What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Healing And Moving Forward - Thoughts? (1 Viewer)

The Z Machine said:
If Hillary or Bill or Chelsea did something illegal, then go after them.  I'm no defender of Bill Clinton's behavior while in office.  I think he did a lot of unethical things and should have been removed from office for perjury.

But this list recent election had very little to do with the Clintons and lot more to do with the Trumps.  Trump was unqualified and not prepared to be POTUS, and it didn't seem like he learned on the job much. 
Click to expand...
Obama did what before he became POTUS?  Nothing. He was a no-show Senator for 4 years and then became POTUS.  I hardly would've called him "qualified".  You can't talk about qualifications if you voted for Obama, IMO. 

And what do you consider "qualified", btw?  According to the US Constitution you only have to be 35 years old and a US Citizen.  What are these other "qualifications" you seem to think are necessary?  Who gets to determine what those "qualifications" need to be?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BladeRunner said:
Obama did what before he became POTUS?  Nothing. He was a no-show Senator for 4 years and then became POTUS.  I hardly would've called him "qualified". 

And what do you consider "qualified", btw?  According to the US Constitution you only have to be 35 years old to be "qualified".  That's all you really need.
Click to expand...
Qualified in termperment and some experience in government. Obama had both of those things. 

I said this back in 2016 that Trump has very little interest in learning and was not inquisitive about the world around him.  At the time, I didn't know he was a world class narcissist, with only a brief acquaintance with the truth.

A person with those traits should not be leading this country.  This is why I would say he's unqualified. 

 
The Z Machine said:
Qualified in termperment and some experience in government. Obama had both of those things. 

I said this back in 2016 that Trump has very little interest in learning and was not inquisitive about the world around him.  At the time, I didn't know he was a world class narcissist, with only a brief acquaintance with the truth.

A person with those traits should not be leading this country.  This is why I would say he's unqualified. 
Click to expand...
fair enough.  Thank you!  👍

 
The Z Machine said:
No, it doesn't.  Many people felt Trump and his enablers are stain on the history of this democratic Republic. It has little to do with Hillary losing. Rather it was the election of a corrupt narcissist that was ill equiped to be the leader of the country and the politicians that did nothing to reign him in that warrants the calls for a reckoning. 

We as a country need to put an end to this terrible chapter in our book of democracy. 
Click to expand...
As someone who didn’t vote for Hillary (why are we still talking about her???) I can agree with you and assure you it does not. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The General said:
This is what would make Mitch’s act acceptable? 
Click to expand...
You asked a question and he answered it. I happen to agree with him on Obama’s mistakes. 

 
BladeRunner said:
Also, you can't call Trump corrupt and completely ignore the Clintons.
Click to expand...


BladeRunner said:
You can't talk about qualifications if you voted for Obama, IMO. 
Click to expand...
This knife cuts both ways.  Can't defend Trump without defending these two......again.......two sides......same coin.

 
Obama was much more qualified both in terms of government experience, leadership, and temperament than Trump...its laughable that its even a debate.

 
sho nuff said:
Obama was much more qualified both in terms of government experience, leadership, and temperament than Trump...its laughable that its even a debate.
Click to expand...
MIGHT be the wrong thread but . . . Trump soundly beats Obama in each of those categories. Unless you restrict the definition of government experience to narrowly mean time in elected office, then yes, Obama was a Senator for a few years and Trump was not. I wouldn't use that definition of government experience myself. When you weigh the life experience of each man prior to running for President, I think it's very clear Trump was much more familiar with all the gears and levers of government than Obama was. 

Yeah, probably wrong thread.

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
MIGHT be the wrong thread but . . . Trump soundly beats Obama in each of those categories. Unless you restrict the definition of government experience to narrowly mean time in elected office, then yes, Obama was a Senator for a few years and Trump was not. I wouldn't use that definition of government experience myself. When you weigh the life experience of each man prior to running for President, I think it's very clear Trump was much more familiar with all the gears and levers of government than Obama was. 

Yeah, probably wrong thread.
Click to expand...
Considering I specifically stated government experience...Trump would not have beat Obama.

Temperament...no, Trump did not nor does not beat Obama.

Leadership...nope, again, not beating him much less soundly.

Life experience of running what amounts to a reality TV show and real estate business is not quite life experience I would say is strong for qualities of POTUS.

Not sure what in the world you see where Trump soundly beats Obama in those categories.

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
MIGHT be the wrong thread but . . . Trump soundly beats Obama in each of those categories. Unless you restrict the definition of government experience to narrowly mean time in elected office, then yes, Obama was a Senator for a few years and Trump was not. I wouldn't use that definition of government experience myself. When you weigh the life experience of each man prior to running for President, I think it's very clear Trump was much more familiar with all the gears and levers of government than Obama was. 

Yeah, probably wrong thread.
Click to expand...
If you restrict the definition as referenced in the bolded above, Obama spent over a decade in elected office. 

 
bigbottom said:
If you restrict the definition as referenced in the bolded above, Obama spent over a decade in elected office. 
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm not understanding this mischaracterization of him as a politician with limited experience.....he was a state senator for 8 years, then a US senator for 4.  That's 12 years as an elected official.  

And, at the same time, the big knock on Biden is the length of time he's been an elected official.   Seems incongruous.   

 

 
The Commish said:
If you say so....
Click to expand...
Clearly you didn't read the post I was responding to.  

So how long are you going to keep trying and playing this gotcha game with me?  It's really not working out for you and I'd feel much better if you focused on the actual conversation and actually read what was posted in the context of the conversation and not try to cherry-pick to try and win some imaginary award you seem to want to bestow upon yourself.

I think you're so interested in trying to be cute and show others how smart you are that you actually lose focus of the actual conversations.  Frankly, it's exhausting and unnecessary.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bigbottom said:
If you restrict the definition as referenced in the bolded above, Obama spent over a decade in elected office. 
Click to expand...
Yes, I just disagree that elected office is the only way to measure "government experience".  Although this is probably the wrong thread for this argument.

 
General Malaise said:
And, at the same time, the big knock on Biden is the length of time he's been an elected official.   Seems incongruous.   
Click to expand...
The big knock on Biden is that he's spent almost half a century in office and has accomplished almost nothing except changing his views on segregation and marriage equality.  There HAS to be a better thread for all this.

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
The big knock on Biden is that he's spent almost half a century in office and has accomplished almost nothing except changing his views on segregation and marriage equality.  There HAS to be a better thread for all this.
Click to expand...
Unless it's his actual experience doing nothing that they're talking about?  I mean, it technically is experience. Just experience doing nothing.

Then I would say he's an expert.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NorvilleBarnes said:
The big knock on Biden is that he's spent almost half a century in office and has accomplished almost nothing except changing his views on segregation and marriage equality.  There HAS to be a better thread for all this.
Click to expand...
I'd tell you to start one, but it'd just get deleted.  ;)

Biden is our new president......I'd say he's accomplished SOMETHING of significance considering, you know, he IS the president of the US.  :shrug:

 
the moops said:
Looks like he sponsored or consponsored 4445 pieces of legislation. I don't know much about number of pieces of legislation a typical senator sponsors/cospsonsors, but that seems like a large number for a guy who has accomplished nothing
Click to expand...
Not all (or even most) of them were enacted into law, but to suggest that he did nothing during his time in office is just unfounded hyperbole. 

 
Biden and McConnell have similar length of service in the senate - Biden has him beat by a few months. So by comparison, McConnell is the "do nothing" senator for "only" 156 of his pieces of legislation became law.

 
the moops said:
Biden and McConnell have similar length of service in the senate - Biden has him beat by a few months. So by comparison, McConnell is the "do nothing" senator for "only" 156 of his pieces of legislation became law.
Click to expand...
If we really want to see what "do nothing" means, let's count the number of bills sitting on McConnell's desk that he refuses to bring to the floor for a vote. I believe I heard over 800 at one point recently.

 
bigbottom said:
Not all (or even most) of them were enacted into law, but to suggest that he did nothing during his time in office is just unfounded hyperbole. 
Click to expand...
But bigbottom, people are saying he didn't do ANYTHING for 50 years.  Are you suggesting that he indeed DID do something?  Huh.....I might need to visit Facebook today to inform some people of this new evidence.  

 
The Z Machine said:
You're right.  It could be an appointed position, civil servant, or even a government contractor deeply embedded n the functioning of a federal agency.  What other experiences would you suggest?
Click to expand...
Experience running a business.  Managing a team/people.  Putting together a budget.  Just a few that come to mind, but could be more, could be less.  It doesn't have to EXCLUSIVELY come from a previous government position.  Or any position in government at all.

People who have ZERO experience BUT government should scare us all.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Terminalxylem said:
I really wish we’d move away from the idea that business leaders are intrinsically qualified for office. Morality based on (personal) financial gain and a purely transactional approach to politics don’t work, as evidenced by the last 4 years.

On a related note, the same can be said for medical leadership.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I see people pushing the idea "business leaders are intrinsically qualified for office". I think people are saying people with experience managing a team, putting together a budget, clearly communicating your message, navigating and overcoming challenges and a zillion more things involved in leading a business are good qualities. 

I'd agree 100%. Of course not every business leader is good. But I very much appreciate a person that has real world business experience and a demonstrated track record of success in those areas. 

 
Terminalxylem said:
I really wish we’d move away from the idea that business leaders are intrinsically qualified for office. Morality based on (personal) financial gain and a purely transactional approach to politics don’t work, as evidenced by the last 4 years.

On a related note, the same can be said for medical leadership.
Click to expand...
I think @Joe Bryant eloquently clarified my position with his post.  That is what I meant to convey.

 
Joe Bryant said:
I think people are saying people with experience managing a team, putting together a budget, clearly communicating your message, navigating and overcoming challenges and a zillion more things involved in leading a business are good qualities. 
Click to expand...
Except for maybe a compressed time element are not those the very qualities that a candidate, especially a presidential candidate exposes running a campaign?  Something Obama did very well, Hillary better the second time around but still so-so, at best Biden seemed to be doing really poorly at until South Carolina and then the pandemic hit so I'm not really sure other than he won.

For Trump in 2016 everyone before the election was telling you how much of a disaster his campaign was and then after he won we were being told how Jared was a genius in never before used strategies and such.  So I am not sure if it was just different or the disaster everyone thought all along.

But I think that if I argued that Obama had demonstrated these attributes based solely on how his 2008 campaign was run and, using the pre election version Trump clearly demonstrated he did not I would be making a reasonable arguments.  One which other reasonable people might disagree, but still reasonable.

 
BladeRunner said:
Experience running a business.  Managing a team/people.  Putting together a budget.  Just a few that come to mind, but could be more, could be less.  It doesn't have to EXCLUSIVELY come from a previous government position.  Or any position in government at all.

People who have ZERO experience BUT government should scare us all.
Click to expand...
I specifically said "government experience". In other words had some knowledge base for running the actual federal government, which functions similarly (and quite differently) than a private enterprise.  Almost any private citizens with no history of governmental work would struggle to run the federal bureaucracy. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Z Machine said:
I specifically said "government experience". In other words had some knowledge base for running the actual gederal government, which functions similarly (and quite differently) than a private enterprise.  Almost any private citizens with no history of governmental would struggle to run the federal bureaucracy. 
Click to expand...
I don't think government experience is absolutely necessary.  That's all I'm saying.  I think anyone would struggle, government experience or not. 

However, I think a case could be even made that those with government experience should be avoided at all costs.

 
Joe Bryant said:
I'm not sure I see people pushing the idea "business leaders are intrinsically qualified for office". I think people are saying people with experience managing a team, putting together a budget, clearly communicating your message, navigating and overcoming challenges and a zillion more things involved in leading a business are good qualities. 

I'd agree 100%. Of course not every business leader is good. But I very much appreciate a person that has real world business experience and a demonstrated track record of success in those areas. 
Click to expand...
I am curious - has there been an example of a good president who had "real world business experience and a demonstrated track record of success in those areas."

The reason I ask is that I can't think of any reason to assume any correlation to business success and presidential success - given that the skills needed, and the goals of the positions are vastly different.  So, I am curious if there were examples in your mind that led you to that conclusion.

I am not discounting that "business people" could have the skills necessary to be president - but I don't think success in business translates to success in the presidency.

 
The Z Machine said:
I specifically said "government experience". In other words had some knowledge base for running the actual federal government, which functions similarly (and quite differently) than a private enterprise.  Almost any private citizens with no history of governmental work would struggle to run the federal bureaucracy. 
Click to expand...
Mist would struggle running a small city much less a state government or on up to the federal government.

 
Terminalxylem said:
I really wish we’d move away from the idea that business leaders are intrinsically qualified for office. Morality based on (personal) financial gain and a purely transactional approach to politics don’t work, as evidenced by the last 4 years.

On a related note, the same can be said for medical leadership.
Click to expand...
I really wish we'd move away from the idea that only politicians are qualified for office. 

 
Sinn Fein said:
I am curious - has there been an example of a good president who had "real world business experience and a demonstrated track record of success in those areas."

The reason I ask is that I can't think of any reason to assume any correlation to business success and presidential success - given that the skills needed, and the goals of the positions are vastly different.  So, I am curious if there were examples in your mind that led you to that conclusion.

I am not discounting that "business people" could have the skills necessary to be president - but I don't think success in business translates to success in the presidency.
Click to expand...
Not sure on President. I''m talking about politicians of all levels. Personal example I know is my friend Bill Haslam. Grew up in Pilot Oil business here (Brother Jimmy is Browns owner and CEO of Pilot) and had quite a bit of business experience. He was an excellent mayor of Knoxville and then governor of Tennessee. Talked often of his experience in business and understanding more practical things. Phil Bredesen was an effective TN Governor prior to Haslam and had been a successful businessman. 

I personally thought Bloomberg would be a strong challenger for this reason and obviously that didn't work out. 

One could also of course make the case a career politician has advantages as they know how the system works better. Much of it will be determined on what one thinks is "good" and what you want in a politician. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
What are Your Thoughts on Democrats Calling Supreme Court Illegitimate, and State AG’s Vowing not to Enforce Abortion Bans?
7 8 9
Replies
401
Views
8K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner
Jayrod
The Schism - an American Tale
2 3 4
Replies
169
Views
4K
cockroach
C
GordonGekko
Google Executive Boasts Company Can/Does Censor ‘Right-Wing’ & Republicans ( 1/9 13:56 PST)
Replies
10
Views
506
GoBirds
GoBirds

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top