I have a question for the whole forum

[kaz]

I keep hearing this "Trump is unqualified" to be president.

So, can any of you name the qualifications (as determined by the Constitution) to be elected President?

I'm talking about the legal language, not your personal opinions nor your personal feelings.

As I understand it, there are only three qualifications for being Elected President.

So have at it. Impress all your friends with the right answer.

He's not a Democrat. The Constitution says specifically you must be a member of the Democrat party. I'm pretty sure it does anyway ...

 

[Divine Wind]

...You don't care for that, fine. I'd invite you to start your own thread.

Putting words in my mouth is immature.

The fact remains, you, I and several others are already agreed there are only 3 Constitutional requirements to become President. The conversation has moved on despite your desire to keep repeating these same qualifications, all of which Trump meets. What further point do you want to press?

 

[kaz]

There isn't even a mental test to be president. Therefore, I suppose retards are eligible.

And Hillary showed you can be a criminal. There's not much stopping anyone, is there?

 

[kaz]

...You don't care for that, fine. I'd invite you to start your own thread.

Putting words in my mouth is immature.

The fact remains, you, I and several others are already agreed there are only 3 Constitutional requirements to become President. The conversation has moved on despite your desire to keep repeating these same qualifications, all of which Trump meets. What further point do you want to press?

How many times have I said to you, "Strawman, that isn't what I said..."

 

[Darkwind]

...You don't care for that, fine. I'd invite you to start your own thread.

Putting words in my mouth is immature.

The fact remains, you, I and several others are already agreed there are only 3 Constitutional requirements to become President. The conversation has moved on despite your desire to keep repeating these same qualifications, all of which Trump meets. What further point do you want to press?

don't be an asshole. I'm not putting words into your mouth. The thread is specifically about the legal quallifications to be President. It is not a discussion on the opinions of what qualifies a person on the presidency.

I didn't vote for Trump because he is not who he claims to be and will revert to values I disagree with. However, I will never say he is not qualified to be president.

Far to many arguments on this forum and in life count on people forcing others to take their view of life, so that when they are looking at that "wider view" they can shift the target off of the topic, just as you are attempting to do right now.

Accept that this thread is about the qualifications of any citizen to be elected President and if you wish to change the parameters of the premise, do so in another thread.

 

[Pogo]

I do remember that, and I remember it was in a different context. I do believe they were talking "experience" not qualifications. However, I've never said that Obama was not qualified to be President. Over his head, yes. Unsuited to the position, yes. Unqualified, no.

So now you admit I was right.

No, I said i remembered it. This discussion is not centered around who is better experienced, but on who is qualified. I started it in response to listening to one elector saying he was not going to vote based upon Trump being unqualified; and a video by Hollywood morons who are urging others to do the same based upon the same argument.

Trump IS qualified so the electors are going to have to justify their betrayal of the voters in other ways.

As mentioned by several already, there are only 3 Constitutional qualifications for President.

The real question is "Who is best qualified". A question that goes beyond Constitutional requirements. That question is best answered by recognizing we had the two most disliked candidates in living history run for office and the fact that our election system effectively allows only two choices. Sure, several like myself voted third party, but most Americans, 94.5%, held their noses and picked either the "D" or the "R". Not because they necessarily liked that candidate, but because of their party and/or because they liked the other person less.

Zackly. Would be interesting to poll how many voters voted positively for a choice versus how many voted negatively for a block. Yet another pitfall of the Electrical College's "winner take all" malarkey that negates millions of votes, suppresses turnout in general and perpetuates the stale Duopoly, ensuring that nothing will ever threaten it.

I find it poignantly ironic that the same crowd that crows about shaking things up, "draining the swamp" and jettisoning the Same Old Thing, are the same crowd who jump up in screaming defense of the EC system that keeps the Same Old Thing permanently in place. Hypocrisy writ large.

Like the 1960 election, this election will be well studied as a watershed moment in US history.

Voter dissatisfaction reached a low point in this election.
Already-low voter satisfaction with choice of candidates falls even further

Negative views of opposing candidate were 28%
Aversion to Other Candidate Key Factor in 2016 Vote Choice
As noted, 28% of both Clinton and Trump voters say they are backing that person because of something they don't like about the other candidate. Among the specific responses that make up this category, Trump voters are most likely to cite their lack of trust in Clinton. This is followed by their dislike of her, their determination to vote against her and their decision to vote for Trump as the "lesser of two evils."

Clinton voters are a bit more likely to give the "lesser of two evils" response, followed by saying that they dislike Trump and that he doesn't have the temperament to be president.

But it's more than dislike, it's also simply being against the opposing side, another factor that increased this election:
1. Voters’ general election preferences

Excellent. I just put up a USMB poll to determine the same thing. Or at least the level within this election.

 

[Divine Wind]

How many times have I said to you, "Strawman, that isn't what I said..."

Oddly enough, the exact number of times you've lied about me.

 

[kaz]

How many times have I said to you, "Strawman, that isn't what I said..."

Oddly enough, the exact number of times you've lied about me.

 

[LeftofLeft]

I keep hearing this "Trump is unqualified" to be president.

So, can any of you name the qualifications (as determined by the Constitution) to be elected President?

I'm talking about the legal language, not your personal opinions nor your personal feelings.

As I understand it, there are only three qualifications for being Elected President.

So have at it. Impress all your friends with the right answer.

They qualifications are spelled out in the Constitution. Anything outside of that is purely subjective opinion.

 

[Darkwind]

I keep hearing this "Trump is unqualified" to be president.

So, can any of you name the qualifications (as determined by the Constitution) to be elected President?

I'm talking about the legal language, not your personal opinions nor your personal feelings.

As I understand it, there are only three qualifications for being Elected President.

So have at it. Impress all your friends with the right answer.

They qualifications are spelled out in the Constitution. Anything outside of that is purely subjective opinion.

Exactly right. More than that, the hollywood elite have a video trying to use Hamilton's 68th Federalist as an argument of the "requisite qualifications" to mean that their opinion is valid over the Constitutional qualifications.

The truth is simply. There are only three qualifications written into the Constitution for being elected to the Presidency. There are, as have been pointed out to Me, a couple of disqualifications for being re-elected to the office.

 

[Divine Wind]

don't be an asshole. I'm not putting words into your mouth. The thread is specifically about the legal quallifications to be President.....

Translation: **** you for proving me wrong, DW!

Dude, when you claim you can read my mind or post what you think I care about as fact, then, yes, you are putting words in my mouth. At the very minimum, you are lying.

.....You don't care for that, fine. I'd invite you to start your own thread.

As stated several times previously, there are only 3 qualifications in the Constitution. What's to discuss? Asking what are our First Amendment rights? It's written in the Constitution. There is nothing to discuss. Now, if you want to discuss opinions on whether or not those qualifications should be increased or reduced, that's a different matter.

 

[Divine Wind]

....The truth is simply. There are only three qualifications written into the Constitution for being elected to the Presidency. There are, as have been pointed out to Me, a couple of disqualifications for being re-elected to the office.

/thread

Happy now?

 

[Silhouette]

They qualifications are spelled out in the Constitution. Anything outside of that is purely subjective opinion.

Yes, and if Trump couldn't pass a psyche exam to enlist as a basic recruit in the Army; he cannot be found to be mentally fit to be the CIC of the Army or any other branch of military.

Narcissistic personality disorder has no place whatsoever in the military. Much less a commanding position in it.

 

[Darkwind]

don't be an asshole. I'm not putting words into your mouth. The thread is specifically about the legal quallifications to be President.....

Translation: **** you for proving me wrong, DW!

Dude, when you claim you can read my mind or post what you think I care about as fact, then, yes, you are putting words in my mouth. At the very minimum, you are lying.

.....You don't care for that, fine. I'd invite you to start your own thread.

As stated several times previously, there are only 3 qualifications in the Constitution. What's to discuss? Asking what are our First Amendment rights? It's written in the Constitution. There is nothing to discuss. Now, if you want to discuss opinions on whether or not those qualifications should be increased or reduced, that's a different matter.

i'd be happy to. Just start a thread and I'll join in when I get the time. Have to run now.

 

[jc456]

There isn't even a mental test to be president. Therefore, I suppose retards are eligible.

So how is he not qualified

 

[jc456]

don't be an asshole. I'm not putting words into your mouth. The thread is specifically about the legal quallifications to be President.....

Translation: **** you for proving me wrong, DW!

Dude, when you claim you can read my mind or post what you think I care about as fact, then, yes, you are putting words in my mouth. At the very minimum, you are lying.

.....You don't care for that, fine. I'd invite you to start your own thread.

As stated several times previously, there are only 3 qualifications in the Constitution. What's to discuss? Asking what are our First Amendment rights? It's written in the Constitution. There is nothing to discuss. Now, if you want to discuss opinions on whether or not those qualifications should be increased or reduced, that's a different matter.

So short thread right, trump is qualified so libturds are lost as usual

 

[Divine Wind]

....Narcissistic personality disorder has no place whatsoever in the military. Much less a commanding position in it.

Agreed. Add to this alcoholism and compulsive lying disorder are also disqualifying. So who did you think should have won?

 

[jc456]

....Narcissistic personality disorder has no place whatsoever in the military. Much less a commanding position in it.

Agreed. Add to this alcoholism and compulsive lying disorder are also disqualifying. So who did you think should have won?

Good thing trump doesn't drink alcohol

 

[Pogo]

....Narcissistic personality disorder has no place whatsoever in the military. Much less a commanding position in it.

Agreed. Add to this alcoholism and compulsive lying disorder are also disqualifying. So who did you think should have won?

"Alcoholism"?

Bad as Rump is he's not known to drink alcohol at all. His problems are internally generated.
His brother died from it and that may be a reason he doesn't drink.

Now --- lines of coke before a debate, that's another matter. ::snort::

 

[Divine Wind]

....Narcissistic personality disorder has no place whatsoever in the military. Much less a commanding position in it.

Agreed. Add to this alcoholism and compulsive lying disorder are also disqualifying. So who did you think should have won?

"Alcoholism"?

You don't think alcoholism or other addictions should be cause for disqualification? Why?

Besides the "D" and the "R" aspect, what factors do you think should be disqualifying for POTUS?