U.S. Election: It's Gonna Be a Huge Thread, It's Gonna Be the Best Thread!

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

16 hours ago, Kalbear said:

You're right - it was a civil suit that was settled out of court. He was not charged criminally. The details are here, if you want to see. 

That said, he is actually going to be on trial for Trump university coming up. That's a class-action lawsuit, which is also not a criminal lawsuit, but is still a lot closer to one than anything Clinton has done. 

The only "civil suit" detailed in that article is his divorce. 

[Maester Drew]

25 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

^ignore, I'm having problems with quoting right now.

 

I find this argument that it must be sexist to say Hillary is unqualified to be rather silly. Would it have been racist for someone to say the same thing about Obama eight years ago?

 

As for dishonesty? Hello, people have been saying all politicians are dishonest since time immemorial. So it's not a new thing if that is said abut her, nor is it sexist.

 

Do I think she is qualified? Of course. But most of the public aren't considering that anymore. They see her qualifications as signs that she is part of the Establishment (a point against her) and Trump comes along as an "outsider" (a point for him). And of course Trump's supporters point to his "business experience" as his qualifications to be President.

 

Quote

<ignore this one. Again, technical issue>

[TrackerNeil]

3 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

Do I think she is qualified? Of course. But most of the public aren't considering that anymore. 

Are there data that support this claim?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

But it does mean we should take accusations of dishonesty as overblown and sometimes baseless.

As Nestor pointed out, there is a balance. Claims that Clinton is the most dishonest person ever are over the top, just like claims that she's super honest and this is all based on sexism are over the top.

[mormont]

48 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

A familiarity with White House protocol and procedure isn't really that great of a boon.  Nearly every other President got along just fine without it.

They did, but then again, you're arguing yourself into an odd position here: that being, Clinton has no experience, but lack of experience isn't important.

48 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

As for extensive experience, sure you got to go to some dinners and meet diplomats.

The First Lady does a great deal more than just attend diplomatic functions. She normally organises and hosts them. In doing so she deals directly with government officials from other countries and with US politicians too. She's given an office and employees to help her do all this stuff. She doesn't just get to wander in and have a free meal and a nice chat.

Again, your idea of what a First Lady does seems to be somewhat dismissive and cliched: you seem to think she's just a passenger, who wears what she's told, does what she's told and has no contribution to make. If you truly believe the role of First Lady involves more than picking out curtains, it's not showing in this conversation. And you don't address the specifics of what Clinton actually did in that role.

[Maester Drew]

1 minute ago, TrackerNeil said:

Are there data that support this claim?

Just look at the wide support for Trump. They ain't supporting him because of his political experience (his lack thereof to be precise).

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

19 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

 

I think you're being overly dismissive here, but I'm not getting into a "no I'm not, yes you are" thing. Clinton's record is available for all to see and I don't need to defend that. First Ladies get to see a LOT of what goes on in the Oval Office, and Hillary saw a lot more than the average First Lady because she actually worked with policy. 

Also, your assertion that Clinton has no qualifications is patently absurd. I guess by your lights winning a Senate seat two times running and being appointed secretary of state is just a breeze. If that's true, excuse me while I go get Obama to make me ambassador to the UK. It's so easy!

Finally, Obama did not have to "invite" Clinton back to serve during his second term. The SoS serves until she resigns or is dismissed by the president, and neither of those happened, at least to my knowledge.

Tracker,

One of them happened.  She chose to resign.  Or, presumably, she would still be Secretary of State.

[TrackerNeil]

8 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

Just look at the wide support for Trump. They ain't supporting him because of his political experience (his lack thereof to be precise).

So, in other words, you have no data.

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Tracker,

One of them happened.  She chose to resign.  Or, presumably, she would still be Secretary of State.

Damn. I was writing that post while doing something else, and it shows. Editing now...

[Maester Drew]

Just now, TrackerNeil said:

So, in other words, you have no data.

I must be backed with data for every post I make?  Isn't it obvious that many voters aren't looking to experience if many arre willing to support the likes of Trump? But by all means, present the data that disproves my assertion. 

[TrackerNeil]

7 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

I must be backed with data for every post I make?  Isn't it obvious that many voters aren't looking to experience if many arre willing to support the likes of Trump? But by all means, present the data that disproves my assertion. 

Clever--you turned my request around, but I'm not biting.

I'm afraid, Maester Drew, that the burden of proof falls on he who makes the assertion, and that person is you. Your position was that the public is no longer considering qualifications, and I asked you to substantiate that claim. If you can't, I advise withdrawing it.

[Maester Drew]

3 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Clever--you turned my request around. I'm afraid, Maester Drew, that the burden of proof falls on he who makes the assertion, and that person is you. Your position was that the public is no longer considering qualifications, and I asked you to substantiate that claim. If you can't, I advise withdrawing it.

Amateurs in the Oval Office- the Atlantic

48% of GOP Voters Prefer A Candidate Without Political Experience- Rasmussen

What voters want in a president today, and how their views have changed- Pew Research

 

Happy? 

[TrackerNeil]

5 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

Amateurs in the Oval Office- the Atlantic

48% of GOP Voters Prefer A Candidate Without Political Experience- Rasmussen

What voters want in a president today, and how their views have changed- Pew Research

 

Happy? 

Thank you!

I don't know that these numbers prove exactly what you're asserting, but they certainly give an idea of what people think. I myself don't think voters get overly hung up on experience. For example, I don't think Palin's slim resume was why she was a disastrous VP nominee; the way she humiliated herself on the public stage was a much more likely cause. Barack Obama did not have a great deal of government experience (although certainly more than Palin), and yet voters elected him. 

However, what started all this was the up-thread asserting that Clinton has "no qualifications" for the presidency, an assertion that is simply absurd.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

27 minutes ago, mormont said:

They did, but then again, you're arguing yourself into an odd position here: that being, Clinton has no experience, but lack of experience isn't important.

The First Lady does a great deal more than just attend diplomatic functions. She normally organises and hosts them. In doing so she deals directly with government officials from other countries and with US politicians too. She's given an office and employees to help her do all this stuff. She doesn't just get to wander in and have a free meal and a nice chat.

Party-Planner In Chief? 

Not exactly a compelling case for Presidential experience. 

 

[mormont]

4 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

Party-Planner In Chief? 

Not exactly a compelling case for Presidential experience. 

 

There's rather more to it than that. But again, there's a dismissive tone there that's interesting. If a man organised and hosted a diplomatic function, that would be serious. That would be diplomatic work. That would be relevant experience for a top job involving diplomacy. But a woman? I'm sure she just picked out the napkins.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

4 minutes ago, mormont said:

 

There's rather more to it than that. But again, there's a dismissive tone there that's interesting. If a man organised and hosted a diplomatic function, that would be serious. That would be diplomatic work. That would be relevant experience for a top job involving diplomacy. But a woman? I'm sure she just picked out the napkins.

If at first you don't succeed, accuse the other person of sexism. Interesting strategy. 

I imagine that most of the people involved in the nuts and bolts of organizing diplomatic functions (the vast, vast majority of which don't actually take place at the White House) are actually men. And I don't think that it conveys upon them any particular preparedness for being President. 

[alguien]

2 hours ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

Former first lady isn't a qualification.  She completed one term as a senator, and only two years of another.  4 years as Secretary of State and her biggest accomplishment was 'resetting' relations with Russia.  She did such an amazing job Obama didn't ask her to come back for his second term.  No, she doesn't have any qualifications.

Posted this link earlier in the thread, but it bears repeating: she has a rather impressive resume, actually. 

ETA: You know what, I'm just gonna paste in the relevant list:

Quote

•First ever student commencement speaker at Wellesley College.
•President of the Wellesley Young Republicans
•Intern at the House Republican Conference
•Distinguished graduate of Yale Law School
•Editorial board of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action
•Appointed to Senator Walter Mondale's Subcommittee on Migratory Labor.
•Co-founded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families
•Staff attorney for Children's Defense Fund
•Faculty member in the School of Law at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
•Former Director of the Arkansas Legal Aid Clinic.
•First female chair of the Legal Services Corporation
•First female partner at Rose Law Firm.
•Former civil litigation attorney.
•Former Law Professor at the University of Arkansas School of Law.
•twice listed by The National Law Journal as one of the hundred most influential lawyers in America
•Former First Lady of Arkansas.
•Arkansas Woman of the Year in 1983
•Chair of the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession
•twice named by the National Law Journal as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America
•created Arkansas's Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youth
•led a task force that reformed Arkansas's education system
•Board of directors of Wal-Mart and several other corporations
•Instrumental in passage of the State Children's Health Insurance Program
•Promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses
•Successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health
•Worked to investigate reports of an illness that affected veterans of the Gulf War (now recognized as Gulf War Syndrome)
•Helped create the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice
•Initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act
•First FLOTUS in US History to hold a postgraduate degree
•Traveled to 79 countries during time as FLOTUS
•Helped create Vital Voices, an international initiative to promote the participation of women in the political processes of their countries.
•Served on five Senate committees:
  -Committee on Budget (2001–2002)
  -Committee on Armed Services (2003–2009)
  -Committee on Environment and Public Works (2001–2009)
  -Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (2001–2009)
  -Special Committee on Aging.
•Member of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
•Instrumental in securing $21 billion in funding for the World Trade Center site's redevelopment
•Leading role in investigating the health issues faced by 9/11 first responders.
•In the aftermath of September 11th, she worked closely with her senior Senate counterpart from New York, Sen. Charles Schumer, on securing $21.4 billion in funding for the World Trade Center redevelopment.
• Middle East ceasefire. In November 2012, Secretary of State Clinton brokered a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas.
•Introduced the Family Entertainment Protection Act, intended to protect children from inappropriate content found in video games.
•First ex-FLOTUS in US History to be elected to the United States Senate (and re-elected)
•Two-term New York Senator
  -(senate stats here: https://www.govtrack.us/...)
  -(voting record here: http://votesmart.org/...)
•Former US Secretary of State
•GRAMMY Award Winner
•Author

 

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

1 hour ago, Lyanna Stark said:

As mormont said, doesn't that depend on what she actually did in that position?

Further, I find that sneering sort of commentary an example of the casual sexism I often see attributed to Clinton. Again I agree with mormont, that this seems to imply she might as well have been First Curtain-picker. The fact that she has been First Lady seems to be something held against her, for the sole reason that being First Lady is seen as akin to being some sort of glorified trophy, which infers that she is a brainless, incompetent pretty face whose only skill was standing next to her husband and smile. It also builds on the prejudice that married women automatically just become accessories to their husbands and cease to be their own person.

How about looking at how she compares to her competitors instead? Is she more qualified than Trump, or Mr Machine-gun bacon (if we now count him in) or Sanders? From an outsider's point of view, this doesn't even seem to be any questions here, so I fail to understand why her qualifications are even in question. If she were a man, I'd bet you my old boots this would never have become an issue at all.

 

That she should have to suffer for what her husband did some 20 odd years ago is outrageous and awful. And yes, sexist. Unfortunately not surprising, however. Completely agree that people can disagree with her on policy, but the "unqualified" and "not trustworthy" thing is really depressing to hear since the absolute bulk of it is really just a thin veneer over casual sexism.

Being First Lady isn't being held against her at all.  It's the fact that she's using her experience as First Lady as part of her experience and background.  She is the one who is putting forward her history as First Lady as a selling point.  But don't let that stand in the way of your femsplaining how saying that First Lady experience shouldn't count as a qualification for President means that I or anyone else thinks she is a brainless, incompetent pretty face.

Go ahead and compare her to her competitors all you want.  Their qualifications, or lack of qualifications, has no bearing on whether Clinton herself is qualified.  I'm sure there will be, and in fact, there already have been plenty of attacks on Trump's qualifications even though he is, gasp, a man.

Clinton is fair game for criticism based on her husband's actions because, in some cases, she is accused of being a part of them, especially in covering up his alleged sexual assaults.

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

 

I think you're being overly dismissive here, but I'm not getting into a "no I'm not, yes you are" thing. Clinton's record is available for all to see and I don't need to defend that. First Ladies get to see a LOT of what goes on in the Oval Office, and Hillary saw a lot more than the average First Lady because she actually worked with policy. 

Also, your assertion that Clinton has no qualifications is patently absurd. I guess by your lights winning a Senate seat two times running and being appointed secretary of state is just a breeze. If that's true, excuse me while I go get Obama to make me ambassador to the UK. It's so easy!

Finally, Obama did not have to "invite" Clinton back to serve during his second term. The SoS serves until she resigns or is dismissed by the president, and to my knowledge she was not dismissed. She resigned.

Winning a Senate seat as a Democratic candidate in NY is pretty much a breeze; a non-democrat hasn't won that election since 1986.  Even then, she had to carpet-bag to a liberal state to get elected.  The only reason she got the SoS job was because Obama wanted to sideline his biggest rival in the party.  It's interesting that in all these 'rebuttals' no one is challenging my assertion that her biggest accomplishment was 'resetting' relations with Russia, which as we can see now was a disaster.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

17 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

However, what started all this was the up-thread asserting that Clinton has "no qualifications" for the presidency, an assertion that is simply absurd.

It's patently absurd to suggest that Clinton has no qualifications for the presidency.

But just to play devil's advocate, which nominees over the last 30 years or so do you think she's more qualified than? Because I can only point to Obama, Trump and The Lesser. 

[BloodRider]

1 hour ago, Maester Drew said:

Just look at the wide support for Trump. They ain't supporting him because of his political experience (his lack thereof to be precise).

Thats the thing.  Trump doesn't have wide support.  He has fervent support from a narrow slice.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/04/07/ap-poll-negative-view-of-trump-nears-70-percent/

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

7 minutes ago, BloodRider said:

Thats the thing.  Trump doesn't have wide support.  He has fervent support from a narrow slice.

As of April 26th, over 10 million people have voted for Trump.  That's hardly a narrow slice.  In fact, that's more people than have voted for Sanders.