Perhaps you’re thinking “eligible”?
“Qualified”, is an entirely different discussion.
As for qualified, there are two general meanings. Yes, he is qualified under the Constitution.
No, he is not qualified due to lack of knowledge, temperament and ethics.
In other words, it’s not whether he can get the job, the question is can he do the job?
I am not going to answer that since it’s a loaded question.
Maybe if you rephrased it?
It’s a perfectly clear question. You won’t answer it because you can’t.
Just to make clear about Trump and childishness (setting aside the question of how such childishness would be cause for disqualification) - I’m sure that disabled reporter might have a thought or two about DT’s childishness.
From the New Yorker article:
Yes, in full disclosure I will admit my confirmation bias in cherry-picking that above quote in an article that otherwise focuses on a bunch of right-wing pundits (mysterioso Decius in particluar) trying to turd-polish “Trumpism”.
While “Decius” at least acknowledged the Curiel issue, to dismiss Trump’s reprehensible actions as “unconventionality as a candidate” is disingenuous at best.
Of course it’s loaded. It’s asking someone to answer something they don’t believe is true. Why do you persist in saying that the moon is made of green cheese, running coach? I demand an answer. It’s a perfectly clear question.
Of course Trump can get the job. All he had to do was beat Hillary’s personality, and Obama’s policies.
The fact that the OP believes Trump is childish is probably the reason why so many people voted not to keep Obama’s policies, or be subjected to her royal Hillary.
If Hillary didn’t feel bad enough about getting her political ass kicked - again - the Hillary worshippers are now suggesting that Hillary was beaten by a child.
If the Hillary worshippers actually question if Trump can do the job, I would think that they would wait until he actually had the job, because they don’t seem to know very much about him. Except what they’ve been telling themselves. But we, you and I, know that this isn’t about whether Trump can do the job. It’s therapy for the broken hearted, and embarrassed, Hillary voters.
:dubious: Gee, I didn’t realize that “so many people” were aware of the OP’s personal opinion about Trump’s maturity level, or considered it important enough to influence their votes.
Or maybe you were trying to say something else.
I never said the moon is made of green cheese. It’s very evident by the samples the Apollo astronauts brought back, that the Moon is made of various forms of dirt and rock.
See? That was easy.
Fair enough.
Do you believe that Trump’s solution to the digital security challenge being faced today by the US is adequately and seriously addressed by suggesting, as he did, that sensitive information can be written down on paper and sent by courier?
Please explain your answer.
“Have you stopped beating your wife?” is a perfectly clear question as well.
Nobody, including the OP has brought up Hillary. Trump supporters are the only ones who continue to reminde everyone else that Hillary lost(!). Seems to me, her loss is much more satisfying to you than Trump’s win.
No. It is not to be taken literally. He is saying that anything transmitted electronically should be considered insecure (I should add, unless extraordinary measures are taken, which very few people take).
You are pretending to take his statement literally because of your bias/agenda. It is pretty clear to anyone without such that it was not to be taken literally.
The OP seems to be looking for one more excuse to explain Hillary’s 2nd failure to become POTUS. If he feels better believing that Hillary was beaten by a childish man, or a child, or the better candidate, I feel his pain. I empathize with his embarrassment. However, regardless of how he feels about the Trump candidacy, the Hillary candidacy finished in 2nd place. Behind Trump.
But was Hillary beaten by Trump’s alleged childishness?
He actually said it should be written down and sent by courier.
The Hill
And?
And it’s a fucking stupid idea.
There’s no way to have enough drivers to transport the number of messages that the federal gov’t sends. And that’s just local. What do you propose for a message going to San Francisco?
Then why didn’t he say that?
Why didn’t he say: “We live in a digital age where all businesses, all infrastructure, all private and social media, all government and military systems are subject to electronic espionage by state and independent enemy actors. During my administration I will direct our top cyber-security experts to develop and implement the most advanced state of the art digital security infrastructure to protect all US public and privately held assets.”
Why was his answer to technological security challenges a throw back to pen, paper and courier? Why does the next commander in chief need to have a translator to the commander in chief?
As I said, only if you take him literally. A silly strategy you (plural) have been using for more than a year now. What did that get you?