcy) is pretty telling. His treatment of his wives and just about any other woman he has encountered is also rather damning. His "Trump University" is clearly criminal fraud. His bribes to the Attorneys General who were investigating him (for the Trump U and other things) were rather blatant. His "Foundation" is a sham.

I'd say he has less integrity than any President in the modern age (including Nixon).
He also has far, far less of the objective qualifications than any other President.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

It would be tragic if he was to just lose it, decide that life was not worth living anymore, put a gun to the back of his head and pull the trigger (funny how that can happen to people with insider knowledge of the Clinton criminal empire).

Dork!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Elisha 1]

quade

***No one gives a crap about qualifications if the person is corrupt as death.

I think people do care about subjective opinions.

Yours is. Mine is not.

They care, just not the way you think. It's funny too because you just dismissed out of hand the word qualified used objectively, yet you appear to have no issue whatsoever making a completely subjective claim.

Double standard much?

No....not quite. I think it was originally trotted out specifically to portray Hillary as the best candidate ever (by using such a strong word as most qualified ever) to deflect from all of her moral/policy/favorability failings over the years. She's the most qualified ever, thus there is no way anyone could conceive of NOT voting for her (let alone voting for her out of fear of Trump).

[jakee 1,564]

Elisha

I think it was originally trotted out specifically to portray Hillary as the best candidate ever

I think it was trotted out specifically to highlight Trump's absolute lack of experience, and as a counterpoint to Trump's claims of being the best everything candidate ever. Healthiest ever despite being morbidly obese. Best 'at the military' ever despite never having served and being up against the Supreme Allied Commander in the European theatre of WW2.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[yoink 321]

434

Would you vote for Michelle Obama instead of the two running candidates?

I don't know. What would her policies be?


This is the problem. People vote for personalities....

[Elisha 1]

jakee

***I think it was originally trotted out specifically to portray Hillary as the best candidate ever

I think it was trotted out specifically to highlight Trump's absolute lack of experience, and as a counterpoint to Trump's claims of being the best everything candidate ever. Healthiest ever despite being morbidly obese. Best 'at the military' ever despite never having served and being up against the Supreme Allied Commander in the European theatre of WW2.

Maybe, but instantly saw it as to combat her 60% (and likewise Trump's) unfavorability rating. It's not enough that Trump is just bad, so Hillary is better. It's the image that, well, she's NOT really bad! She's just so good with ALLLLLL her qualifications.

[yoink 321]

Elisha

******I think it was originally trotted out specifically to portray Hillary as the best candidate ever

I think it was trotted out specifically to highlight Trump's absolute lack of experience, and as a counterpoint to Trump's claims of being the best everything candidate ever. Healthiest ever despite being morbidly obese. Best 'at the military' ever despite never having served and being up against the Supreme Allied Commander in the European theatre of WW2.

Maybe, but instantly saw it as to combat her 60% (and likewise Trump's) unfavorability rating. It's not enough that Trump is just bad, so Hillary is better. It's the image that, well, she's NOT really bad! She's just so good with ALLLLLL her qualifications.


When both candidates are a giant steaming pile of lying, cretinious dogshit, having some experience and qualifications for the job is a difference maker.

[Boomerdog 0]

YGTBFKM?!?!?!?!?

[winsor 236]

quade

******Michelle vs Hillary isn't even a contest. Hillary is more qualified.

Michelle vs Trump also isn't a contest. Michelle isn't insane.

I wish people would stop with this "more qualified" (or most/best/whatever) misleading crap. I'm sure John Stumpf could be considered more/most/best "qualified" for a CEO position, but that doesn't mean anyone really wants him to be a CEO anymore.

I'm unclear what you're even attempting to say. Hillary has been in politics for a long time. Has served as a Senator and Secretary of State. Was in the situation room as Secretary of State sitting beside the President when Bin Laden was was killed.

It's not a matter of the subjective. Hillary is OBJECTIVELY more qualified than Trump to be President. There's nothing misleading about it whatsoever.

I realize she has been on the scene for quite a while, but I'm kind of fuzzy about what she has actually accomplished.

Help me out on this one.

[gowlerk 2,251]

You are not the first person to ask this.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/carly-fiorina-debate-hillary-clintons-greatest-accomplishment-213157

It will leave you still a little fuzzy. Because it is mostly a list of small steps along the way to much larger goals. But it will also point to some of her priorities.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[rehmwa 2]

Elisha

No....not quite. I think it was originally trotted out specifically to portray Hillary as the best candidate ever (by using such a strong word as most qualified ever) to deflect from all of her moral/policy/favorability failings over the years. She's the most qualified ever, thus there is no way anyone could conceive of NOT voting for her (let alone voting for her out of fear of Trump).

WolfRJ

Objective being largely the experience that HRC has. I said before, and still believe that from an "experience and understanding of how to do the job" perspective, HRC is the most qualified candidate for Pres that I've seen in my life. Perhaps in the entire history of the country.

Subjectively, her behavior her entire adult life has shown her to be ambitious, fairly ruthless, and largely lacking in integrity. No worse than GWB, or her husband. Certainly not worse than Nixon.

But, even using that fairly subjective metric, she is head and shoulders above Trump. His treatment of investors, vendors and employees (including illegal immigrants) in the companies he has run (and run into bankruptcy) is pretty telling. His treatment of his wives and just about any other woman he has encountered is also rather damning. His "Trump University" is clearly criminal fraud. His bribes to the Attorneys General who were investigating him (for the Trump U and other things) were rather blatant. His "Foundation" is a sham.

agree or not, Both of these are very well stated and devoid of the usual kool-aid approach. Thank you

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[434 2]

Why? When all other sain and healthy candidates your country have, is never mentioned. You also managed to vote for Reagen, who is today one of the best presidents you ever had. At least some rankings show him as one of the best, and he was hand in an with some scumbags as well.

[masterblaster72 0]

434

You also managed to vote for Reagen, who is today one of the best presidents you ever had. At least some rankings show him as one of the best

This myth needs to stop. He was a POS who initiated the now decades-old process of the erosion of the middle class.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[Erroll 80]

yoink

***Would you vote for Michelle Obama instead of the two running candidates?

I don't know. What would her policies be?


This is the problem. People vote for personalities....

Listening to her speech in support of Hillary yesterday, I couldn't help thinking that you could do a whole lot worse than Michelle Obama. That lady is a 'powerful orator' , to quote one news source.