General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The most qualified human being to EVER run for President? No contest [View all]Martin Eden
(15,554 posts)Just to clarify, so there is no misunderstanding:
"Can we find a candidate who neither owned slaves nor voted for the Iraq war?" was a reference to the upcoming presidential election. Candidate is the key word in the subject title of my post to which you responded. John Adams, though a very qualified Founder of our republic, is not eligible to be a candidate in the 2016 election.
I was working on the assumption that the intent of this thread in extolling the presidential qualifications of Hillary Clinton is to advance an argument that we should vote for her based on those qualifications. Was that a reasonable assumption on my part, or should this thread be taken entirely out of the context of the upcoming presidential election and viewed merely as a hypothetical comparison of HC with every human being who ever lived?
I hope I've made myself perfectly clear on this. For further clarity, I will expand upon my other posts in response to the OP in this thread:
Hillary Clinton demonstrated abysmal judgment in a critically important matter of war and peace. "Qualifications" are incomplete if one only looks at a resume' of previous positions held. For example, Dick Cheney has a long resume' of powerful positions in national government. However, that alone is insufficient to convince me to vote for him if he were to become a candidate for office. Are his actual record and policy positions in accordance with the direction I think our country should take?
It should be obvious the above paragraph is an exercise in logic using an example to make a point, so please don't construe it as an attempt by me to conflate Hillary Clinton with Dick Cheney. The principle at work here applies to every human being who ever lived regarding their "qualifications" for the office of POTUS. Ideas matter. The actual record matters.
And for the record, Hillary Clinton demonstrated abysmal judgment in a critically important matter of war and peace. That, by itself, is a dis-qualifier in my book.