• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Stephanopoulos points out Merriam-Webster definition of taxes to president

I am always amused by people who require a link to the OBVIOUS.

Tell me something, what part of managing one of the largest Governments and most powerful country on the globe suggests that a candidate for the job should NOT require "some degree of qualifications and a resume of experience to point to?"
It was before our alliance with Venezuela and Cuba. Remember?

Ok. If y'all don't want to post links then I will.

Requirements to Become President of the United States

* Only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both citizens of the U.S.) may be president of the United States, though from time to time that requirement is called into question, most recently after Arnold Schwarzenegger, born in Austria, was elected governor of California, in 2003. The Constitution originally provided a small loophole to this provision: One needn't have been born in the United States but had to be a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. But, since that occurred in 1789, that ship has sailed.

* One must also be at least 35 years of age to be president. John F. Kennedy was the youngest person to be elected president; he was 43 years old when he was inaugurated in 1961. There is no maximum age limit set forth in the Constitution. Ronald Reagan was the oldest president; at the end of his term in 1988, he was nearly 77.

* Finally, one must live in the United States for at least 14 years to be president, in addition to being a natural-born citizen. The Constitution is vague on this point. For example, it does not make clear whether those 14 years need to be consecutive or what the precise definition of residency is. So far, however, this requirement has not been challenged.

Show me the part in there where it says anything about a resume.
 
Ok. If y'all don't want to post links then I will.

Requirements to Become President of the United States

Show me the part in there where it says anything about a resume.

Oh my, this is truly laughable; so your argument is that the ONLY requirements for the most powerful person in the world is that they meet the minimum criteria set forth in the Constitution?

Well, then you must also think that Palin was completely qualified for the job of President and that the Democrat Party, their willing minions in the mainstream Liberal media and the Obama campaign were all lying when they declared that Palin was in fact NOT qualified, right?

I bet if I looked hard enough, I would find a quote of you parroting your Liberal pals positions on Palin as well?

I'll be right back folks, I am going to need my HIP WADERS for the next response I am sure.
:rofl
 
Last edited:
Do tell me what FACTS are required to argue that to be President one should at least have some qualifications/experience for the job? I am curious what facts you think one needs to state the OBVIOUS.

We'll you are the one ranting about facts all the time and I would just like most people expect you to come with a fact occasionally. And TD the fact is any natural born citizen in the USA over the age of 35 can become President.
 
Oh my, this is truly laughable; so your argument is that the ONLY requirements for the most powerful person in the world is that they meet the minimum criteria set forth in the Constitution?

Well, it is also a requirement that they be popular enough to win the popularity contest.

Well, then you must also think that Palin was completely qualified for the job of President and that the Democrat Party, their willing minions in the mainstream Liberal media and the Obama campaign were all lying when they declared that Palin was in fact NOT qualified, right?

Yep, aside from not being popular enough, she was qualified. Obviously she wasn't competent, and wouldn't have done a good job, but look at the original assertion that I am contesting:

Once upon a time, being president required some degree of qualifications and a resume of experience to point to.

I believe these "good ol' days" are a myth. People have been voting in scumbags since the beginning.
I bet if I looked hard enough, I would find a quote of you parroting your Liberal pals positions on Palin as well?

Why don't you go do that then?

I'll be right back folks, I am going to need my HIP WADERS for the next response I am sure.

I can't blame you. If I were wallowing in what you seem to be wallowing in, I would want hip waders too.:2wave:
 
Ok. If y'all don't want to post links then I will.

Requirements to Become President of the United States



Show me the part in there where it says anything about a resume.

Are you really missing the point that badly? There was a time when voters held their presidential candidates to a certain set of basic, minimal standards.

Obama as president is the equivalent of Pee Wee Herman as Secretary of Defense.

Go rent Idiocracy. Tell me if we aren't already there.
 
Are you really missing the point that badly? There was a time when voters held their presidential candidates to a certain set of basic, minimal standards.

And again, I want to see evidence for this assertion.

What did Franklin Pierce have on his resume? Did he have any more political experience than Obama?

Obama as president is the equivalent of Pee Wee Herman as Secretary of Defense.

Or Arnold Schwarzenegger as a Governor... Or a horse as a Senator... Yeah, obviously prior to Obama, only extremely competent people served in public offices.:roll:
 
We'll you are the one ranting about facts all the time and I would just like most people expect you to come with a fact occasionally. And TD the fact is any natural born citizen in the USA over the age of 35 can become President.

Yes it is a fact that the constitution lays out the minium requirements, but the notion that one can become President without any experience or qualifications, well, that requires the willing suspension of disbelief.

Did you think Palin was qualified to become President? She met those minimums. :rofl
 
Do tell me what FACTS are required to argue that to be President one should at least have some qualifications/experience for the job? I am curious what facts you think one needs to state the OBVIOUS.

Are you now going to argue that one requires no qualifications to become leader of the most powerful country on the globe and that the only way you will believe it is if you have a link? You’re kidding me right?
:rofl

Carry on; as usual you offer nothing but nonsensical BS. :2wave:

I thought one of the main qualifications was you had to show crunch a certified copy of the Hawaiian birth certificate. :mrgreen:
 
Once upon a time, being president required some degree of qualifications and a resume of experience to point to.

What about Lincoln? He only had 2 years house experience, and turned out to be one of the most effective holders of the office, regardless of your opinion of his policies.
 
What about Lincoln? He only had 2 years house experience, and turned out to be one of the most effective holders of the office, regardless of your opinion of his policies.

Lincoln had a LOT more experience than that:

In the August 1832 elections for the Illinois General Assembly, he ran unsuccessfully on the Whig ticket. Two years later, he won the seat representing Sangamon County and was reelected to three more terms.

Over the next 25 years, it was his work as an attorney, rather than a politician, that consumed most of his time.

In 1846 he won a term as Illinois’ only Whig Congressman.

Together with other opponents of the Act, he was instrumental in forming the new Republican Party. At the Republican national convention in 1856, he found himself placed second as candidate for vice-president.

When he accepted the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate in 1858, Lincoln gained fame for his speech: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other." The speech created an evocative image of the danger of national disunion caused by the slavery debate, and rallied Republicans across the north. In spite of losing his run for the Senate, Lincoln was nominated for President by the Illinois Republicans and, on the third ballot, by the Republican National Convention in May 1860.

Qualifications For A Successful President
 
Lincoln had a LOT more experience than that:

In the August 1832 elections for the Illinois General Assembly, he ran unsuccessfully on the Whig ticket. Two years later, he won the seat representing Sangamon County and was reelected to three more terms.

Over the next 25 years, it was his work as an attorney, rather than a politician, that consumed most of his time.

In 1846 he won a term as Illinois’ only Whig Congressman.

Together with other opponents of the Act, he was instrumental in forming the new Republican Party. At the Republican national convention in 1856, he found himself placed second as candidate for vice-president.

When he accepted the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate in 1858, Lincoln gained fame for his speech: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other." The speech created an evocative image of the danger of national disunion caused by the slavery debate, and rallied Republicans across the north. In spite of losing his run for the Senate, Lincoln was nominated for President by the Illinois Republicans and, on the third ballot, by the Republican National Convention in May 1860.

Qualifications For A Successful President

Alright. He served 4 terms in the state senate, and one term in the house. Other than that he gave a fancy speech, and lost a bunch of elections. Am I missing anything?
 
Alright. He served 4 terms in the state senate, and one term in the house. Other than that he gave a fancy speech, and lost a bunch of elections. Am I missing anything?

Yeah. You're missing that Truthy can use the dictionary and you can't. :lol:
 
Yeah. You're missing that Truthy can use the dictionary and you can't. :lol:

I'm sorry but I don't count losing elections as experience. Don't be a smart-ass and actually post something if you want to say something.
 
Alright. He served 4 terms in the state senate, and one term in the house. Other than that he gave a fancy speech, and lost a bunch of elections. Am I missing anything?

You apparently are deliberately missing a lot of this is all you got from the information I posted on Lincoln.

Again, Obama comes to the job with the least experience of any candidate before for the last six decades. Yet when the Liberals and media attempted to defend his lack of experience, they attacked a Vice President Camdidate for lacking experience who had MORE experience and whom was merely the VP candidate and not the Presidential candidate.

This all brings us full circle back to my question to your Liberal buddies:

Yes it is a fact that the constitution lays out the minimum requirements, but the notion that one can become President without any experience or qualifications, well, that requires the willing suspension of disbelief.

Did you think Palin was qualified to become President? She met those minimums.
 
Still waiting for all these people who think that electing the under-qualified is a recent development to defend Franklin Pierce's political resume.
 
Still waiting for all these people who think that electing the under-qualified is a recent development to defend Franklin Pierce's political resume.

I am curious; who made the argument that electing the under-qualified is a recent development?

:doh
 
You apparently are deliberately missing a lot of this is all you got from the information I posted on Lincoln.
Tell me in plain English what the point was, then. Because on a year-by-year experience, Obama wins. Just make your point already.

Again, Obama comes to the job with the least experience of any candidate before for the last six decades. Yet when the Liberals and media attempted to defend his lack of experience, they attacked a Vice President Camdidate for lacking experience who had MORE experience and whom was merely the VP candidate and not the Presidential candidate.

On election day, Obama had been a State Senator from 1997-2004 (8 years) and a US Senator from 2004-2008 (4 years).

Sarah Palin had been mayor of Wasilla, Alaska from 1996-2002 (6 years) and Governor of Alaska from 2006-2008 (2 Years). She was also on the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission in 2003 (1 Year).

So Obama had 12 years of political experience, 8 at the state level and 4 at the national level. Sarah Palin had 9 years of political experience, 6 at the local level, 1 on a committee, and 2 as governor. Correct me if I'm wrong but 12>9.

This all brings us full circle back to my question to your Liberal buddies:

Yes it is a fact that the constitution lays out the minimum requirements, but the notion that one can become President without any experience or qualifications, well, that requires the willing suspension of disbelief.

Did you think Palin was qualified to become President? She met those minimums.

I don't think she was qualified for reasons that go far beyond resumes.
 
Tell me in plain English what the point was, then. Because on a year-by-year experience, Obama wins. Just make your point already.



On election day, Obama had been a State Senator from 1997-2004 (8 years) and a US Senator from 2004-2008 (4 years).

Sarah Palin had been mayor of Wasilla, Alaska from 1996-2002 (6 years) and Governor of Alaska from 2006-2008 (2 Years). She was also on the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission in 2003 (1 Year).

So Obama had 12 years of political experience, 8 at the state level and 4 at the national level. Sarah Palin had 9 years of political experience, 6 at the local level, 1 on a committee, and 2 as governor. Correct me if I'm wrong but 12>9.



I don't think she was qualified for reasons that go far beyond resumes.

Technically Obama may have been in the U.S. Senate from 2004 - 2008, but he was only active from January 2005 til February 2007 when he started running for President, only 2 years.

Palin was on the city council for 4 years, mayor for 6 years, energy committee for 1 year, and governor for 2 1/2 years. So if you want to get technical, she wins 13 1/2 > 9 years.

I don't think Obama giving pretty speeches is a qualification for president and my opinion of him is being confirmed on a daily basis.
 
Last edited:
Tell me in plain English what the point was, then. Because on a year-by-year experience, Obama wins. Just make your point already.

If I may, perhaps Palin and her Boss McCain would have....

McChrystal Says He's Talked With Obama Once Since Taking Afghanistan Command - Political News - FOXNews.com

..been experienced enough to speak to their Theatre Commander...perhaps twice.

...Or perhaps they wouldn't have promised to close Gitmo in a year without a clue as to how to do it.

...but I think it's more about accountability. Obama knows he can show inexperience and flat out bone things up, his supporters aren't going to hold him to account. He's a cult figure, the type not held to account. A Michael Jackson if you will, an Elvis Presley.
 
I am curious; who made the argument that electing the under-qualified is a recent development?

Perhaps you weren't following the conversation:

Erod: Once upon a time, being president required some degree of qualifications and a resume of experience to point to.

Me: When was that? Link?

You: I am always amused by people who require a link to the OBVIOUS.

Tell me something, what part of managing one of the largest Governments and most powerful country on the globe suggests that a candidate for the job should NOT require "some degree of qualifications and a resume of experience to point to?"

Erod claimed that people used to hold politicians to high standards. I asked when this mythical time was, since I think politicians have been scraped from the bottom of the barrel since Roman times. You thought it was OBVIOUS that people used to hold politicians to high standards.

I provided evidence that we as a society do not require any level of experience to hold the office, and gave an example of a much earlier crappy president with no qualifications from your "good ol' days" when people held politicians to high standards.

Neither of you have provided any evidence to back your assertions at all. Consider yourselves pwned.
 
Technically Obama may have been in the U.S. Senate from 2004 - 2008, but he was only active from January 2005 til February 2007 when he started running for President, only 2 years.

Palin was on the city council for 4 years, mayor for 6 years, energy committee for 1 year, and governor for 2 1/2 years. So if you want to get technical, she wins 13 1/2 > 9 years.

I don't think Obama giving pretty speeches is a qualification for president and my opinion of him is being confirmed on a daily basis.

Does being on a city council even count? I mean, that's so far down the ladder... and she hadn't been governor for 2 1/2 years when she was running, it had been more like a year and a half.
 
Does being on a city council even count? I mean, that's so far down the ladder... and she hadn't been governor for 2 1/2 years when she was running, it had been more like a year and a half.

He counted her time as mayor and I don't see much difference in a city council person and mayor as far as executive experience goes.

My main point was that Obama was barely sworn in as a Senator when he started running for President.
 
He counted her time as mayor and I don't see much difference in a city council person and mayor as far as executive experience goes.

My main point was that Obama was barely sworn in as a Senator when he started running for President.

And Palin was barely sword in as governor when she started running for VP by your logic. What's your point?
 
Back
Top Bottom