2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHRC is not MORALLY qualified to be president...that's what Bernie was saying.
Last edited Thu Apr 7, 2016, 02:21 PM - Edit history (1)
OK, she has done a lot of things, and she is mundanely competent.
Either of them could handle the duties of the job, we all know that.
But she is not morally qualified.
Her ties to corporate America discredit her morally, because you can't work in behalf of those in the streets AND those in the suites.
Her support of globalist economic discredits her morally, because you can't work for treaties that allow corporations to overturn labor laws, environmental laws and social programs put in place by sovereign democratic governments(by setting up "tribunals" that always rule in favor of the corporations against the sovereign governments).
Her ties to neoconservatives and her treatment of Henry Kissinger as a trusted advisor on foreign policy discredit her morally, because you can't play a humane, progressive role in the world if your default tool for influencing international events is military intervention and the threat of military intervention.
Her past willingness to betray some of the most powerless core supporters in the name of short-term political advantage for her and her husband morally disqualifies her, because the test of a moral politician is when they stand with the defenseless and the powerless when it is hard, not when it is risk-free.
It's not just being competent at the tasks of the position. It's being committed to never working out of any but the highest, most decent principles in the way you carry out the tasks. That's what being a leader means. That's what being qualified on the human, moral level, rather than simply the level of training and "experience" means.
(on edit).
She could address her moral qualifications issues by renouncing her current views on foreign policy, trade policy, and economics-none of which are views she HAS to hold onto to win in the fall.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)JudyM
(29,294 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)JudyM
(29,294 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)disqualified. The President would be unqualified under Sanders' definition.
JudyM
(29,294 posts)TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...unless you're solidly in Hillary's corner. With every "unqualified" statement came a qualifier with it that defined what he meant. If you choose to just stop at "unqualified" then you're not being honest...which is kind of their MO.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)Nuance gets in the way of Hillary's baseless daily smear talking points.
JudyM
(29,294 posts)ethical judgment... Policy decisions (as SOS) and votes (as Senator) exchanged, apparently, for donations, favors and influence.
Yurovsky
(2,064 posts)She loves money. She loves the rockstar lifestyle that comes from having mountains of it. She doesn't really care where it comes from or who suffers as a result.
She's a Rockefeller Republican in all but name, IMHO.
She certainly isn't a progressive, at least by my standards.
yourout
(7,534 posts)wiltom99
(27 posts)She is definitely NOT qualified!
anotherproletariat
(1,446 posts)Just as some people agree with your point, others think that a candidate who campaigns on certain issues should be able to articulate details about them when asked. I have always liked Bernie, but I would think that even his supporters would recognize that he really dropped the ball with that interview.
Beacool
(30,253 posts)He could have used different terminology, but he didn't. He said "unqualified" and it has been reported by all media. Nice way to give more fodder to the GOP. It was hitting bellow the belt, particularly since she's far more qualified than he is to be president.
Whatever happened to the claim that his campaign wasn't going to go negative?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)We hate the "reality" of politics, we agree so why do we keep supporting it? Rewarding it? Encouraging it?
And, yes, voting for it?
I'm with Bernie. There's nothing more to say.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)speaktruthtopower
(800 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)We'll see if Bernie will own his words at the debate when she's standing next to him.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Clearly, HRC was given control of foreign policy in this administration, given how much more hawkish and right-of-center it has been compared to Obama's foreign policy rhetoric.
HRC was not just doing what Obama told her to do.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)PufPuf23
(8,843 posts)Watch this clip.
lostnfound
(16,193 posts)In many jobs, you have to sign statements that you don't have any conflicts of interest.
"In my view, anyone who voted for the disastrous war in Iraq lacks the judgment or wisdom required to be president."
I don't think changing it to "morally qualified" has the right tone either. Sounds too much like judging a person rather than fitness for the job.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Herman4747
(1,825 posts)...as both of the people below would agree:
"Henry Kissingers War Crimes Are Central to the Divide Between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders"
Blue_Adept
(6,402 posts)Using moral/morally in this regard is just as dangerous and stupid.
It's like saying there's one set of morals that are the RIGHT ones and everyone else is wrong.
Just more absolutism from the Sanders side.