Is either Trump or Hillary "qualified" to be president? The Constitution says yes, but what do you think a qualified president is?

2016-06-26T14:41:56-04:00

According to the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section I,:

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."

Given this low bar to "qualify" someone as President, is this even something to argue? I would say they are both "qualified". However, what do you want to see in a president? Specifically, what would be the desired skills/experience you want to see in a President?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/26/politics/mitch-mcconnell-donald-trump-qualified/index.html

McConnell won't say if Trump is qualified for presidency

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wouldn't answer questions Sunday about whether Donald Trump is qualified for the presidency, saying he'll "leave that to the American people to decide."

Response by Alan K. made Jun 26 at 2016 2:52 PM

2016-06-26T14:52:37-04:00

My opinion is that we should have someone who will puts American Values first and we can build off that. If we don't have a good foundation we can never have a good house. We need to get OUR house in order first and foremost. Also someone who can't and won't be bought, not influenced by Industry.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Jun 26 at 2016 2:58 PM

2016-06-26T14:58:42-04:00

That low bar and the voter seemed to be self correcting. Especially since term limits on the president. Pelosi's statement about not knowing until passed is always appropriate for presidents.

Response by Sgt Jeffrey Clish made Jun 26 at 2016 3:08 PM

2016-06-26T15:08:15-04:00

My personal opinion would be to have a few key things on their resume:
- Military Service: Not only from a functional perspective of leading the most powerful military in the world, but also for a work ethic and devotion to duty
- Business: Hard to lead one of the largest economies in the world if you haven't worked in it
- International Experience: The world is getting smaller and the one leading our country needs to have an understanding of international affairs.

Other than that, not being a jerk would be good too...

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2016 3:33 PM

2016-06-26T15:33:18-04:00

I think the biggest qualification would be to put the U.S, first and the party last.

Response by SPC Darren Koele made Jun 26 at 2016 7:46 PM

2016-06-26T19:46:55-04:00

I would like to answer your question but would first like to say that one of the things that bugs me come election time is someone saying whether a candidate is qualified or not. Why does this bug me? Because their reasoning is precisely what you are asking. That is to say, their qualifications are based on personal ideology and beliefs. For some, a Christian should be disqualified while others say a non-Christian should be disqualified. We even experienced the military angle where lacking military service was irrelevant when Bill Clinton was running but it was Kerry vs Bush, suddenly it became who had the "better" record. Qualifications become dependent first on party then on what a given candidate has in their record that can be touted/exploited for political gain. During Obama vs McCain, which somehow become Obama vs Palin, the augment was that Palin wasn't experienced because she didn't serve in congress... never mind the fact that neither did Reagan, Bush Sr, Bill Clinton, or Bush Jr. among others. Qualifications are a moving target so when any individual, politician, media wonk, or group says someone is unqualified, just laugh at them and walk away. This is why I don't typically say when I believe a candidate is qualified or not because my qualifications are based in a lot of bias; some of which I can back with a little logic and others where it's just a simple belief with no historical or logical basis.

Now, since you asked, I was a long time proponent of military service being necessary but have since backed off that stance. Now, I simply look for any negative comments or actions regarding the military to disqualify someone.
When it comes to political experience, this is where I may differ from a lot of people. For me, the time you have in congress or any political office, the less qualified you are. This is one of those beliefs with minimal basis at best. I'm cynical and see "experienced" politicians as "bought and paid for", "corrupt", "narcissistic", "power hungry". Basically, I don't see where they "Average Joe" anywhere in their interest.
Ideology can be a disqualified for me. If someone's ideology involves more government, collectivism, higher taxes, and division of race, class, gender, or whatever, then I have no use of their services.
Now something of a little more substance, I'd like to see some sort of business background. At the very least, someone who has actually held a "regular" job in the private sector. Little irks me more than lifetime politician saying they are "in touch with the American people" and proceeds to tell us what is in our bet interest and what businesses need in order to operate and grow. So basically, a business background would be ideal but at the very least, some time in a "regular" private sector job.
I don't really have anything further of substance. It's mostly based in ideology.

This is probably more than what you wanted, but I tend to ramble a bit. I don't speak up often, but when I do, I sometimes have a hard time shutting up.

Response by CSM Thomas McGarry made Jun 26 at 2016 8:12 PM

2016-06-26T20:12:58-04:00

One that is elected by the people and not by delegates!!

Response by SFC Everett Oliver made Jun 26 at 2016 9:34 PM

2016-06-26T21:34:39-04:00

Truth is I think they will both be terrible presidents. But I look at bench appointments and I'll vote Trump....