The stupidest question in American Politics...

[The Great Goose]

I agree with you!
We have a president who "had a beer summit" in 2009 and a lot of good that did! Obama: It's not a 'beer summit'

I like you want an EXECUTIVE that has had experiences in hiring and YES FIRING incompetence!

And that's my problem right there. Neither you, nor Trump seems to understand that the government Is. Not. A. Business. When the Senate doesn't go along with one of his "brilliant" ideas, do you think Trump can "fire" the senators that won't "get in line"? If the Supreme Court hands down a ruling with which he doesn't agree - or a Supreme Court Justice (Ginsberg) says something he doesn't like - does he think he can "fire" them? No. The government is not a business, and you can't try to run it as if it were, otherwise, you will accomplish nothing.

We have an outspoken, very conservative governor with a businessman's background who has made uneducated decisions and downright ignorant comments that have taken our state backwards for several years. He is at this point not speaking to the press and he has completely stopped communicating with the legislature. He couldn't fire the people he didn't like and he is definitely pouting about it now. I look at Trump and see the potential of history repeating itself on the federal level.
Take a close look at what's been happening under Paul LePage if you want to see what a Trump presidency would be like. I am NOT kidding. You do not want this.

 

[OldLady]

Hey, Goose. I'm not getting your smoke signals. Old Lady has some difficulty with complex symbols.

 

[The Great Goose]

are you the forum bimbo?

So asks the guy from Australia who celebrates his racism, and bigotry. Pal, any opinions you have on any subject are worthless, and irrelevant. Why don't you just toddle off, and make sure your KKK sheet is clean?

you progressive ladies assume and label.

You wouldn't even know what bigotry is.

Sure we would. Just look at the likes of you, who's angry that "dem blacks" are all "taking over" subdivisions, finding solidarity, but are put off by the idea of having to live next to one.

where are you getting all this from??? have you obtained copies of my secret KKK dossier?

because I've never displayed these sentiments you are labeling me with, lady.

Chick, they come from your own words on the signage thread that was supposed to be a bit of humour, and you took as an opportunity to rant about your hatred of black, and their "special communities"..

I said, other minorities have it worse than nonwhites because they lack solidarity. That's ALL i said.

away with your lies, crazy leso\

 

[The Great Goose]

Hey, Goose. I'm not getting your smoke signals. Old Lady has some difficulty with complex symbols.

I have no idea what you mean.

 

[OldLady]

Hey, Goose. I'm not getting your smoke signals. Old Lady has some difficulty with complex symbols.

I have no idea what you mean.

Did you mean to send me a glossy of our President with no text?

 

[Czernobog]

So asks the guy from Australia who celebrates his racism, and bigotry. Pal, any opinions you have on any subject are worthless, and irrelevant. Why don't you just toddle off, and make sure your KKK sheet is clean?

you progressive ladies assume and label.

You wouldn't even know what bigotry is.

Sure we would. Just look at the likes of you, who's angry that "dem blacks" are all "taking over" subdivisions, finding solidarity, but are put off by the idea of having to live next to one.

where are you getting all this from??? have you obtained copies of my secret KKK dossier?

because I've never displayed these sentiments you are labeling me with, lady.

Chick, they come from your own words on the signage thread that was supposed to be a bit of humour, and you took as an opportunity to rant about your hatred of black, and their "special communities"..

I said, other minorities have it worse than nonwhites because they lack solidarity. That's ALL i said.

away with your lies, crazy leso\

You know you make yourself look ridiculous when you keep trying to suggest I'm a woman, when I have told you I'm a guy, right? And what a crock of shit. Which nonwhite minorities were refused service in restaurants? Which nonwhite minorities were ever used as slaves in the US? Now, are we stupidly bigoted, and prejudiced against women, and homosexuals? Yup? Does that make racial bigotry, somehow, less vile, and reprehensible? no. All your ignorant comments do is leave the impression that we should divide ourselves even more, and homosexuals, and women should be jealous that they aren't geting "enough attention" because of those damn racial minorities.

Not only is that not true, it is also not helpful. Furthermore trying to use the label "leso" as a slur, only highlights the reality that you are hypocritically using "other minorities" as a cover to spew your hatred of racial minorities, and don't give a shit about those other minorities, either.

Go peddle your horseshit somewhere else.

 

[The Great Goose]

you progressive ladies assume and label.

You wouldn't even know what bigotry is.

Sure we would. Just look at the likes of you, who's angry that "dem blacks" are all "taking over" subdivisions, finding solidarity, but are put off by the idea of having to live next to one.

where are you getting all this from??? have you obtained copies of my secret KKK dossier?

because I've never displayed these sentiments you are labeling me with, lady.

Chick, they come from your own words on the signage thread that was supposed to be a bit of humour, and you took as an opportunity to rant about your hatred of black, and their "special communities"..

I said, other minorities have it worse than nonwhites because they lack solidarity. That's ALL i said.

away with your lies, crazy leso\

You know you make yourself look ridiculous when you keep trying to suggest I'm a woman, when I have told you I'm a guy, right? And what a crock of shit. Which nonwhite minorities were refused service in restaurants? Which nonwhite minorities were ever used as slaves in the US? Now, are we stupidly bigoted, and prejudiced against women, and homosexuals? Yup? Does that make racial bigotry, somehow, less vile, and reprehensible? no. All your ignorant comments do is leave the impression that we should divide ourselves even more, and homosexuals, and women should be jealous that they aren't geting "enough attention" because of those damn racial minorities.

Not only is that not true, it is also not helpful. Furthermore trying to use the label "leso" as a slur, only highlights the reality that you are hypocritically using "other minorities" as a cover to spew your hatred of racial minorities, and don't give a shit about those other minorities, either.

Go peddle your horseshit somewhere else.

you have read my mind once again! how do you keep knowing what I think when i've never said it??

it's extraordinary.

 

[Czernobog]

Sure we would. Just look at the likes of you, who's angry that "dem blacks" are all "taking over" subdivisions, finding solidarity, but are put off by the idea of having to live next to one.

where are you getting all this from??? have you obtained copies of my secret KKK dossier?

because I've never displayed these sentiments you are labeling me with, lady.

Chick, they come from your own words on the signage thread that was supposed to be a bit of humour, and you took as an opportunity to rant about your hatred of black, and their "special communities"..

I said, other minorities have it worse than nonwhites because they lack solidarity. That's ALL i said.

away with your lies, crazy leso\

You know you make yourself look ridiculous when you keep trying to suggest I'm a woman, when I have told you I'm a guy, right? And what a crock of shit. Which nonwhite minorities were refused service in restaurants? Which nonwhite minorities were ever used as slaves in the US? Now, are we stupidly bigoted, and prejudiced against women, and homosexuals? Yup? Does that make racial bigotry, somehow, less vile, and reprehensible? no. All your ignorant comments do is leave the impression that we should divide ourselves even more, and homosexuals, and women should be jealous that they aren't geting "enough attention" because of those damn racial minorities.

Not only is that not true, it is also not helpful. Furthermore trying to use the label "leso" as a slur, only highlights the reality that you are hypocritically using "other minorities" as a cover to spew your hatred of racial minorities, and don't give a shit about those other minorities, either.

Go peddle your horseshit somewhere else.

you have read my mind once again! how do you keep knowing what I think when i've never said it??

it's extraordinary.

You didn't call me a leso? Really??? *Looks at previous post with incredulity*

Now if you weren't referring to homosexuals, or women, exactly to what "other" minorities were you referring? Angry, Old, Racist White Guys? If so, I'm sorry if that is a "minority" for which I feel little sympathy.

 

[Wry Catcher]

On a side note, sort of in the same vein, I just heard Gringrich, on Face the nation, try to defend calling Trump a "Pirate", as if that were a good thing. I cannot think of a single time in history when pirates were ever portrayed as a positive thing. Not, privateers, mind you, but pirates.

You just contradicted yourself.

No, you need to read some history, or have it read to you, and to review Art. I, sec 8 clause 10 & 11.

 

[healthmyths]

I agree with you!
We have a president who "had a beer summit" in 2009 and a lot of good that did! Obama: It's not a 'beer summit'

I like you want an EXECUTIVE that has had experiences in hiring and YES FIRING incompetence!

And that's my problem right there. Neither you, nor Trump seems to understand that the government Is. Not. A. Business. When the Senate doesn't go along with one of his "brilliant" ideas, do you think Trump can "fire" the senators that won't "get in line"? If the Supreme Court hands down a ruling with which he doesn't agree - or a Supreme Court Justice (Ginsberg) says something he doesn't like - does he think he can "fire" them? No. The government is not a business, and you can't try to run it as if it were, otherwise, you will accomplish nothing.

So you think ALL businesses are LAWLESS??? Geez are you really that dumb?
Trump and business executives HAVE to abide by rules and regulations ALL the time you dummy!
Do you really think Trump is as DUMB as you to think a President can fire a supreme court justice??? Really you are that stupid??

Trump and thousands of business executives like me daily live with a vast complex of rules and regulations. For example in my business one slip up
can cost $250,000 Federal penalty! ONE!
But of course idiots who have NO idea of how a business runs and even LESS knowledge of how government runs make such stupid statements!
Every year according to this web site:The Hidden Cost of Regulation | FreedomWorks
" Crews’ report cites the work of economists Nicole V. Crain and W. Mark Crain, whose study of the net cost of regulations determined that in 2009 federal regulation cost businesses and consumers $1.75 trillion, or nearly 12% of America’s 2009 GDP. As a comparison, in the same year, corporate pre-tax profits for all businesses totaled about $ 1.46 trillion.

Do you understand then the totally abject stupidity of your comment???

 

[Czernobog]

I agree with you!
We have a president who "had a beer summit" in 2009 and a lot of good that did! Obama: It's not a 'beer summit'

I like you want an EXECUTIVE that has had experiences in hiring and YES FIRING incompetence!

And that's my problem right there. Neither you, nor Trump seems to understand that the government Is. Not. A. Business. When the Senate doesn't go along with one of his "brilliant" ideas, do you think Trump can "fire" the senators that won't "get in line"? If the Supreme Court hands down a ruling with which he doesn't agree - or a Supreme Court Justice (Ginsberg) says something he doesn't like - does he think he can "fire" them? No. The government is not a business, and you can't try to run it as if it were, otherwise, you will accomplish nothing.

So you think ALL Businesses are LAWLESS??? Geez are you really that dumb?
Trump and business executives HAVE to abide by rules and regulations ALL the time you dummy!
Do you really think Trump is as DUMB as you to think a President can fire a supreme court justice??? Really you are that stupid??

Trump and thousands of business executives like me daily live with a vast complex of rules and regulations. For example in my business one slip up
can cost $250,000 Federal penalty! ONE!
But of course idiots who have NO idea of how a business runs and even LESS knowledge of how government runs make such stupid statements!
Every year according to this web site:The Hidden Cost of Regulation | FreedomWorks
" Crews’ report cites the work of economists Nicole V. Crain and W. Mark Crain, whose study of the net cost of regulations determined that in 2009 federal regulation cost businesses and consumers $1.75 trillion, or nearly 12% of America’s 2009 GDP. As a comparison, in the same year, corporate pre-tax profits for all businesses totaled about $ 1.46 trillion.

Do you understand then the totally abject stupidity of your comment???

Hey! I'm not the one who is touting Trump's readiness for Presidency the fact that he has experience hiring, and firing people! That was you, Sparky. So, you made yourself appear as if you were stupid enough to believe that a President could do such things! If not, then why talk about hiring, and firing, as if that has anything to do with running a fucking government?!?!?! And you can't even try to back-pedal to suggest that you were talking about his economic acumen, because that still has nothing to do with hiring, and firing people!

If you don't want people to draw stupid fucking conclusions from your comments, don't make stupid fucking comments!

 

[Wry Catcher]

Q. "So you think ALL Businesses are LAWLESS??? Geez are you really that dumb?"

A. Straw Men framed with an ad hominem does not deserve a response. Healthmyths from day one has been the queen of misinformation, half-truth and calumny.

 

[healthmyths]

I agree with you!
We have a president who "had a beer summit" in 2009 and a lot of good that did! Obama: It's not a 'beer summit'

I like you want an EXECUTIVE that has had experiences in hiring and YES FIRING incompetence!

And that's my problem right there. Neither you, nor Trump seems to understand that the government Is. Not. A. Business. When the Senate doesn't go along with one of his "brilliant" ideas, do you think Trump can "fire" the senators that won't "get in line"? If the Supreme Court hands down a ruling with which he doesn't agree - or a Supreme Court Justice (Ginsberg) says something he doesn't like - does he think he can "fire" them? No. The government is not a business, and you can't try to run it as if it were, otherwise, you will accomplish nothing.

So you think ALL Businesses are LAWLESS??? Geez are you really that dumb?
Trump and business executives HAVE to abide by rules and regulations ALL the time you dummy!
Do you really think Trump is as DUMB as you to think a President can fire a supreme court justice??? Really you are that stupid??

Trump and thousands of business executives like me daily live with a vast complex of rules and regulations. For example in my business one slip up
can cost $250,000 Federal penalty! ONE!
But of course idiots who have NO idea of how a business runs and even LESS knowledge of how government runs make such stupid statements!
Every year according to this web site:The Hidden Cost of Regulation | FreedomWorks
" Crews’ report cites the work of economists Nicole V. Crain and W. Mark Crain, whose study of the net cost of regulations determined that in 2009 federal regulation cost businesses and consumers $1.75 trillion, or nearly 12% of America’s 2009 GDP. As a comparison, in the same year, corporate pre-tax profits for all businesses totaled about $ 1.46 trillion.

Do you understand then the totally abject stupidity of your comment???

Hey! I'm not the one who is touting Trump's readiness for Presidency the fact that he has experience hiring, and firing people! That was you, Sparky. So, you made yourself appear as if you were stupid enough to believe that a President could do such things! If not, then why talk about hiring, and firing, as if that has anything to do with running a fucking government?!?!?! And you can't even try to back-pedal to suggest that you were talking about his economic acumen, because that still has nothing to do with hiring, and firing people!

If you don't want people to draw stupid fucking conclusions from your comments, don't make stupid fucking comments!

YOU are so dumb!
You realize there are 3 branches of the Federal Government, The Legislative, The Supreme Court and OH yea... THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH!
That's why the President is called the Chief Executive Officer?
He executes the laws.
That's what the "Executive Branch" does. Do you understand?
And as a result and so too do the other branches HIRE and FIRE people ALL the time! Maybe because of politics not as often as they should be
this does happen!

Remembering President Wilson's Purge of Black Federal Workers
When Wilson came to Washington he quickly instituted a purge of African-American federal workers in Washington and around the country. Where purges weren't possible, federal workplaces were re-segregated, often with surreal and hideous results. Even more than Wilson, Wilson's wife Ellen, a Georgia native, was a visceral racist who was shocked to see the limited level of integration then in place in the nation's capital. She was reportedly especially disgusted to see black men and white women working in the same workplaces and took a personal role in pushing forward resegregation in Washington, DC.

Numerous African-American federal workers were fired, in many cases by white Southern Democratic appointees. The Post Master General and the Treasury Secretary both re-segregated their departments and gave supervisors free rein to fire African American employees at will. In Atlanta, 35 African-American postal workers were summarily fired. Similarly stories took place throughout the country. Wilson's Collector of Internal Revenue in Georgia said in 1913, "There are no Government positions for Negroes in the South. A Negroes place is in the cornfield.
Remembering President Wilson's Purge of Black Federal Workers

 

[healthmyths]

Agencies fired 9,537 federal employees for discipline or performance issues in fiscal 2014, down from 9,634 in 2013 and down from a high of 11,770 in fiscal 2010, according to the data. The firing rate held at 0.46 percent of the workforce in both fiscal 2013 and fiscal 2014 — the lowest rate in 10 years.
Federal employee firings hit record low in 2014

Makes SENSE!!! Obama had no skills in hiring people and so the people he appointed appointed incompetent people and kept them on.
As a result getting rid of Federal employees under Obama was at the lowest rate win 10 years!

 

[healthmyths]

Q. "So you think ALL Businesses are LAWLESS??? Geez are you really that dumb?"

A. Straw Men framed with an ad hominem does not deserve a response. Healthmyths from day one has been the queen of misinformation, half-truth and calumny.

What kind dumb statement is it a "straw men"???? First of all you dummy... it is normally called a "straw Man" argument!
Here use the internet and learn!
"straw man is the name of a logical fallacy, which means that if you carefully dissect the argument or statement, it doesn't make sense.
What Is a Straw Man Argument?
So IDIOT where was there any retort to the dumb comment that there is a difference between businesses and the government which is what I was refuting
by showing how many people have been fired by the EXECUTIVE BRANCH!!!!
So not only did you misspell the concept.."straw MEN"??? But you totally misused the term!
My making an ad hominem (directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.)is right though!
The poster HAD to be totally ignorant about how businesses and the government runs. Both have employees. Both hire and fire employees.
Both have objectives to be met and if the employees are not meeting the objectives they are fired!
Happened: Agencies fired 9,537 federal employees for discipline or performance issues in fiscal 2014, down from 9,634 in 2013 and down from a high of 11,770 in fiscal 2010, according to the data. The firing rate held at 0.46 percent of the workforce in both fiscal 2013 and fiscal 2014 — the lowest rate in 10 years.
Federal employee firings hit record low in 2014

So once again using the Internet FIRST before making dumb comments is what YOU should do as should a lot of the idiotic comments made by people like you! It is so simple before you type, check what you have written before you hit the "POST REPLY"!

 

[OKTexas]

Ya know, I was listening to "This Week...", and one of the "qualities" that the commentator was suggesting Trump can "work on" is "Do I wanna have a beer with the guy?" I don't really remember when this question first became a thing, but this has got to be one of the stupidest questions I have ever heard asked in American politics. Who cares if I like the candidate enough to have a beer with him. Look, I have a lot of friends I'm willing to go to the bar, and have a beer with, and guess what? Most of them I wouldn't trust to balance my fucking checkbook, let alone run the fucking country!

I don't want a guy I'm "willing to have a beer with". I want a President who demonstrates an understanding of global politics, who has a basic understanding of economics, and understands the principles of a democratic government. None of these things have a gods damned thing to do with whether I'd have a beer with him.

It seems to me that "Would I have a beer with the guy?" transforms the election from a referendum on the Presidency of the United States into a high school popularity contest. What? The? Fuck? Have we really become this vapid, shallow, and stupid as a society?

That's how the gop got millions of stupid people to vote for the bush boy.

That's where this "want to have a beer" idea started. In 2000 with the bush boy.

The funny thing is both men don't drink alcohol. The bush boy is a recovering alcoholic so the last thing anyone would want to do is sit down to drink a beer with him but that is exactly one of the things the gop used in 2000 to get stupid people to vote for the bush boy.

trump will tell anyone who listens that he doesn't drink.

So why use such a stupid thing to get people to vote for someone?

I don't know. Maybe they think it will work.

Damn you regressive are stupid, it's not about what beverage is consumed, it's whether you'd like to spend time with a candidate in a relaxed casual setting. Would it make you poor souls feel better if the question was if you would like to share a meal with them?

 

[Iceweasel]

Neither you, nor Trump seems to understand that the government Is. Not. A. Business. When the Senate doesn't go along with one of his "brilliant" ideas, do you think Trump can "fire" the senators that won't "get in line"? If the Supreme Court hands down a ruling with which he doesn't agree - or a Supreme Court Justice (Ginsberg) says something he doesn't like - does he think he can "fire" them? No. The government is not a business, and you can't try to run it as if it were, otherwise, you will accomplish nothing.

It isn't a business but it isn't an ATM machine either. We need someone that understands money doesn't grow on government trees. Being a business owner should be a prerequisite. Most of the founders were.

 

[Czernobog]

Ya know, I was listening to "This Week...", and one of the "qualities" that the commentator was suggesting Trump can "work on" is "Do I wanna have a beer with the guy?" I don't really remember when this question first became a thing, but this has got to be one of the stupidest questions I have ever heard asked in American politics. Who cares if I like the candidate enough to have a beer with him. Look, I have a lot of friends I'm willing to go to the bar, and have a beer with, and guess what? Most of them I wouldn't trust to balance my fucking checkbook, let alone run the fucking country!

I don't want a guy I'm "willing to have a beer with". I want a President who demonstrates an understanding of global politics, who has a basic understanding of economics, and understands the principles of a democratic government. None of these things have a gods damned thing to do with whether I'd have a beer with him.

It seems to me that "Would I have a beer with the guy?" transforms the election from a referendum on the Presidency of the United States into a high school popularity contest. What? The? Fuck? Have we really become this vapid, shallow, and stupid as a society?

That's how the gop got millions of stupid people to vote for the bush boy.

That's where this "want to have a beer" idea started. In 2000 with the bush boy.

The funny thing is both men don't drink alcohol. The bush boy is a recovering alcoholic so the last thing anyone would want to do is sit down to drink a beer with him but that is exactly one of the things the gop used in 2000 to get stupid people to vote for the bush boy.

trump will tell anyone who listens that he doesn't drink.

So why use such a stupid thing to get people to vote for someone?

I don't know. Maybe they think it will work.

Damn you regressive are stupid, it's not about what beverage is consumed, it's whether you'd like to spend time with a candidate in a relaxed casual setting. Would it make you poor souls feel better if the question was if you would like to share a meal with them?

Damn you're stupid. I get that's the point of the ridiculous question. I don't care how it's framed, it's vapid, shallow, and stupid. I don't need a president that I feel comfortable spending a relaxing evening with; because I'm well aware that here, in the real world, that's unlikely to ever happen.

I what I do need from my president is the confidence that he, or she has the intelligence, understanding and temperament to comprehend all of the complex intricacies that come with the office, and do the job competently. It is equally important to me that the candidate have these qualities; not that they are going to "surround themselves" with people with these qualities, who will be able to "advise them", as one candidate has suggested they would do. We had a president that did that. He got us into a war of choice, permitted numerous constitutional violations under his administration, and presides over the worst economic disaster since the depression. I'd prefer a president who is intelligent enough, and informed enough to think for themselves, thank you; and could care less whether I felt comfortable spending an evening with them.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

Ya know, I was listening to "This Week...", and one of the "qualities" that the commentator was suggesting Trump can "work on" is "Do I wanna have a beer with the guy?" I don't really remember when this question first became a thing, but this has got to be one of the stupidest questions I have ever heard asked in American politics. Who cares if I like the candidate enough to have a beer with him. Look, I have a lot of friends I'm willing to go to the bar, and have a beer with, and guess what? Most of them I wouldn't trust to balance my fucking checkbook, let alone run the fucking country!

I don't want a guy I'm "willing to have a beer with". I want a President who demonstrates an understanding of global politics, who has a basic understanding of economics, and understands the principles of a democratic government. None of these things have a gods damned thing to do with whether I'd have a beer with him.

It seems to me that "Would I have a beer with the guy?" transforms the election from a referendum on the Presidency of the United States into a high school popularity contest. What? The? Fuck? Have we really become this vapid, shallow, and stupid as a society?

What do you mean you don't know when that question came about?

That's what all the Bush II voters said they voted for him for. That's when it started.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[OKTexas]

Ya know, I was listening to "This Week...", and one of the "qualities" that the commentator was suggesting Trump can "work on" is "Do I wanna have a beer with the guy?" I don't really remember when this question first became a thing, but this has got to be one of the stupidest questions I have ever heard asked in American politics. Who cares if I like the candidate enough to have a beer with him. Look, I have a lot of friends I'm willing to go to the bar, and have a beer with, and guess what? Most of them I wouldn't trust to balance my fucking checkbook, let alone run the fucking country!

I don't want a guy I'm "willing to have a beer with". I want a President who demonstrates an understanding of global politics, who has a basic understanding of economics, and understands the principles of a democratic government. None of these things have a gods damned thing to do with whether I'd have a beer with him.

It seems to me that "Would I have a beer with the guy?" transforms the election from a referendum on the Presidency of the United States into a high school popularity contest. What? The? Fuck? Have we really become this vapid, shallow, and stupid as a society?

That's how the gop got millions of stupid people to vote for the bush boy.

That's where this "want to have a beer" idea started. In 2000 with the bush boy.

The funny thing is both men don't drink alcohol. The bush boy is a recovering alcoholic so the last thing anyone would want to do is sit down to drink a beer with him but that is exactly one of the things the gop used in 2000 to get stupid people to vote for the bush boy.

trump will tell anyone who listens that he doesn't drink.

So why use such a stupid thing to get people to vote for someone?

I don't know. Maybe they think it will work.

Damn you regressive are stupid, it's not about what beverage is consumed, it's whether you'd like to spend time with a candidate in a relaxed casual setting. Would it make you poor souls feel better if the question was if you would like to share a meal with them?

Damn you're stupid. I get that's the point of the ridiculous question. I don't care how it's framed, it's vapid, shallow, and stupid. I don't need a president that I feel comfortable spending a relaxing evening with; because I'm well aware that here, in the real world, that's unlikely to ever happen.

I what I do need from my president is the confidence that he, or she has the intelligence, understanding and temperament to comprehend all of the complex intricacies that come with the office, and do the job competently. It is equally important to me that the candidate have these qualities; not that they are going to "surround themselves" with people with these qualities, who will be able to "advise them", as one candidate has suggested they would do. We had a president that did that. He got us into a war of choice, permitted numerous constitutional violations under his administration, and presides over the worst economic disaster since the depression. I'd prefer a president who is intelligent enough, and informed enough to think for themselves, thank you; and could care less whether I felt comfortable spending an evening with them.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Well guess what hero, there is no one that is prepared to be POTUS, they job is consistently changing. If I wouldn't want to associate with someone I damn well won't vote for them. The hildabitch comes to mind in that respect, she's a pig and has no place in government.