True. But given who the enemy is, you will forgive me for wanting someone with proven substance rather than your estimation of character, not knowing you before today and all.
1 Like
How nice that we don’t actually have to have a primary, since you’ve already decided who can and cannot win. You should inform the other candidates so that they can withdraw accordingly.
And how nice that you’ve decided that O’Rourke will be engaging in illegal activity going forward. You should let him know that you’ve already decided his future career for him.
2 Likes
He’s a purity troll. Nothing and nobody is ever good enough for him. He spends far more of his time bashing potential allies than he does his enemies.
4 Likes
Nope, only Palin. And the fact that you are pretending that they are exactly alike shows just how deeply obsessed you are and how disconnected from reality.
You first have to establish precisely what “qualifications” are, in your opinion, critical to success as a President. Then you have to establish that these qualifications are, in fact, critical to that success by citing specific examples of past Presidents who did or did not possess those qualifications and demonstrating that their success, or lack thereof, could be determined by these qualifications. Then you have to establish that O’Rourke is missing those qualifications.
You’ve been challenged multiples times by multiple people here to show this. You never have, mostly because you cannot. I can start you off with a free clue: “experience” ain’t gonna cut it, as that will fail the test of actual Presidents who were and who were not “experienced.” There is no correlation between experience and performance in office as President.
And after you’ve done all that, you have to establish why you have accused the candidate of illegal activity, “grifter,” - a person who engages in petty or small-scale swindling.
And you’ve done all of this on the basis of nothing but blind prejudice. Which, come to think of it, could be said of the majority of your posts here.
3 Likes
Your opinion, which is worth one O-Rourke minus nine million dollars.
1 Like
Are you kidding? Experience matters enormously. Beto is no Abe Lincoln. If you think experience doesn’t matter, maybe your next door neighbor can perform your next colonoscopy.
3 Likes
Actually, that’s incorrect. Experience does not matter “enormously.” It doesn’t even matter, mostly because there is no experience that is equivalent to being President, as pretty much every President ever has stated repeatedly. If you look at the list of Presidents that we’ve had, there is no real correlation between “experience” and performance in office.
Actually experience matters, in the presidency and everything else in life. There is a correlation, all right. How did Bush the Dumber’s lack of experience work out for us? Of course there are exceptions, like Nixon - because having experience does not guarantee success, but having little or none guarantees failure. Every president was grateful for the experience they did have. Jack Kennedy famously said nothing can prepare one for the presidency - and he had only 14 years’ legislative experience (without much to show for it, quite frankly) with PT-109 being his executive experience. The older and wiser you get, the more you see the importance of competence and the consequences of incompetence. Dad was right on that one.
No, there really isn’t. The most experienced President of the past 50 years or so was probably George H. W. Bush. He was only a middlin’ President. Obama was one of the least experienced and yet he did pretty well.
Bush the Younger’s problem wasn’t lack of experience, it was lack of intelligence, just as is true of Trump. You cannot find a pattern among our 45 presidents where “experience” matters.
The least experienced, after Trump, was Bush the Dumber. And the truth about Bush 41 (who had less experience than Nixon or Johnson, for that matter) is for all the positions he held, were for short periods. Go ahead and study the guy. Obama is the best definition of outlier there is, and he still had a hell of a CV.
Maybe just anyone can do your job; I don’t know. Not mine. Not most that count. Certainly not the Cabinet positions. Or the woman or man who will do your next colonooscopy.
We’re talking about the Presidency here, not about other jobs. There is no job that truly prepares you for being President. I’m sorry you’re having so much trouble with this but a quick Google search would show you that this question has come up over and over again.
I repeat: there is no correlation between “experience” and performance as President. Shrub and Trump were both ignorant, intellectually incurious, and blindly partisan. No amount of “experience” can correct for these faults.
So every meaningful job except the President of the United States requires experience. Got it. I need no Google search, quick or otherwise, because I have studied the presidents, especially the modern ones, many of whom I have lived through.
No one is overlooking that stuff. It takes far more political skill to almost win a Senate seat in Texad than it takes to win a Senate seat in Illinois.
1 Like
You crib your remarks from Trump’s speeches?
Neither Trump nor Bernie are in a good position to talk about arm waving.
1 Like
[quote=“philmore, post:59, topic:86083, full:true”]I need no Google search, quick or otherwise, because I have studied the presidents, especially the modern ones, many of whom I have lived through.
[/quote]
Clearly, you have not, since you don’t even have your basic facts right and you are not able to defend your assertions. Put the Presidents in order of performance, 1 through 45; then do the same exercise for experience. Check the cross-correlation between those two lists. After you have done that, which you will not do, of course, you can come back here to talk about how much you have “studied the presidents.”
Or, hell, I’ll make it easy for you: just do the top 10 and bottom 10 of each list. You cannot and you will not, since that would make it clear that you simply have no idea what you’re talking about.
ROFL… Oh, I do so love a self-refuting post and the projection. Thank you for confirming that you cannot back up your assertions. Next time, do try a bit harder, won’t you? This was too easy.
Back at ya, including your own projection. Your infantile rants are unworthy of my attention. But hey I do recommend James McGregor Burns ('56, '70), and the new Joseph Levyveld is hugely underrated. But to each his own.
Beto is running as the telegenic wealthy white male who jumps up on coffeeshop counters and panders to Republicans. I think that fully covers it. On the other hand, Warren, for example, has serious and sound policy proposals. Therefore, Beto might do very well. After all, this is America, where Trump has >40% approval. Jumping up on coffeeshop counters could be a winning shtick.
1 Like
Dear heart, you were the one insisting that experience mattered, even though you have not, and cannot, define precisely what that “experience” consists of. You were the one insisting that you could show that experience correlated to performance in office. You were the one who insisted that you didn’t need to do even a basic Google search since you already knew so much.
And you were the one who has been completely unable to back up any of these assertions with anything resembling logic, reason, or data, which means that all you have left is childish attacks. It has been, and continues to be, absolutely hilarious watching you squirm, though.
I also found it hilarious that you compared the position of the President of the United States to a physician who performs colonoscopies. That one was so mindboggingly stupid that it didn’t even warrant a response.
Bernies’s policies.
Beto has policies and an enthusiasm and joy Sanders can’t muster.