Who’s confused here

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That is false and totally stupid. In another thread you posted an article by a lady who worked for him. She credited him directly for his success and debunked the notion that his father handed him that success. He was personally responsible for putting together the team and carrying out his role and responsibility in order to get elected President of the United States. Very few have done that.

Your bias, hate, and lack of knowledge shines in your posts about Trump.

That was one person and if you read the whole article You would see her thoughts on him being president.

"Anything problematic for being president of the United States?

I’ve worked for a lot of developers, and the biggest developers in the world. I don’t think any of them should be president. I don’t think that he has the experience and the knowledge of the law, the knowledge of politics to be president."

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

That was one person and if you read the whole article You would see her thoughts on him being president.

"Anything problematic for being president of the United States?

I’ve worked for a lot of developers, and the biggest developers in the world. I don’t think any of them should be president. I don’t think that he has the experience and the knowledge of the law, the knowledge of politics to be president."

I did read the whole article. And she did, for the most and main body of the article, praise Trump for his methods, including selecting teams to carry out his vision and working with them toward success. And she attributed his success to his own direction, methods, and ability to promote and carry things to completion. And she said that she would gladly work with him again.

Her small negative statement regarding his qualification for being President was solely on his lack of experience in law and politics. It was not about him supposedly being a terrible, incompetent, sexist, homophobe, etc. The experience thing was her opinion. If you agree with that, I disagree with you and her. The few qualifications listed in the Constitution don't agree with either of you. And the fruits of those kind of "qualified" politicians who have been running the federal government is proof to me that those qualifications don't necessarily lead to good government. Otherwise, we should all be satisfied with the present state of national debt, and government squabbling of how it should intrude in every aspect of our lives.

I agree more with what W. F. Buckley said: "I would rather be governed by the first 2000 people in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2000 people on the faculty of Harvard University."

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I agree more with what W. F. Buckley said: "I would rather be governed by the first 2000 people in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2000 people on the faculty of Harvard University."

So would Robespierre, Mao and Pol Pot but you can’t kill all the people with glasses here
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

So would Robespierre, Mao and Pol Pot but you can’t kill all the people with glasses here
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If the first 2000 people in the Boston telephone directory had ruled France at the time of the French Revolution, things would have turned out much better for the French people. Of course, there was no Boston telephone directory at that time. But if 2000 Bostonians at that time had ruled France, that as well would have been far far far better for the French people. Even though Robespierre had more political experience.

And if those same 2000 Bostonians, either from the telephone directory, or like those during the American revolution, had ruled Cambodia instead of Pol Pot, the Cambodians would have been much much much better off.