LogFAQs > #954173056

kevwaffles posted...

I'm pretty sure her qualifications looked a lot better in 2016 than 2008.

But you also know that only one person has ever been elected president without holding elected office or military leadership experience, and it's neither Obama or HRC. It only stopped mattering once enough of the population became stupid enough to let it stop mattering.

why does holding elected office of military leadership experience make you better prepared to be the president? being the president is absolutely nothing like being in the military or a senator or congressperson. It is probably most similar to being governor, but still very different and that doesn't make you "more qualified", it makes you more experienced in that kind of role. The qualifications for who you want to be president are always gonna be "who shares my positions/will be best for me or what I care about". politics is about ideology, not merit or skills. this is why I definitely agree with whoever said almost anyone here is probably upper middle class PMC types, it makes absolutely no sense to care about experience of qualifications and the obsession with that screams "people who have bought into a meritocracy because they have themselves succeeded within the system". The reason most people prior have been military or previously elected officials is more that the parties had a lot of control over who was in the primaries/it was used to promote from within to reward, etc. and quite frankly Hillary Clinton was revealed in wikileaks to have encouraged Donald Trump to run as a strategy, so it isn't like the GOP was the one behind his campaign. It was very much an aberration but also a final result of the tea party takeover from the neocons.