Who has the most qualified political opinion on here?

Who has the most credentials to their name on here to voice their political opinion/knowledge and most people have a hard time arguing with them?

In other words, who is the biggest political badass around here? In your opinion, naturally.

Me.

What are you credential my good man?

I’m aware that a Doper or two have stood as candidates for political elections, but that’s far too narrow a field. I’m not aware of any Doper that holds any political office. Of the politically active Dopers on the Dope, I’d have to give the nod to Sam Stone, one of the few right-wingers who’s stood up and not been chased off.

I’m one, although it’s a rather small office. Hopefully, another one will have been added to my resume in a couple years.

There is no such person. We all argue with anybody and everybody. That is, of course, sad, as it is my opinions which are always correct.

You show me yours and I’ll show you mine.

First we’d have to know what will we call “credentials” and how they qualify a political opinion. It could well be that someone who has never been either an active public policymaker or a full-time academic of politics, has the best insights. If direct experience in the field or academic pursuit of the subject is to be used, I’d only compete on the specific narrow field of Puerto Rican politics (CV includes 6 years as staff of Speaker, Platform Cmtee. staff for 2 San Juan mayoral campaigns, Sr. Platform Cmtee. staff for 2 gubernatorial campaigns, 2 yrs. Sr. Staff House Govt. Cmtee, plus time as external advisor/consultant; but no PoliSci or Law academic work…)

Well, see, there’s the thing. I do listen to you when it comes to Puerto Rican politics. Your opinion ranks. But I seem to recall arguing with you about statehood sometime back.

I think most of the members here are that way. We will listen to someone who knows whereof they speak. But not argue with them? Ha.

With the knowledge I currently possess, and given that my understanding of the situation is in reality factually correct (and also noting that I am by no means an expert on the issues of corporate accounting), it is my opinion that, in light of the record of corporate misgovernance which it was passed in response to, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act–assuming fair and equitable enforcement, and of course always allowing for the possibility that subsequent legislation will improve upon the act, that later intepretations or implementations by the courts or by regulatory agencies may apply the act in ways with which I disagree, or that subsequent studies may show the act has bad consequences of which I am currently unaware–is, on balance, a good thing for our nation (although no doubt it does inconvenience some people). Of course others may well disagree with that opinion.

Exactly: specially in the view of the OP’s “hard time arguing” criterion, that would have to be limited to issues of specific factual knowledge. Even then “credentials” only “qualify” in the sense of “s/he knows the subject he’s talking about”, not necessarily in the sense of “s/he must be right”.

It is clearly I who have the most qualified political opinion on here. Every time I offer up a political opinion, someone comes along and qualifies it.

Me. I pay my taxes and vote. How’d ya like them credentials?

Bolding was mine.

I’d just like to see them try :wink:

As to the OP, my opinion is that I don’t have an opinion.

tomndeb

</vote>

I definitely have the most qualified political opinions here. I qualify every political opinion I express, except in certain circumstances.