allisji wrote:my comment was simply tongue in cheek. Anyone who is 35, who is a US citizen by birth, and who has held permanent residence in the USA for 14 years is just as qualified as she is. The only obvious difference of course being that she has negligently mishandled classified information and subsequently erased over 30,000 documents after being given a congressional subpoena (among other acts of corruption such as pay for play, etc.)mojo84 wrote:That's the bare minimum to be qualified. My question was more about what makes her infoman's preferred candidate. The progressives are the ones that always say she is the best qualified. Based on the bare minimums you cite, they both meet the qualifications.allisji wrote:Per the constitution, she is qualified.jason812 wrote:[sarcasm]You mean being "married" to a former President, getting elected to the Senate, appointed Secretary of State, and being in politics for her entire adult life isn't enough of an accomplishment? [sarcasm]mojo84 wrote:Beyond just saying "she is the one best qualified for the job", specifically what accomplishments and policy positions make her your preferred candidate?infoman wrote:It's dumb for anyone to think that Clinton would somehow do away with license to carry on Texas. People feared that would happen when Obama was elected too, & that was dumb. I'm voting for Hillary & proud of it. That doesn't mean I'm "anti-gun", it means I have the common sense to know that Texas will still have the license to carry regardless of who's president. It's a state issue. Assuming she gets elected, I'll be here 4 years from now telling everyone "I told you so" when there will still be a Texas license to carry just like there is now.
That's all I have ever heard about her "qualifications" to run for President.
Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
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.
I think Jason's point is being prior 1st lady, senator and SOS does not necessarily make her the best qualified and who our country needs at this time.
Then again, I am confident you already know that and are just attempting to stir the pot. How about you answering the question, what specific accomplishments has she achieved that makes her so much better a candidate than Trump.
She's a national security threat, a treasonous crook, and should be in jail at the very least. But even if she was in jail, she still would probably find a win to cheat out a victory in the election....
Let it be known, I am voting for Trump. I think that he may be onto something with some of his policy ideas. I absolutely think that the political system needs to be upset and he's the only one who will do that. That said, I think that he's a liar in that he's denying that he's mistreated and abused his own power and wealth. I think that he needs to apologize to people who he has mistreated and abused, and more importantly seek forgiveness. I desparately hope that he is indeed a changed man and I believe that he is. I wish very badly that there was someone with a more honorable past than him that would carry through with some of his key ideas, and couple them with a limited government position that would reduce the national debt and put America on a path to a balanced budget. I don't think that Donald is going to win this election, but I hope that the republicans can retain control of the congress and I think that they will. I hope that the movement that Donald has started will carry on in the republican party behind the leadership of Donald Trump's supporters and inner circle. And I hope that a republican congress can do something about Hillary after she's elected.
Sorry. My detector was not tuned in.
This election has me wound a little tight.