Quote (InsaneBobb @ 7 Feb 2021 21:10)

How did he become a Billionaire? How did he double the worth of Fred Trump's real-estate business while serving as it's operational President?

"Everyone knows" Trump is a highly successful business man. And most people who aren't completely deranged over the man also recognize that had he not run for President, his current "difficulties" would not exist.

He challenged the political machine and won. Now the political machine is attempting to crucify him over it. Doesn't matter whether you like or hate the guy. Your claim that his degree is worthless is simply stupid and inaccurate.

None of that is to say that Trump is some "magical" guy who has never failed at a venture. He's had his share of failures, same as any other successful businessman. However, it was his knowledge of economics that led him to predict the 2008 crash back in 2005 and state that he couldn't wait, he was going to make a LOT of money off it. And he did.

You're attempting to derail a topic based on who you like vs who you hate. I'm saying I simply don't care if you like or hate Trump or Boebert or AOC, or anything else. When debating the qualifications of a person, your opinion of them as a person doesn't matter.

Based on the listed qualifications for Congress, is Boebert qualified? Yes. Is AOC qualified? Yes. Based on the job description of what a congressperson actually does, is either Boebert or AOC qualified? No. See? Simple. If you wish to attack one, attack them both, along with the majority of the rest of Congress. Otherwise, it's just a showing of your bias.



Pfft. Everyone knows that a BA from Boston University (not to be confused with Boston College) is WAY better than a BS in Economics from some shitty Ivy League school. Don't even pretend they're comparable. :rolleyes:



LOL. "The job of congress is to write, modify, and repeal legislation." Translation? Nobody hired to the position should be qualified to carry out the task. Instead, they should be required to hire other people to do their job for them.

Dear god.

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Feb 7 2021 07:50am)

And that is the precise argument for why Boebert IS the perfect representative, now isn't it? Just a GED? Well, that represents 42% of her state. Small business owner? Hell, that represents 30.2 million Americans. 2A supporter? Majority of Americans represented. Believes there was irregularities and/or fraud that influenced the 2020 election? 40% of the population covered there as well.

Frankly though, I 100% disagree with your assessment. Our representative and senators are our LEGAL representatives in the Federal Government. They aren't there just to represent our views or opinions. They're there to fight for our rights, views, and opinions in the LAW. A person with no legal background cannot effectively defend your legal rights, now can they? When you go to court, are you being "represented" by a farmer, or by a lawyer?

The point of Public Comment, testimonies, and committees is to determine from the experts of non-legal fields what the legal field should be doing.

Again, the stance that those who're unqualified to write or even understand law should be the people who are our representatives in the legislative branch are why nearly all laws and regulation passed are written by a select few within the Congress. It's also why laws are passed (or shot down) by representatives/Senators who afterwards start screaming "WAIT! I Didn't know it meant that!"

Quote (Santara @ 7 Feb 2021 06:33)

Our Representatives are our representatives in the federal government, not "legal" representatives. Senators are our states' representatives in the federal government.

And don't tell me the ones with legal backgrounds are better at it. Sheila Jackson Lee (Juris Doctor) just submitted HR127, which is patently unconstitutional. These so-called experts submit unconstitutional bills often. By your standards, she's 'qualified' to write such a bill. By my standard (one in which she supports her oath to defend the Constitution), she is utterly unqualified. But her people chose her, and they get a say.

Quote (excellence @ 7 Feb 2021 06:29)

short list of people who attended or were conferred undergrad degrees from Pennsylvania’s business school:

Elon Musk
President Trump
Warren Buffett
Jon Huntsman Sr.
Laurene Powell Jobs
Robert S. Kapito (co-founder of BlackRock)
SC Justice William Brennan
Mark Pincus
Stuart Weitzman

“Plaguefear @ d2jsp” says their education and degrees are “worthless”. :lol:

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Feb 7 2021 08:49am)

It is the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. Their literal job is to write, modify, and repeal legislation. They are our literal LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES. We elect them specifically to stand up for the legal rights of our districts and states. Just like you hire a lawyer to stand up for your personal legal rights in court.

And HR127 is indeed unconstitutional. It'd also likely be supported by a great number of Americans who're firm believers in strict gun control. The fact that it was written shows Representative Jackson Lee's qualifications clearly. Because oddly enough, HR127 could pass the house, pass the senate, and be signed into law by the POTUS. It's been done before. It's not, factually speaking, the job of Congress to enforce the Constitution. It's Congress's job to write, modify, and repeal legislation. It's the job of the Supreme Court to enforce the Constitution. So if HR127 were passed into law, it'd be SCOTUS's job to strike it down as Unconstitutional. :)



Just like some Trumpist shill to claim that some shitty Ivy league school for elite hacks actually values good education. Pfft.

;)

Quote (Santara @ 7 Feb 2021 06:55)

It's their staffs' job to write, tbh. It's their job to vote. And you just said it's not their job to ensure their legislation is Constitutional. Well, if that's the case, then it also doesn't matter if they're "qualified" to write/modify/repeal the legislation, does it?

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Feb 7 2021 09:12am)

What is or is not Constitutional? How do you decide? I mean, the way most of the Constitution and it's Amendments were written, there are all kinds of interpretations. One congressperson could interpret things such that HR127 is fine, while the next could see it as a clear and definitive breach. This is WHY we have the SCOTUS in the first place. It is their job to interpret the Constitution, and hold the legislature(s) and Executive(s) and lower courts in accordance.

And no, the literal job of Congress is to write, modify, and repeal legislation. Done. It's not their staff's job, it's not anyone else's job. If they need help with their job, that's fine, nobody is denying the staff to help. But if they are incapable of understanding what they're reading, then it's now the staff doing the job of the Congressperson. A Congressperson cannot even vote for legislation while keeping representation of their District/State in mind if they do not understand it. Relying on staff interpretation rather than actual legal interpretation depends on your staff not having an alternative agenda. And if they do have an alternative agenda, and you support legislation that harms those you represent, it's you who's ousted, it's you who's responsible, not the staffer.

Like, literally everything you're saying right now is pointless. It's merely an attempt to excuse the fact that more than half of Congress is unqualified to carry out the job. :)

Quote (Santara @ 7 Feb 2021 07:21)

Congressmen and women select and hire their staff, therefore they are responsible for the output of their staff.

Every one of them is qualified for the job, because they achieved the qualifying factor: winning an election.

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Feb 8 2021 01:31am)

Job Duty: Write, modify, and repeal legislation, and everything involved therein (such as voting for the legislation of others).
Job Requirements: A firm grasp of the legal process, legal code, legal writing, ability to interpret legislation to determine it's loopholes and unintended consequences.
Job Qualifications: Win an election.

You're absolutely correct regarding the Constitutional qualification of being in Congress. You're absolutely incorrect when it comes to people who're qualified to carry out the job's duty and requirements. As I said, over half of congress is not qualified for the task. :)

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Feb 7 2021 09:31am)

Job Duty: Write, modify, and repeal legislation, and everything involved therein (such as voting for the legislation of others).
Job Requirements: A firm grasp of the legal process, legal code, legal writing, ability to interpret legislation to determine it's loopholes and unintended consequences.
Job Qualifications: Win an election.

You're absolutely correct regarding the Constitutional qualification of being in Congress. You're absolutely incorrect when it comes to people who're qualified to carry out the job's duty and requirements. As I said, over half of congress is not qualified for the task. :)

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Feb 7 2021 04:12pm)

(...) more than half of Congress is unqualified to carry out the job. :)