Originally Posted by wdmso
would you like me to list why she is the best qualified you can look it up .. so compared to trump let see US Senator 9 years 4 years as US Secretary of State ..Clinton became a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2003. 30 years of public service .. much legislation sponsored and co sponsored good idea how she'll govern
Why are those "qualifications" for President? Being a Senator qualifies someone for President? Presidential duties (per the Constitution) are not the same as Senatorial duties. Secretary of State at least is part of the Executive branch, but her accomplishments as Secretary were not shining examples of success. Quite the contrary, they were marked with failure. And thirty years of public service without much work in the private sector would make her a political apparatchik out of touch with regular folks. Most lifetime politicians favor "governing" on the side of party hackery, which is what most people don't like (except when their hacks give them some goodies).
And how is a President, per the Constitution, supposed to govern? Will Hilary faithfully execute the legislation that a Republican Congress passes? Or disregard it and counter it with her own brilliant ideas which is a modern notion of what a President is expected to do, and which is the mark of top down Progressive government--that elected benevolent dictatorship thing that you think is so silly to believe exists.
Here are the official (per the Constitution) qualifications for POTUS:
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
The qualifications were intended to include any Citizen, 35 years or older, who had resided within the U.S. for at least fourteen years. There is no mention of being a Senator or career politician. It was intended to be that open with the idea that our politicians came from the ranks of The People, not solely from the ranks of government. It was expected that the citizens were the source of all power in the Republic, including social, political, religious, and economic. The Career politician was not looked on with favor as he/she is now. There certainly was no desire to create a political officer who would "govern" with sovereign like power over The People. It was the citizens who were to be sovereign, and the politicians were to be servants.
We have been transformed into a people wanting the whip rather than wielding it. Here is an interesting insight by Doug Casey, a best selling author and political advisor, into the difference between how a career politician thinks versus how a business person does, especially one who chooses politics later:
". . . there’s a mind-set that’s common to those who have made politics their life’s work. They think fundamentally differently from businesspeople who learn to make things work both practically and economically over an extended period. The latter must do so, or go out of business. Political leaders, however, don’t have this restriction. For them, the job is not one of being profitable and effective in satisfying the public with a good or service. For them, profitability is irrelevant. Further, they need not satisfy the public; they need merely to succeed in imposing their programmes onto the public.
"Politicians approach life from an entirely different viewpoint from businesspeople and businesspeople almost invariably fail to understand this. Although a former businessman who has entered public life may be able to place a foot in each camp successfully, those who enter politics early on, or those who have an initial career in the Civil Service but later switch to politics, lack the fundamental understanding of the workings of economics and the free market.
"They don’t so much seek to undermine the free market as much as they simply don’t recognize its relevance. (This, understandably, is a fact that businessmen find hard to acknowledge or adapt to when dealing with political leaders.)
"Career politicians assume that the nature of leadership is to burden the populace with legislation and taxation. They truly don’t understand the concept of limited government. It’s an absurd anomaly to them, so the question is therefore only the manner in which they burden the populace. Lessening the burden is simply not an issue. Whilst they understand that voters wish to be told that the burden will be diminished, it’s not by any means the intent of leaders to do so. In a politician’s mind, the purpose of the existence of the populace is to fill the trough for the leaders. And, of course, the fuller, the better.
"In working for, with, and (often) against political leaders on issues, I’ve found this to be almost universally true, regardless of which country they represent. Indeed, I’ve rarely been successful when appealing to any leader to drop a proposal because it might not be in the interest of the populace. I have, however, often been successful in getting a leader to drop a proposal when I’ve advised him that it may be used by the opposition to cost him votes in the next election.
"Again, the only exceptions to this have been those who were not career politicians. Regardless of whether I was dealing with my own country’s leaders, British parliamentarians, or US congressmen, virtually all of them have been career politicians and have, by definition, regarded their own position of power to be the primary concern.
"The UK has had career politicians since time immemorial; the US had its first presidential career politician as early as 1825, in John Quincy Adams. In my own country, the Cayman Islands, career politicians are not quite as common as in the US and UK. Consequently, we enjoy a somewhat more enlightened perception amongst our political leaders than the US and UK. Many come from the private sector and successfully return to it after they leave office. (It’s also true that career politicians I’ve known that have been ousted typically have had a difficult time obtaining and retaining employment after leaving office, as they simply don’t understand business or real life.)"
some reason for trump from on line :He Won’t Back Down He Can Run an Economy He is not Hillary. He is not your ordinary politician. He would repeal the Affordable Care Act. He speaks for us little people.
Make no mistake, there is an establishment plot against him..His business accomplishments .. nothing suggest how he will Govern
|