Speechwriter for George W. Bush? You mean was he part of the team that turned torture into "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" and helped write the justifications for unlimited detainment without charges at Guantanamo Bay. This guy is complaining about altered moral equations? Trump must be right about something.
The quality of said experience matters. Some of it more than others. George Bush was a governor and he was a terrible president. Eisenhower never served in office but was a military man: He was the greatest Republican president in the past 70 years.
And John McCain was touted for his foreign policy experience despite saying that terrorists were crossing the IRAQ/PAKISTAN border (a thing that doesn't exist) and saying that the Sunni and Shia would not fight each other (these people have been fighting each other for over 1000 years). Bush was and is an idiot. JEB and DUBYA both are. Sarah Palin is also a walking flub.
Remember when George Stood atop the rubble? At least Trump isn't standing on the gravesite of dead American's to garner support. Speaking of bold pronouncedments, it was DUBYA who allowed THE #1 terrorist in the world to escape Tora Bora despite saying he'd be caught dead or alive.
Bad people can be right. Good people can be wrong. Putin is right and btw, lots of Republicans have praised PUTIN's behavior.
Actually, our founding fathers hated the notion of political parties and would probably be appalled at the two-party system. That Trump is boldy opposed to the establishment suggests that he may actually be more in line with the principles of the founding fathers. I can't destroy the rest of this article because I'll be late for work but this article is ****ing garbage and was written by a hack.
True, which I suspect is why the author said governing or military experience. If you served, you at least have an idea of what the CinC has to deal with, and perhaps know a bit more about national security and national defense issues than most other people.
Government has always been full of idiots; not denying that at all. The issue at hand is whether it makes any sense for someone who never served at ANY level of government to suddenly jump into the White House.
I honestly have to agree that it was unnecessary (and a bit silly) for the author to have opened that can of worms. Putin is indeed very bright, but you can't claim he's always honest.
He can't be THAT opposed to the establishment when he's looking for the nomination from a major party!
As you already said, bad people can be right and good people can be wrong.