Sanders calls Clinton "unqualified" megathread

[Lyin' Steve]

Anyone still want to argue that Sanders is running a positive campaign and not unfairly attacking Clinton?  I put forward now as the time for you to say that.

[Lyin' Steve]

there goes his primetime speaking slot at the convention...i hope team clinton moves him to a low energy afternoon slot

He's not going to speak at the convention.  He lost that privilege in March when his campaign started promoting GOP clinton conspiracies.

I don't share that view, and I'll be the first to admit that I think he went too far with that comment. But if it's wrong for Sanders to say that about Clinton, it's wrong for her to say it (or to be more specific, imply it) about Sanders.

Sanders isn't qualified to be president, though.  He's absolutely 100% clueless on foreign policy, has absolutely no qualifications to be commander of the armed forces, and as the NYDN article revealed to the world (but as most of us who were paying attention already knew) he has no real idea what he's talking about with economic policy beyond a handful of diatribes, applause lines and childish ideas that are just as bad as 9-9-9.

A central theme of Clinton's campaign is the fact that she's overwhelmingly qualified for the job while Sanders is not.  For her to carry on that theme isn't wrong, because there's a mountain of evidence to back up her assertion.  For Sanders to say the inverse, that he is qualified to be president but she is not, and then back it up with the reasoning that "nobody who has a Super PAC or voted for the Iraq War is qualified to be president" is just astonishingly stupid.  Even the GOP admits that Clinton is qualified to be president, except I guess Trump.

Not that she said it anyway, that's just a lie the Bernie liars are promoting to try to make this indefensible Bernie attack look like "an eye for an eye"

[Lyin' Steve]

I don't share that view, and I'll be the first to admit that I think he went too far with that comment. But if it's wrong for Sanders to say that about Clinton, it's wrong for her to say it (or to be more specific, imply it) about Sanders.

Sanders isn't qualified to be president, though.  He's absolutely 100% clueless on foreign policy, has absolutely no qualifications to be commander of the armed forces, and as the NYDN article revealed to the world (but as most of us who were paying attention already knew) he has no real idea what he's talking about with economic policy beyond a handful of diatribes, applause lines and childish ideas that are just as bad as 9-9-9.

A central theme of Clinton's campaign is the fact that she's overwhelmingly qualified for the job while Sanders is not.  For her to carry on that theme isn't wrong, because there's a mountain of evidence to back up her assertion.  For Sanders to say the inverse, that he is qualified to be president but she is not, and then back it up with the reasoning that "nobody who has a Super PAC or voted for the Iraq War is qualified to be president" is just astonishingly stupid.  Even the GOP admits that Clinton is qualified to be president, except I guess Trump.

Not that she said it anyway, that's just a lie the Bernie liars are promoting to try to make this indefensible Bernie attack look like "an eye for an eye"

SteveMcQueen,
You forgot to include that Sanders is "not qualified because he drives a Honda," or "not qualified because there was a roach found in Sander's home."

Aren't you a trump supporter ?
(Refer to my post which is 8 spots above yours.)

No, I don't support Trump because Donald Trump is not qualified to be president of the United States, for basically the same reasons Bernie Sanders isn't.  It's not asinine to say and having a minimal understanding of foreign, economic and military policy is not a trivial issue like driving a Honda or having a super PAC.

[Lyin' Steve]

I don't share that view, and I'll be the first to admit that I think he went too far with that comment. But if it's wrong for Sanders to say that about Clinton, it's wrong for her to say it (or to be more specific, imply it) about Sanders.

Sanders isn't qualified to be president, though.  He's absolutely 100% clueless on foreign policy, has absolutely no qualifications to be commander of the armed forces, and as the NYDN article revealed to the world (but as most of us who were paying attention already knew) he has no real idea what he's talking about with economic policy beyond a handful of diatribes, applause lines and childish ideas that are just as bad as 9-9-9.

A central theme of Clinton's campaign is the fact that she's overwhelmingly qualified for the job while Sanders is not.  For her to carry on that theme isn't wrong, because there's a mountain of evidence to back up her assertion.  For Sanders to say the inverse, that he is qualified to be president but she is not, and then back it up with the reasoning that "nobody who has a Super PAC or voted for the Iraq War is qualified to be president" is just astonishingly stupid.  Even the GOP admits that Clinton is qualified to be president, except I guess Trump.

Not that she said it anyway, that's just a lie the Bernie liars are promoting to try to make this indefensible Bernie attack look like "an eye for an eye"

SteveMcQueen,
You forgot to include that Sanders is "not qualified because he drives a Honda," or "not qualified because there was a roach found in Sander's home."

Aren't you a trump supporter ?
(Refer to my post which is 8 spots above yours.)

No, I don't support Trump because Donald Trump is not qualified to be president of the United States, for basically the same reasons Bernie Sanders isn't.  It's not asinine to say and having a minimal understanding of foreign, economic and military policy is not a trivial issue like driving a Honda or having a super PAC.

Oh OK.
Well then in that case, I will follow your exact lead and say that "Cruz is not qualified to be president because he refused to wear a cheese-head hat in Wisconsin."
And "Kasich is not qualified because (include any stupid reason here)."

My reasons weren't stupid.  I feel like you would have written this post no matter what I said.

Please explain how the reasons I gave do not disqualify Sanders from the presidency.

Or, alternatively, explain how "he didn't wear a cheese-head hat" and "he doesn't understand foreign policy, has no idea how to lead the military, and has a high-school redditor's understanding of the economy" are equally trivial reasons.

[Lyin' Steve]

I don't share that view, and I'll be the first to admit that I think he went too far with that comment. But if it's wrong for Sanders to say that about Clinton, it's wrong for her to say it (or to be more specific, imply it) about Sanders.

Sanders isn't qualified to be president, though.  He's absolutely 100% clueless on foreign policy, has absolutely no qualifications to be commander of the armed forces, and as the NYDN article revealed to the world (but as most of us who were paying attention already knew) he has no real idea what he's talking about with economic policy beyond a handful of diatribes, applause lines and childish ideas that are just as bad as 9-9-9.

A central theme of Clinton's campaign is the fact that she's overwhelmingly qualified for the job while Sanders is not.  For her to carry on that theme isn't wrong, because there's a mountain of evidence to back up her assertion.  For Sanders to say the inverse, that he is qualified to be president but she is not, and then back it up with the reasoning that "nobody who has a Super PAC or voted for the Iraq War is qualified to be president" is just astonishingly stupid.  Even the GOP admits that Clinton is qualified to be president, except I guess Trump.

Not that she said it anyway, that's just a lie the Bernie liars are promoting to try to make this indefensible Bernie attack look like "an eye for an eye"

SteveMcQueen,
You forgot to include that Sanders is "not qualified because he drives a Honda," or "not qualified because there was a roach found in Sander's home."

Aren't you a trump supporter ?
(Refer to my post which is 8 spots above yours.)

No, I don't support Trump because Donald Trump is not qualified to be president of the United States, for basically the same reasons Bernie Sanders isn't.  It's not asinine to say and having a minimal understanding of foreign, economic and military policy is not a trivial issue like driving a Honda or having a super PAC.

Oh OK.
Well then in that case, I will follow your exact lead and say that "Cruz is not qualified to be president because he refused to wear a cheese-head hat in Wisconsin."
And "Kasich is not qualified because (include any stupid reason here)."

My reasons weren't stupid.  I feel like you would have written this post no matter what I said.
Please explain how the reasons I gave do not disqualify Sanders from the presidency.
Or, alternatively, explain how "he didn't wear a cheese-head hat" and "he doesn't understand foreign policy, has no idea how to lead the military, and has a high-school redditor's understanding of the economy" are equally trivial reasons.

You are right ... I would have written what I said regardless of what you wrote. Or regardless if someone/anyone else would have wrote "not qualified."

What I mean to say is that the words "qualified" or "not qualified" should be left to how the Constitution reads and its "qualifications" for the Office of President.
If you mean to say that "in my opinion, someone is not fit for the office because of blah, blah, blah" ... then OK.

But to "disqualify" someone because of anything other than what the Constitution requires is ridiculous.
Because otherwise, anyone/everyone can create any silly/asinine statement for "not being qualified."
Remember, that even Supreme Court Justices need not have ANY law background at all to officially "qualify" for that position.

I use qualified in the sense that "a teenager with no job experience is not qualified to be CEO of JP Morgan Chase."  I think that's how most people understand the term.  When I say that, nobody asks "why, is he not a citizen or lawful resident of the United States?  Was he unable to produce a passport, birth certificate, or other valid form of identification?"

I guess that's why you were mocking me earlier.  Because you think it's ridiculous to use the term "qualified" in that sense... I see, it is all about that little semantic technicality, that was what you disagreed with?

[Lyin' Steve]

there goes his primetime speaking slot at the convention...i hope team clinton moves him to a low energy afternoon slot

He's not going to speak at the convention.  He lost that privilege in March when his campaign started promoting GOP clinton conspiracies.

I don't share that view, and I'll be the first to admit that I think he went too far with that comment. But if it's wrong for Sanders to say that about Clinton, it's wrong for her to say it (or to be more specific, imply it) about Sanders.

Sanders isn't qualified to be president, though.  He's absolutely 100% clueless on foreign policy, has absolutely no qualifications to be commander of the armed forces, and as the NYDN article revealed to the world (but as most of us who were paying attention already knew) he has no real idea what he's talking about with economic policy beyond a handful of diatribes, applause lines and childish ideas that are just as bad as 9-9-9.

A central theme of Clinton's campaign is the fact that she's overwhelmingly qualified for the job while Sanders is not.  For her to carry on that theme isn't wrong, because there's a mountain of evidence to back up her assertion.  For Sanders to say the inverse, that he is qualified to be president but she is not, and then back it up with the reasoning that "nobody who has a Super PAC or voted for the Iraq War is qualified to be president" is just astonishingly stupid.  Even the GOP admits that Clinton is qualified to be president, except I guess Trump.

Not that she said it anyway, that's just a lie the Bernie liars are promoting to try to make this indefensible Bernie attack look like "an eye for an eye"

Sanders is not 100% clueless on foreign policy. Generally people who are clueless about foreign policy do not do a very good job of forewarning congress about the dangers of needlessly taking out a dictator, and are usually not proven right shortly thereafter. Clinton's views on foreign policy are one of my biggest reasons for supporting Sanders. She is much more hawkish than I would like, and her Iraq vote was not her only mistake when it comes to foreign policy. He did have an interview that reflected badly on him, I'll admit that. That does not undo 100% of the work he's done in the house and the senate. You can argue that Hillary Clinton is more qualified than Sanders, but I think you lose credibility when you speak in hyperbole, and compare him to someone who has literally no political experience and actually is talking out of his ass.

Trump also supposedly warned about the dangers of overthrowing a dictator.  My uncle told me in 2003 that the Iraq War was a stupid idea and there weren't going to be any WMDs.  It's easy to be clueless about foreign policy and still have simple views, that's the position of most Americans -- we're all surrounded by opinions and news every hour of the day.  But it shouldn't be the position of the man or woman who has to navigate the complex web of relationships America has with foreign leaders, manage and make crisis decisions about how to utilize the world's most powerful and engaged military force, or make judgment calls based on the tradeoffs and potential consequences any decision may have on the millions of interlocking puzzle pieces that make up the rest of the world.

Hillary has shown again and again and again that she has a thorough understanding of how these things work.  Sanders has shown that he read an editorial in Socialism Weekly about how overthrowing dictators is bad.  Every time he's been pressed on foreign policy he's revealed his simplistic understanding of the world.  In these unstable times that's not ok, it's unsafe and he is irresponsible for running when he knows he's not up to the job.  Ask Bernie how he would have negotiated the 2009 Turkey-Armenia peace treaty, the answer is he wouldn't have been able to because there were a thousand issues at play and he doesn't even know what they were, much less how to reason about them.  Hillary did and that's why she was able to secure the treaty.

[Lyin' Steve]

there goes his primetime speaking slot at the convention...i hope team clinton moves him to a low energy afternoon slot

He's not going to speak at the convention.  He lost that privilege in March when his campaign started promoting GOP clinton conspiracies.

I don't share that view, and I'll be the first to admit that I think he went too far with that comment. But if it's wrong for Sanders to say that about Clinton, it's wrong for her to say it (or to be more specific, imply it) about Sanders.

Sanders isn't qualified to be president, though.  He's absolutely 100% clueless on foreign policy, has absolutely no qualifications to be commander of the armed forces, and as the NYDN article revealed to the world (but as most of us who were paying attention already knew) he has no real idea what he's talking about with economic policy beyond a handful of diatribes, applause lines and childish ideas that are just as bad as 9-9-9.

A central theme of Clinton's campaign is the fact that she's overwhelmingly qualified for the job while Sanders is not.  For her to carry on that theme isn't wrong, because there's a mountain of evidence to back up her assertion.  For Sanders to say the inverse, that he is qualified to be president but she is not, and then back it up with the reasoning that "nobody who has a Super PAC or voted for the Iraq War is qualified to be president" is just astonishingly stupid.  Even the GOP admits that Clinton is qualified to be president, except I guess Trump.

Not that she said it anyway, that's just a lie the Bernie liars are promoting to try to make this indefensible Bernie attack look like "an eye for an eye"

Sanders is not 100% clueless on foreign policy. Generally people who are clueless about foreign policy do not do a very good job of forewarning congress about the dangers of needlessly taking out a dictator, and are usually not proven right shortly thereafter. Clinton's views on foreign policy are one of my biggest reasons for supporting Sanders. She is much more hawkish than I would like, and her Iraq vote was not her only mistake when it comes to foreign policy. He did have an interview that reflected badly on him, I'll admit that. That does not undo 100% of the work he's done in the house and the senate. You can argue that Hillary Clinton is more qualified than Sanders, but I think you lose credibility when you speak in hyperbole, and compare him to someone who has literally no political experience and actually is talking out of his ass.

Trump also supposedly warned about the dangers of overthrowing a dictator.  My uncle told me in 2003 that the Iraq War was a stupid idea and there weren't going to be any WMDs.  It's easy to be clueless about foreign policy and still have simple views, that's the position of most Americans -- we're all surrounded by opinions and news every hour of the day.  But it shouldn't be the position of the man or woman who has to navigate the complex web of relationships America has with foreign leaders, manage and make crisis decisions about how to utilize the world's most powerful and engaged military force, or make judgment calls based on the tradeoffs and potential consequences any decision may have on the millions of interlocking puzzle pieces that make up the rest of the world.

Hillary has shown again and again and again that she has a thorough understanding of how these things work.  Sanders has shown that he read an editorial in Socialism Weekly about how overthrowing dictators is bad.  Every time he's been pressed on foreign policy he's revealed his simplistic understanding of the world.  In these unstable times that's not ok, it's unsafe and he is irresponsible for running when he knows he's not up to the job.  Ask Bernie how he would have negotiated the 2009 Turkey-Armenia peace treaty, the answer is he wouldn't have been able to because there were a thousand issues at play and he doesn't even know what they were, much less how to reason about them.  Hillary did and that's why she was able to secure the treaty.

So you're considering Sanders' vote against the Iraq War and his speech on the House floor a lucky guess? He was a little more specific than just saying regime change = bad. He definitely demonstrated an understanding better than one you get out of "Socialism Weekly" (come on, really?) He's not merely a stubborn pacifist, since there are instances in which he has voted to authorize the use of force, but he's clearly shown more restraint than the vast majority of congress, which is something I find important. Feel free to disagree, and argue that the U.S. needs a more aggressive leader, but if you actually look at Sanders' record, speeches, and his votes, the assertion that he's braindead on foreign policy is ludicrous. I'm not saying Hillary Clinton did nothing good as Secretary of State. I happen to think that she was a very effective Secretary of State on the whole. However, what she plans to do as President regarding Syria worries me, and the fact that she has made some good decisions before doesn't mean that she's right in this particular case.

I am willing to accept that Sanders has shown some understanding of foreign policy in the past, especially in particular situations where he had a good amount of time to study the issue at hand.  His statements on the campaign trail, his responses to questions in debates, and his responses to interview questions, however, all reveal that he lacks the thorough, nuanced and widespread understanding and judgment of Hillary Clinton, understanding and judgment which in my opinion is crucial for any national leader, but particularly the leader of the most powerful and influential country on earth.

[Lyin' Steve]

there goes his primetime speaking slot at the convention...i hope team clinton moves him to a low energy afternoon slot

He's not going to speak at the convention.  He lost that privilege in March when his campaign started promoting GOP clinton conspiracies.

I don't share that view, and I'll be the first to admit that I think he went too far with that comment. But if it's wrong for Sanders to say that about Clinton, it's wrong for her to say it (or to be more specific, imply it) about Sanders.

Sanders isn't qualified to be president, though.  He's absolutely 100% clueless on foreign policy, has absolutely no qualifications to be commander of the armed forces, and as the NYDN article revealed to the world (but as most of us who were paying attention already knew) he has no real idea what he's talking about with economic policy beyond a handful of diatribes, applause lines and childish ideas that are just as bad as 9-9-9.

A central theme of Clinton's campaign is the fact that she's overwhelmingly qualified for the job while Sanders is not.  For her to carry on that theme isn't wrong, because there's a mountain of evidence to back up her assertion.  For Sanders to say the inverse, that he is qualified to be president but she is not, and then back it up with the reasoning that "nobody who has a Super PAC or voted for the Iraq War is qualified to be president" is just astonishingly stupid.  Even the GOP admits that Clinton is qualified to be president, except I guess Trump.

Not that she said it anyway, that's just a lie the Bernie liars are promoting to try to make this indefensible Bernie attack look like "an eye for an eye"

Sanders is not 100% clueless on foreign policy. Generally people who are clueless about foreign policy do not do a very good job of forewarning congress about the dangers of needlessly taking out a dictator, and are usually not proven right shortly thereafter. Clinton's views on foreign policy are one of my biggest reasons for supporting Sanders. She is much more hawkish than I would like, and her Iraq vote was not her only mistake when it comes to foreign policy. He did have an interview that reflected badly on him, I'll admit that. That does not undo 100% of the work he's done in the house and the senate. You can argue that Hillary Clinton is more qualified than Sanders, but I think you lose credibility when you speak in hyperbole, and compare him to someone who has literally no political experience and actually is talking out of his ass.

Trump also supposedly warned about the dangers of overthrowing a dictator.  My uncle told me in 2003 that the Iraq War was a stupid idea and there weren't going to be any WMDs.  It's easy to be clueless about foreign policy and still have simple views, that's the position of most Americans -- we're all surrounded by opinions and news every hour of the day.  But it shouldn't be the position of the man or woman who has to navigate the complex web of relationships America has with foreign leaders, manage and make crisis decisions about how to utilize the world's most powerful and engaged military force, or make judgment calls based on the tradeoffs and potential consequences any decision may have on the millions of interlocking puzzle pieces that make up the rest of the world.

Hillary has shown again and again and again that she has a thorough understanding of how these things work.  Sanders has shown that he read an editorial in Socialism Weekly about how overthrowing dictators is bad.  Every time he's been pressed on foreign policy he's revealed his simplistic understanding of the world.  In these unstable times that's not ok, it's unsafe and he is irresponsible for running when he knows he's not up to the job.  Ask Bernie how he would have negotiated the 2009 Turkey-Armenia peace treaty, the answer is he wouldn't have been able to because there were a thousand issues at play and he doesn't even know what they were, much less how to reason about them.  Hillary did and that's why she was able to secure the treaty.

So you're considering Sanders' vote against the Iraq War and his speech on the House floor a lucky guess? He was a little more specific than just saying regime change = bad. He definitely demonstrated an understanding better than one you get out of "Socialism Weekly" (come on, really?) He's not merely a stubborn pacifist, since there are instances in which he has voted to authorize the use of force, but he's clearly shown more restraint than the vast majority of congress, which is something I find important. Feel free to disagree, and argue that the U.S. needs a more aggressive leader, but if you actually look at Sanders' record, speeches, and his votes, the assertion that he's braindead on foreign policy is ludicrous. I'm not saying Hillary Clinton did nothing good as Secretary of State. I happen to think that she was a very effective Secretary of State on the whole. However, what she plans to do as President regarding Syria worries me, and the fact that she has made some good decisions before doesn't mean that she's right in this particular case.

I am willing to accept that Sanders has shown some understanding of foreign policy in the past, especially in particular situations where he had a good amount of time to study the issue at hand.  His statements on the campaign trail, his responses to questions in debates, and his responses to interview questions, however, all reveal that he lacks the thorough, nuanced and widespread understanding and judgment of Hillary Clinton, understanding and judgment which in my opinion is crucial for any national leader, but particularly the leader of the most powerful and influential country on earth.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that. While it's true that he hasn't gotten as specific as I'd like in debates, the same is true for me when it comes to Clinton's responses. Part of that might be the time constraint of debates. I believe that Clinton has been in the spotlight when it comes to foreign policy, and while her accomplishments are easy to see, so are instances in which she showed poor judgment. There are issues, like gun control, where I actually prefer Clinton over Sanders, but foreign policy is definitely not one of those issues for me.

What are Bernie's accomplishments or judgment calls on foreign policy?  Other than his vote against both the Iraq War and the defunding thereof.

[Lyin' Steve]

No wait, do people actually think that quote this merits anger and hostility? Hillary Clinton, and her allies, have been implying this about Bernie Sanders from the very beginning of this year. Hillary Clinton, and her allies, have suggested that Bernie Sanders isn't a real Democrat, that he's "a liar", that he's opposed to the Affordable Care Act, that he was opposed to the auto bailout, that he's responsible for Sandy Hook etc. To me, that's a pretty dirty campaign rooted in deception and spin.

Welcome to the big league. The gloves come off.

Even though Sanders has been in Congress for decades, he is a completely unvetted as a national candidate. Sending a completely unvetted candidate straight into the GOP attack firestorm is a terrible idea. This isn't Hillary's first rodeo.

The FBI isn't finished vetting Hillary.

If Hillary goes down, it sure as hell won't be at the hands of a completely unhinged, flailing Bernie Sanders.

Agreed. But I find myself in agreement with Bernie's sentiment: Hillary Clinton is "not qualified" to be President, if for no other reason than that she doesn't seem to understand how to safeguard sensitive information in her care.

ayyy #hillaryforprison #feelthebern