If you can't organize an effective campaign can you run an Executive Branch of government? Campaign are decidedly less unwieldy, unburdened with government's entrenched incompetence.
If you perform a historically poor job as secretary of state, what makes you think you can run an executive branch of government?
Not replying, but just calling attention to the time-honored and retread technique here: stating something that is not universally agreed upon as if it is obvious and repeating it so many times that more and more people accept it. The same thing has been accomplished with great success about HRC's mendacity, starting w' that Saffire piece in the mid-90's. Without fumbling us into an unnecessary major war, there is simply no way any secretary of state can get into history's worst secretaries of state. That's for one. For another, the position just does not carry much power anymore, especially under Obama. But I acknowledge the smart political play here. The GOP must attack perceived strengths of Clinton, led by her vast experience compared to anyone else remotely considered a candidate for POTUS.
You could argue the opposite that the Dems are playing up this perceived need for experience based on the candidates available. They were arguing the exact opposite when Obama was their candidate. Obama certainly wasn't qualified for the position based on his personal experience at the time. I also disagree that Hillary is somehow "supremely qualified" for POTUS but you can't disagree that she has more experience as a politician than Trump. I just don't know that I agree it is a good thing especially with her record of putting her own personal interests above the interests of the state.
Yes, people who are mentally ill were called mentally ill instead of brave freedom fighters. You can take your PC fantasy world and shove it.
Another powerful speech by The Donald. The man is getting more presidential by the day. Get ready a hurricane is coming through and it's going to sweep all of the corrupt politicians.
RocketsLegend furiously masturbating away despite the reality of the situation. Glad you can stay happy my friend.
"What good fortune for leaders that people do not think." Hmm.... fiery rhetoric, blaming everyone except his followers for their problems, authoritarian and absolute views embracing no compromise or working towards a common goal, blaming groups/minorities outside your voting bloc for attacks on the real true nationals... unpredictable, and fierce changes to the campaign/party to ensure that it is a true vision of what the leader sees as the proper direction... stressing the individual cult of personality while demanding obedience from your followers.... last of course, go on the absolute offensive, be extremely vague in how you will accomplish your policy goals, and always keep pounding away until everyone assumes there must be some truth to what you say. "The victor will never be asked if he told the truth."
Again, this argument against Clinton doesn't hold water when Trump's response to his bankrupt casinos is: "All I can say is I wasn’t representing the country. I wasn’t representing the banks. I wasn’t representing anybody but myself.” Not saying Clinton is the savior but Clinton and Trump are interviewing for the very same job and should be held to the same standards.
I don't believe that Clinton's Laissez Fair fair attitude with national secrets as the SOS <> Trump making bad business decisions which were for him acceptable risks. it is an opinion and you and I are not going to agree
People really need to stop getting their Trump news from Facebook. So much misinformation spreading around this thread. So Sad.
We won't agree. I'd argue that you have no grounds, based on Trump's history, to believe he'd be any better than what we've already seen. He's repeatedly run his enterprises into the ground ...just as he's doing with his campaign. It's a very clear pattern. It's true that Clinton has some questions but I'd challenge you to demonstrate the actual impact of those decisions. Not in theoretical terms but in actual impact. Her "laissez Fair" attitude did not actually result in the loss of any national secrets, that I'm aware of. Agreed, not good but in the broader context, I find it hard to equate the two as equal. As you stated before, you hold Clinton to a higher standard than Trump. You are not alone on this. However, I don't understand that logic since they are applying for the same job. This attitude enables Trump's poor behavior, in general.
People need to grade to a curve to satisfy their internal biases for one political party preference or another. happens all the time really.
