Time to come clean: Are you voting for Donald Trump?

L.T. Fan said:

Right now I think the election hinges on what the FBI has on Hillary and whether they will have the freedom to release and recommend their findings.

Click to expand...

2233boys said:

Trump doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell in winning the election. He is quite possibly the most unqualified candidate in our lifetimes.

If Hillary is indicted, Bernie, Biden or Warren run in her place, he will get beat worse.

Click to expand...

DLK150 said:

He owned the New Jersey Generals of the USFL back in the day. The "big splash" signing was Herschel Walker. I seem to remember Doug Flutie playing there as well but I can't remember if that was before or after he sold off his interest in the team. He eventually sold them to some oil guy. (Sound familiar?)

Click to expand...

L.T. Fan said:

Let's have a, look at the modern day Presidents.
Harry Truman. Inherited an office and a war. Did okay.
Dwight Eisenhower. No political experience. He did okay.
John K Kennedy. Political experience. Didn't finish a term before assination

Lyndon Johnson. Experienced politician. Led country into a bloody Viet Nam.
Richard Nixon. Experienced politician. Forced to resign or be impeached.
Gerald Ford. Experienced politician. Couldn't get elected to a term in office.
Jimmy Carter . Experienced politician. Brought about highest inflation rate in history.
Ronald Regan . Experienced politician. He did okay.
George HW Bush. Experienced politician. He did okay.
Bill Clinton. Experienced politician. Was impeached.
George W. Bush. Experienced politician. Created severe budget deficit.
Barack Obama. Inexperienced politician. Terms not yet defined by history.
So how do experienced politicians get a favored nod as best qualified?

Click to expand...

L.T. Fan said:

Let's have a, look at the modern day Presidents.
Harry Truman. Inherited an office and a war. Did okay.
Dwight Eisenhower. No political experience. He did okay.
John K Kennedy. Political experience. Didn't finish a term before assination

Lyndon Johnson. Experienced politician. Led country into a bloody Viet Nam.
Richard Nixon. Experienced politician. Forced to resign or be impeached.
Gerald Ford. Experienced politician. Couldn't get elected to a term in office.
Jimmy Carter . Experienced politician. Brought about highest inflation rate in history.
Ronald Regan . Experienced politician. He did okay.
George HW Bush. Experienced politician. He did okay.
Bill Clinton. Experienced politician. Was impeached.
George W. Bush. Experienced politician. Created severe budget deficit.
Barack Obama. Inexperienced politician. Terms not yet defined by history.
So how do experienced politicians get a favored nod as best qualified?

Click to expand...

townsend said:

I think this is grossly over simplified. Ike was a general, and his greatest challenge was foreign policy. Having large scale military leadership is a big big plus. Experience in the governorship is not nearly as applicable, since working with congress and serving as commander and chief are not part of the the governorship. There's plenty of governors who got the job despite being world class boobs. Frankly I think Clinton, Carter, And Bush struggles quite a bit having to learn this stuff in office.

Meanwhile George HW and Ike managed to have interventions that turned out alright. LBJ made a lot of poor decisions trying to coninue JFK's legacy. I'm pretty grateful Hillary won't be put into a similar situation, because I could see her making a similar mistake.

Bottom line, Truman, Ike, and HW were all more prepared to assume the position of commander and chief of the armed forces, and managed to admirably navigate the position. Barack, W Bush, Clinton, and Carter had some pretty tough growing pains in Libya, Iraq, Bosnia, and Iran respectively.

Click to expand...

L.T. Fan said:

It's not about an evaluation of presidents. It's whether being an experienced politician made them an better qualified. These are just bullet points with an indication that their past experiences didn't automatically make them a success in office. You have over analyzed.

Click to expand...

townsend said:

I'll admit to being over analytical it's in my nature. But the point was, all political experience is not equal. There's a reason why Carter and Reagan were considered political outsiders.

We've really changed the definition of what an antiestablishment candidate is. Guys like Carson and Trump (and Herman Cain from the last cycle) weren't just inexperienced in politics, they were people with very little understanding of the macroeconomic, political, and diplomatic knowledge that the least of the president's staffers should have a reasonable command of.

Romney probably wouldn't have been considered an establishment candidate in the 90s, he was an ex governor from a liberal state, that sounds more like Reagan than HW Bush.

Click to expand...

boozeman said:

He was one of the primary reasons the USFL failed.

Click to expand...

L.T. Fan said:

It's not about an evaluation of presidents. It's whether being an experienced politician made them an better qualified. These are just bullet points with an indication that their past experiences didn't automatically make them a success in office. You have over analyzed.

Click to expand...