Yes, yes, I know, buckets of bitter tears wept over the fact that Hills lost and The Donald won. Something I applaud of course, given that I wasn’t pro-Trump but I was absolutely anti-Hillary. As PJ O’Rourke has noted, she’s managed to, in the minds of all too many of the men out there, morph seamlessly from reminding all of she known as my first wife into my first mother in law. This is not an electorally winning look to be honest.
It really have to be said though that Hillary wasn’t qualified to be President. Not in the sense that all too many use it today. Amanda Marcotte for example:
The national tragedy that was the election of 2016, in which a conspiracy theory-minded half-literate racist demagogue named Donald Trump managed to defeat the eminently qualified Hillary Clinton in the presidential race,
The thing is, we’ve only a few qualifications for the office.
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.
Term limit amendment – US Constitution, Amendment XXII, Section 1 – ratified February 27, 1951
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
To which we’ve got to add one more. You’ve got to get elected.
Hillary didn’t get elected, she failed the most important of all the tests. She simply wasn’t eminently qualified…..
35- american Jacinda’s still have hope.
there’s a difference between being a bureaucrat and being a politician. Yeah, she won New York, but that’s a slam dunk for a democrat.
Personally, I actually want politicians who aren’t part of the system. OK, they might struggle a little with the ceremony, but my current choice of candidates are a barrister, a woman who was in the military (but I’m almost certain was part of HM Bureaucrats and Paperpushers) and a councillor of 30 years serving. Whether deliberately or otherwise, they’re just going to serve the machine, not the people.
Hillary has a vastly superior knowledge of the mechanisms of the U.S. government (which, by the way, makes it a certainty that she knew her recordkeeping practices were illegal). Apart from policy (Don’t Kill The (government) Job versus Make America Great Again), the key style difference was that Trump overcame a personal phobia and got willing to touch the hands of the peeps, whereas Hillary shielded herself from spontaneous questioning from anyone. Chozick’s new book on the Hillary campaign claims she tested the “deplorables” line in numerous garden parties before rolling it out nationwide via TelePrompTer on the entire nation,… Read more »
Hillary was probably eminently qualified if you desire a centralized bureaucracy centered in Washington controlling almost every aspect of your life. She might have been more effective than Obama at promulgating that dream of progressives everywhere. She’s nothing if not relentless. However, it seems that just enough people were pissed off about the prior 8 years to thwart that ambition.
Personally, I’ve long favored trying four years without a president.
Four years without federal budgets? We’ve been on autopilot and seem to be going back. Four years without changes to any federal law? How then to get lots and lots of programs to end? Four years without the nation hanging on every word the President says or tweets? This was to be achieved by having a central government of limited powers, bring it on. The office of President is not the problem.
You are a bit of a humorless type aren’t you?
PS — Regarding Marcotte’s name-calling (No, I am not going to visit Salon.com for more of this) — “conspiracy-theory-minded” — The main conspiracy, “They are tapping the phones at the Trump Tower,” was essentially true, though not literally as in wire taps. “half-literate” — That Trump does not read All The Right Books is not a bug but a feature. “racist” — Trump made refreshing statements that entering the U.S. illegally from Mexico self-selects for criminality and that “refugees” are more violent than Americans and bring their old-world blood feuds with them. Hillary claimed to have a bottle of hot… Read more »
in which a conspiracy theory-minded half-literate racist demagogue named Donald Trump managed to defeat the eminently qualified Hillary Clinton in the presidential race It’s actually pretty lol that shitlibs still refuse to interrogate their own prejudices about Donald J. Trump. They’ll go to their graves (or in Amanda’s case, probably die alone and be half-eaten by cats before the neighbours eventually investigate the smell coming from the bitter old lady’s apartment) believing that a semi-retarded bufoon managed to beat the entire US political establishment, the Deep State, untold billions of dollars in hostile media, the UN, Mexico, China, Saudi Arabia,… Read more »
Yeah, you’re hitting the nail on the head. The Democrats refuse to reflect on why a group they have the conceit to consider to be their natural constituency became so angry as to sic Trump on them. Thomas Frank sometimes comes close. He at least recognizes that the Dems have become irrelevant to many blue collar types. They just don’t understand it. They can only assume that these people really are too stupid to know what’s good for them. That should get them some more votes next time. Of course, Trump was also sic’d on the establishment Republicans. There were… Read more »
Trump picked a fight he could win, sounds extremely qualified to me