Sanders calls Clinton "unqualified" megathread

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Hillary Clinton is clearly unqualified to be President.  Blaming Sanders for the Sandy Hook deaths when she has supported an endless stream of war is reprehensible.

She should be ashamed, indeed, she should drop out ASAP.

Agreed

I thought that was just tabloid sensationalism from the New York Daily News.

Literally no one from the Clinton campaign has blamed Sanders for Sandy Hook. But like their candidate, Sanders' supporters have a severe honesty problem.

We're dealing with pretty emotional people right now, they're mostly new to politics and think winning is their right because they feel. so. hard. I'm sick of it.

[Gass3268]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

CNN

Clinton says Sanders isn't qualified = Perfectly Fine
Sanders counters back = Negative Campaigning

[Brewer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

CNN

Clinton says Sanders isn't qualified = Perfectly Fine
Sanders counters back = Negative Campaigning

Except she didn't?? Why is this so hard to grasp?

[ProudModerate2]

I hope Sanders didn't really say that.
I have respect for him, in keeping his campaign positive and without nasty, stupid attacks and accusations. (Same can be said for most/all of how Hillary is campaigning.)
Don't go down that road Sanders. Or else you will be compared to that idiot on the R side (Drumpf).

This whole notion of someone "not being qualified," is asinine.
What next "your are not qualified because you have a vagina/penis," "you are not qualified because you drive a Honda," "you are not qualified because there was a roach found in your home" etc etc.
Leave this kind of idiocy to drumpf, and his followers who believe/swallow this style of bulls**t.

[Ebsy]

The headlines said she questioned whether he was qualified to be president, but that is not what she actually said.

"I think he hadn't done his homework and he'd been talking for more than a year about doing things that he obviously hadn't really studied or understood, and that does raise a lot of questions."

Nowhere does she actually say that he isn't qualified to be President. So he was essentially misquoting her, then attacking her for his interpretation of his misquote.

[psychprofessor]

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

[Xing]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The headlines said she questioned whether he was qualified to be president, but that is not what she actually said.

"I think he hadn't done his homework and he'd been talking for more than a year about doing things that he obviously hadn't really studied or understood, and that does raise a lot of questions."

Nowhere does she actually say that he isn't qualified to be President. So he was essentially misquoting her, then attacking her for his interpretation of his misquote.

She basically said he wasn't here. You Hillary hacks can dish it out, but can't take it.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/clinton-isnt-sure-that-sanders-is-a-democrat.html

[ProudModerate2]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

CNN

Clinton says Sanders isn't qualified = Perfectly Fine
Sanders counters back = Negative Campaigning

Except she didn't?? Why is this so hard to grasp?

I agree.
Did she (her directly) say Sanders was not qualified ?
If so, post the exact quote, or post the link.
Don't post "she kind of said," or "she meant," or "she basically said."
Actual quote please !

[Gass3268]

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

Sanders is going to have enough delegates to make sure that he has some control over the convention.

[Mehmentum]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

CNN

Clinton says Sanders isn't qualified = Perfectly Fine
Sanders counters back = Negative Campaigning

The backlash has more to do with how believable the attacks are.

Sanders attacking Clinton over taking money from big business and using SuperPacs hasn't really gotten complaints because its generally considered a legitimate point.  The same is true for Clinton attacking Sanders over being prepared to be president.

But Sanders saying Clinton isn't qualified doesn't seem like a legitimate point, its honestly pretty out of left field.  Which is we see this kind of reaction.

[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"

[Gass3268]

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.

Like I said, he's going to have enough delegate control to have some control over the convention, like his speech.

[Blue3]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

CNN

Clinton says Sanders isn't qualified = Perfectly Fine
Sanders counters back = Negative Campaigning

Clinton never said that.

When Sanders said "Hillary said I'm quote, unquote not qualified"
He was either
1. misinformed
2. lying

[Ebowed]

Hillary Clinton is clearly unqualified to be President.  Blaming Sanders for the Sandy Hook deaths when she has supported an endless stream of war is reprehensible.

She should be ashamed, indeed, she should drop out ASAP.

Are you serious Ebowed?

Do I think the leading candidate should drop out? No, but I did think it appropriate / amusing to offer some counterbalance to some of the trolling here.

[Gass3268]

Hillary Clinton is clearly unqualified to be President.  Blaming Sanders for the Sandy Hook deaths when she has supported an endless stream of war is reprehensible.

She should be ashamed, indeed, she should drop out ASAP.

Are you serious Ebowed?

Do I think the leading candidate should drop out? No, but I did think it appropriate / amusing to offer some counterbalance to some of the trolling here.

Yeah, things are getting crazy here.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

She's obviously not. Clinton's attacks on Sanders have been disgraceful and to spin it and say how dare he bring up Iraq while you are accusing him with his Gun Record and bringing Sandy Hook victims into this. You should be ashamed especially because of this attack of Obama in 2008:



Terrible.

[Ebsy]

She's obviously not. Clinton's attacks on Sanders have been disgraceful and to spin it and say how dare he bring up Iraq while you are accusing him with his Gun Record and bringing Sandy Hook victims into this. You should be ashamed especially because of this attack of Obama in 2008:



Terrible.

Blatant red herring.

[ProudModerate2]

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.)

[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.

[ProudModerate2]

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)."

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/06/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-democrats-unity/index.html

The Hillary campaign made the decision to go nuclear.

[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.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/06/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-democrats-unity/index.html

The Hillary campaign made the decision to go nuclear.

Jesus the phrasing in their post is terrible.

[Adam Griffin]

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.

Like I said, he's going to have enough delegate control to have some control over the convention, like his speech.

Yeah, not only is he going to have "some control over the convention", he very well may have the control over the convention...especially when you get down to brass tacks about the platform et al. He's practically guaranteed at this point to have at least 40% of the delegates (pledged + superdelegates).

When you take the percentage of Democratic voters who agree more with Sanders on broader policy and ideology than they do with Clinton - which includes a significant number of people who voted for Clinton because of concerns over electability and party loyalty - it is a majority. When you measure that same dynamic among party delegates - who are ideologues, activists and the like - it's an even larger majority. Sanders is going to get his way with the party platform up and down the line: I don't even think a "minority report" is going to be necessary in this case. Any decision that requires the input of a majority of delegates is going to favor Sanders over Clinton.

Add to all of that the fact that there are going to be plenty of Clinton delegates who understand the need for Sanders to play a prominent role in the convention (perhaps even to just avoid the "minority report" platform issues, which I still think won't be necessary for Sanders to get his way unless it's used as a tool for leverage) and Clintonland is going to be hard-pressed to be vindictive about any of this.