Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
That was one person and if you read the whole article You would see her thoughts on him being president.
"Anything problematic for being president of the United States?
I’ve worked for a lot of developers, and the biggest developers in the world. I don’t think any of them should be president. I don’t think that he has the experience and the knowledge of the law, the knowledge of politics to be president."
|
I did read the whole article. And she did, for the most and main body of the article, praise Trump for his methods, including selecting teams to carry out his vision and working with them toward success. And she attributed his success to his own direction, methods, and ability to promote and carry things to completion. And she said that she would gladly work with him again.
Her small negative statement regarding his qualification for being President was solely on his lack of experience in law and politics. It was not about him supposedly being a terrible, incompetent, sexist, homophobe, etc. The experience thing was her opinion. If you agree with that, I disagree with you and her. The few qualifications listed in the Constitution don't agree with either of you. And the fruits of those kind of "qualified" politicians who have been running the federal government is proof to me that those qualifications don't necessarily lead to good government. Otherwise, we should all be satisfied with the present state of national debt, and government squabbling of how it should intrude in every aspect of our lives.
I agree more with what W. F. Buckley said: "I would rather be governed by the first 2000 people in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2000 people on the faculty of Harvard University."