Mueller Testimony..

can you imagine being the type of person riveted to this??

Robert J Sakimano wrote:can you imagine being the type of person riveted to this??

I don't know about riveted, but I'm watching it for awhile and kind of interested in the process and words he chooses.

Floyd Robertson wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:can you imagine being the type of person riveted to this??

I don't know about riveted, but I'm watching it for awhile and kind of interested in the process and words he chooses.

meh.. Republicans appointed by Republicans to investigate Republicans..

I'm pretty sure those of us who read the report know what he'll say.. "the report is my testimony" or something similar.

I’d watch if I thought this lead to impeachment or an indictment.

steveschneider wrote:I’d watch if I thought this lead to impeachment or an indictment.

it's weird.. I don't need Robert Mueller to tell me that the racist, bigoted christian sexual predator colluded with Russia.. that he obstructed justice.. that he's being controlled by Putin, Kim Jong Un, etc., that they have some very damning, incriminating evidence that makes him extraordinarily vulnerable to being blackmailed..

All of that is apparent to anyone who pays attention and is intellectually honest.

but, yeah,  House Democrats have a Constitutional obligation to file articles of impeachment. If they fail to do so, they deserve to be in the minority again after the 2020 election.

America is a stupid, racist, bigoted country - but those who love America and have Constitutionally-appropriated powers have a chance to show that there is still at least a shred of dignity and morality within the fiber of what once made America a beacon of integrity.

all of the rest of this is just made-for-TV garbage...."tune in tonight so we can tell you what you heard for yourself".  

My general observation after an hour is that this five minute barrage of questions to Mueller from each member is a terrible format.

Floyd Robertson wrote:My general observation after an hour is that this five minute barrage of questions to Mueller from each member is a terrible format.

I would think it has the same level of effectiveness as ordering fast food at a drive-thru.

Floyd Robertson wrote:My general observation after an hour is that this five minute barrage of questions to Mueller from each member is a terrible format.

Can you repeat the post?

Turtleneck wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote:My general observation after an hour is that this five minute barrage of questions to Mueller from each member is a terrible format.

Can you repeat the post?

I refer you to the report.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote:My general observation after an hour is that this five minute barrage of questions to Mueller from each member is a terrible format.

I would think it has the same level of effectiveness as ordering fast food at a drive-thru.

I don’t know, Bob, in my experience that’s pretty straight forward.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

steveschneider wrote:I’d watch if I thought this lead to impeachment or an indictment.

it's weird.. I don't need Robert Mueller to tell me that the racist, bigoted christian sexual predator colluded with Russia.. that he obstructed justice.. that he's being controlled by Putin, Kim Jong Un, etc., that they have some very damning, incriminating evidence that makes him extraordinarily vulnerable to being blackmailed..

All of that is apparent to anyone who pays attention and is intellectually honest.

but, yeah,  House Democrats have a Constitutional obligation to file articles of impeachment. If they fail to do so, they deserve to be in the minority again after the 2020 election.

America is a stupid, racist, bigoted country - but those who love America and have Constitutionally-appropriated powers have a chance to show that there is still at least a shred of dignity and morality within the fiber of what once made America a beacon of integrity.

all of the rest of this is just made-for-TV garbage...."tune in tonight so we can tell you what you heard for yourself".  

I think this is just a very conservative country that leans far to the right. The democrats are a toxic brand that can't win in so many areas that it has them fearful to impeach because if they do they'll lose a big chunk of the limited power they have. Everyone lives on the coasts. We can win the popular vote but there's states like Wyoming that negate California in the Senate and between the coasts is just a sea of red with little dots of blue.

steveschneider wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
it's weird.. I don't need Robert Mueller to tell me that the racist, bigoted christian sexual predator colluded with Russia.. that he obstructed justice.. that he's being controlled by Putin, Kim Jong Un, etc., that they have some very damning, incriminating evidence that makes him extraordinarily vulnerable to being blackmailed..

All of that is apparent to anyone who pays attention and is intellectually honest.

but, yeah,  House Democrats have a Constitutional obligation to file articles of impeachment. If they fail to do so, they deserve to be in the minority again after the 2020 election.

America is a stupid, racist, bigoted country - but those who love America and have Constitutionally-appropriated powers have a chance to show that there is still at least a shred of dignity and morality within the fiber of what once made America a beacon of integrity.

all of the rest of this is just made-for-TV garbage...."tune in tonight so we can tell you what you heard for yourself".  

I think this is just a very conservative country that leans far to the right. The democrats are a toxic brand that can't win in so many areas that it has them fearful to impeach because if they do they'll lose a big chunk of the limited power they have. Everyone lives on the coasts. We can win the popular vote but there's states like Wyoming that negate California in the Senate and between the coasts is just a sea of red with little dots of blue.

correct..

see also:

Bobby Sak wrote:America is a stupid, racist, bigoted country.

Listening on the radio while driving. Mueller sounds confused, not very familiar with the report, and honestly quite a bit less sharp than in the past. Republicans are mopping the floor with him and the report. Today will gain votes for Trump in 2020.

I’ve become more cynical as Trump has continued his practice of stalling, denials, disparaging those who allege wrong doing like he did throughout his business career as POTUS.

He’s got Barr as AG who acts as one of Trump’s private personal attorneys claiming executive privilege at every turn while Trump’s personal attorneys protect Trump tax returns and personal financial data.

I disliked Nixon, thought Carter was an idealist, Reagan gave good speeches but was hell on unions, Bush was a life long bureaucrat, Clinton a professional politician, Bush2 an fortunate son and Obama a tactical politician with some idealism. But until Trump I never felt any of his predecessors put themselves, their personal wealth, privately held business and their family finances ahead of the good of the country.

Trump is a menace to everything I grew up believing and to date he’s getting away with it all.

kingstonlake wrote:Listening on the radio while driving. Mueller sounds confused, not very familiar with the report, and honestly quite a bit less sharp than in the past. Republicans are mopping the floor with him and the report. Today will gain votes for Trump in 2020.

so you're saying that Republicans naming a Republican to investigate Republicans will work out well for Republicans?

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:Listening on the radio while driving. Mueller sounds confused, not very familiar with the report, and honestly quite a bit less sharp than in the past. Republicans are mopping the floor with him and the report. Today will gain votes for Trump in 2020.

so you're saying that Republicans naming a Republican to investigate Republicans will work out well for Republicans?

What page number is that? Can you give me a second?

GRR Spartan wrote:I’ve become more cynical as Trump has continued his practice of stalling, denials, disparaging those who allege wrong doing like he did throughout his business career as POTUS.

He’s got Barr as AG who acts as one of Trump’s private personal attorneys claiming executive privilege at every turn while Trump’s personal attorneys protect Trump tax returns and personal financial data.

I disliked Nixon, thought Carter was an idealist, Reagan gave good speeches but was hell on unions, Bush was a life long bureaucrat, Clinton a professional politician, Bush2 an fortunate son and Obama a tactical politician with some idealism. But until Trump I never felt any of his predecessors put themselves, their personal wealth, privately held business and their family finances ahead of the good of the country.

Trump is a menace to everything I grew up believing and to date he’s getting away with it all.

He has his entire life. Agree with everything you wrote. Part of the major problem is a lot of his bas fully support what he's doing to our country so what else you can do?

Add in all the people that stay at home and don't vote and the far left nuts that will vote for Green Party because some one took a check from a wall street person.

Turtleneck wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
so you're saying that Republicans naming a Republican to investigate Republicans will work out well for Republicans?

What page number is that? Can you give me a second?

I've said this before, Pelosi (I hope) is using this to make sure all i's are dotted and t's are crossed. And that impeachment proceedings will begin within the next few months.

look - knuckle-draggin' christian racist rednecks are gonna vote for the racist, bigoted christian sexual predator regardless of the articles of impeachment.

What Democrats risk losing is the Blue Wave that allowed them to pick up 41 seats last November for the specific purpose of providing oversight on a corrupt, criminal enterprise that has utter contempt for America.

if they (the Democrats) fail to act, they deserve to lose in 2020.

I watched about 5 minutes, during which time the testimony went something like this:

Congresswoman: You said in the report <insert quote from the report here>, correct?
Mueller: Correct.
Congresswoman: And you said <insert quote from the report here>?
Mueller: That's correct

(repeat this theme for pretty much her entire allotted time).

I turned it off after that.

steveschneider wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:I’ve become more cynical as Trump has continued his practice of stalling, denials, disparaging those who allege wrong doing like he did throughout his business career as POTUS.

He’s got Barr as AG who acts as one of Trump’s private personal attorneys claiming executive privilege at every turn while Trump’s personal attorneys protect Trump tax returns and personal financial data.

I disliked Nixon, thought Carter was an idealist, Reagan gave good speeches but was hell on unions, Bush was a life long bureaucrat, Clinton a professional politician, Bush2 an fortunate son and Obama a tactical politician with some idealism. But until Trump I never felt any of his predecessors put themselves, their personal wealth, privately held business and their family finances ahead of the good of the country.

Trump is a menace to everything I grew up believing and to date he’s getting away with it all.

He has his entire life. Agree with everything you wrote. Part of the major problem is a lot of his bas fully support what he's doing to our country so what else you can do?

Add in all the people that stay at home and don't vote and the far left nuts that will vote for Green Party because some one took a check from a wall street person.

Trump's base and a few people voting for the Green Party are going to amount to maybe 30% of the vote, if that. Democrats are going to amount to another 30% of the vote. I'm talking those that do go and vote. Trump's base isn't going to win him this election. You've got 40%+ in the middle that will swing it either way, just like every other election. If Dems can't reach them, then they'll lose again.

Maybe just don't nominate a piece of shit again, even if they do happen to be less of a piece of shit than Trump. Don't nominate someone that is so arrogant so as to think that the people that expressed their distaste for him/her in the primary will somehow vote for him/her in the general, just because of the party that he/she is representing. Don't nominate someone that will take states for granted and not think that you have to campaign there.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I've said this before, Pelosi (I hope) is using this to make sure all i's are dotted and t's are crossed. And that impeachment proceedings will begin within the next few months.

look - knuckle-draggin' christian racist rednecks are gonna vote for the racist, bigoted christian sexual predator regardless of the articles of impeachment.

What Democrats risk losing is the Blue Wave that allowed them to pick up 41 seats last November for the specific purpose of providing oversight on a corrupt, criminal enterprise that has utter contempt for America.

if they (the Democrats) fail to act, they deserve to lose in 2020.

There's not gonna be any impeachment. At this point it's massively over playing their hand. All of their focus needs to be on winning in 2020.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

He has his entire life. Agree with everything you wrote. Part of the major problem is a lot of his bas fully support what he's doing to our country so what else you can do?

Add in all the people that stay at home and don't vote and the far left nuts that will vote for Green Party because some one took a check from a wall street person.

Trump's base and a few people voting for the Green Party are going to amount to maybe 30% of the vote, if that. Democrats are going to amount to another 30% of the vote. I'm talking those that do go and vote. Trump's base isn't going to win him this election. You've got 40%+ in the middle that will swing it either way, just like every other election. If Dems can't reach them, then they'll lose again.

Maybe just don't nominate a piece of shit again, even if they do happen to be less of a piece of shit than Trump. Don't nominate someone that is so arrogant so as to think that the people that expressed their distaste for him/her in the primary will somehow vote for him/her in the general, just because of the party that he/she is representing. Don't nominate someone that will take states for granted and not think that you have to campaign there.

I posted a thread over in the 2020 Election topic about some of this. It was by a strategist that worked for the Dems in Louisiana against David Dukes campaigns for Gov and Senator. He noted that 90% of the people that voted for Duke the first time voted for him again. He also noted that a good chunk of the libs back then wouldn't vote for the dem because he/she was perceived as a corprateist asshole even though the opponent was a Klans man and a Nazi. If this trend applies to the 2020 election I suspect a good chunk of these mythical independent voters that voted for Obama and then Trump will probably vote for Trump again.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

He has his entire life. Agree with everything you wrote. Part of the major problem is a lot of his bas fully support what he's doing to our country so what else you can do?

Add in all the people that stay at home and don't vote and the far left nuts that will vote for Green Party because some one took a check from a wall street person.

Trump's base and a few people voting for the Green Party are going to amount to maybe 30% of the vote, if that. Democrats are going to amount to another 30% of the vote. I'm talking those that do go and vote. Trump's base isn't going to win him this election. You've got 40%+ in the middle that will swing it either way, just like every other election. If Dems can't reach them, then they'll lose again.

Maybe just don't nominate a piece of shit again, even if they do happen to be less of a piece of shit than Trump. Don't nominate someone that is so arrogant so as to think that the people that expressed their distaste for him/her in the primary will somehow vote for him/her in the general, just because of the party that he/she is representing. Don't nominate someone that will take states for granted and not think that you have to campaign there.

In the interest of not just talking about 2016 again and again and again.... which current candidate/candidates do you think fit that mold?

steveschneider wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Trump's base and a few people voting for the Green Party are going to amount to maybe 30% of the vote, if that. Democrats are going to amount to another 30% of the vote. I'm talking those that do go and vote. Trump's base isn't going to win him this election. You've got 40%+ in the middle that will swing it either way, just like every other election. If Dems can't reach them, then they'll lose again.

Maybe just don't nominate a piece of shit again, even if they do happen to be less of a piece of shit than Trump. Don't nominate someone that is so arrogant so as to think that the people that expressed their distaste for him/her in the primary will somehow vote for him/her in the general, just because of the party that he/she is representing. Don't nominate someone that will take states for granted and not think that you have to campaign there.

I posted a thread over in the 2020 Election topic about some of this. It was by a strategist that worked for the Dems in Louisiana against David Dukes campaigns for Gov and Senator. He noted that 90% of the people that voted for Duke the first time voted for him again. He also noted that a good chunk of the libs back then wouldn't vote for the dem because he/she was perceived as a corprateist asshole even though the opponent was a Klans man and a Nazi. If this trend applies to the 2020 election I suspect a good chunk of these mythical independent voters that voted for Obama and then Trump will probably vote for Trump again.

Actually, if that trend applies to the 2020 election then the Dems are in great shape. 90% that voted for Duke the first time, voted for him the second time. Which means 10% didn't. It's a cakewalk for the Dems if 10% of Trump voters don't vote for him again, even if they don't shift their vote to the Dems. Just the lack of them voting would flip it.

Dems don't need to shift significant numbers of 2016 Trump voters over to the Democratic side. It is a matter of pretty small percentages in key states. 3 of the 4 states that had a margin of less than 1% between Trump and Hillary went to Trump. So if only 1% of Trump voters flip, or if 2% of Trump voters don't vote at all, and both sides hold serve in other states, then Trump is out. Those 3 states (Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania) determined the outcome of the election. Those three were also states that Hillary took for granted and in campaigned very little, if at all. 2 of those 3 (Wisconsin and Michigan) were won by Bernie in the Primary, and in Pennsylvania he got over 40%. Those states told her that they don't like her, and she took them for granted anyway. But my point is that it's a tiny margin that has to shift, and it just having a good candidate that isn't arrogant about certain states, can go a long way to making that happen.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Trump's base and a few people voting for the Green Party are going to amount to maybe 30% of the vote, if that. Democrats are going to amount to another 30% of the vote. I'm talking those that do go and vote. Trump's base isn't going to win him this election. You've got 40%+ in the middle that will swing it either way, just like every other election. If Dems can't reach them, then they'll lose again.

Maybe just don't nominate a piece of shit again, even if they do happen to be less of a piece of shit than Trump. Don't nominate someone that is so arrogant so as to think that the people that expressed their distaste for him/her in the primary will somehow vote for him/her in the general, just because of the party that he/she is representing. Don't nominate someone that will take states for granted and not think that you have to campaign there.

In the interest of not just talking about 2016 again and again and again.... which current candidate/candidates do you think fit that mold?

It's 6 months before any caucuses and primaries even take place. Who the hell knows at this point, and who really even gives a shit?

In July 2007, Hillary was the defacto nominee already. The rest of the field would make a half-hearted challenge, but the party was practically already having the Hillary stationary printed. What, you're going to tell me that some black guy from Illinois is going to beat her, let alone win the general election? Yeah, right!

In July 1991, no one had hardly heard of that Clinton guy in Arkansas, but the prevailing wisdom was that it didn't really matter anyway because the sitting Republican President had a 90%+ approval rating, so the Dems were just going to throw out some sacrificial lamb, rather than waste one of their prime candidates on a sure loss, instead of saving them for 1996. That lamb didn't just accept being sacrificed though (of course, it helps when the one wielding the axe drops it on his own head by going back on his biggest campaign promise).

My point is, of course, that the Dems' best candidates of the last 50+ years have been guys that came out of nowhere and that "the party" didn't think much of 12 months before the election. So who the hell knows who could emerge from this group.

Well I’d argue that it’s a much much much more important question than another thousand word post about Hillary Clinton so I’d say I give a shit but to each his own

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Trump's base and a few people voting for the Green Party are going to amount to maybe 30% of the vote, if that. Democrats are going to amount to another 30% of the vote. I'm talking those that do go and vote. Trump's base isn't going to win him this election. You've got 40%+ in the middle that will swing it either way, just like every other election. If Dems can't reach them, then they'll lose again.

Maybe just don't nominate a piece of shit again, even if they do happen to be less of a piece of shit than Trump. Don't nominate someone that is so arrogant so as to think that the people that expressed their distaste for him/her in the primary will somehow vote for him/her in the general, just because of the party that he/she is representing. Don't nominate someone that will take states for granted and not think that you have to campaign there.

In the interest of not just talking about 2016 again and again and again.... which current candidate/candidates do you think fit that mold?

I don't think it's going to make a much of a difference, there's always going to be a large group that is upset. If it's a Sanders or Warren people are going to scream 'socialism' if it's Biden then it's going to be a group screaming 'he was the architect of the modern day Jim Crow' or he's 'a centrist'. Republican's fall in line, Dems have a long tradition of purists that tear down their own.

Key is, it wasn’t Trumps base that got him elected, it was the voters who stayed at home. Get them off their ass to be a vote against Trump and he’s gone. But will the DNC have a clue to how do do it?

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Well I’d argue that it’s a much much much more important question than another thousand word post about Hillary Clinton so I’d say I give a shit but to each his own

I’m glad you care, Travis. But if possible, I would like to talk more about the woman with the email account who was apparently a bad candidate. Hint: there is a difference between being a bad candidate and running a bad campaign.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Well I’d argue that it’s a much much much more important question than another thousand word post about Hillary Clinton so I’d say I give a shit but to each his own

Yeah, what can you learn from the past anyway? But it's too bad that there isn't an option on this site that lets you scroll past posts that you don't want to read.

But fine. At this point, based on what little we know, all of them fit the mold that I described. All seem to be decent people as politicians go (a very low bar), which is to say that they all seem to be less of pieces of shit than Hillary (which has nothing to do with Benghazi or e-mails, or whatever tired sarcastic response certain posters would be sure to respond with if I didn't include this disclaimer). But it's impossible to say if any of them are going to take states for granted. And it doesn't matter when most of them won't still be in the race by the time the primary rolls around for any of us.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Well I’d argue that it’s a much much much more important question than another thousand word post about Hillary Clinton so I’d say I give a shit but to each his own

Yeah, what can you learn from the past anyway? But it's too bad that there isn't an option on this site that lets you scroll past posts that you don't want to read.

But fine. At this point, based on what little we know, all of them fit the mold that I described. All seem to be decent people as politicians go (a very low bar), which is to say that they all seem to be less of pieces of shit than Hillary (which has nothing to do with Benghazi or e-mails, or whatever tired sarcastic response certain posters would be sure to respond with if I didn't include this disclaimer). But it's impossible to say if any of them are going to take states for granted. And it doesn't matter when most of them won't still be in the race by the time the primary rolls around for any of us.

You can only learn from the past once though. Once you learn it you’ve learned it so I mean, we probably don’t need to go over it over and over and over until our eyes bleed.

I think Biden far and away stands the biggest chance of doing what you described and falling into old traps.

Turtleneck wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Well I’d argue that it’s a much much much more important question than another thousand word post about Hillary Clinton so I’d say I give a shit but to each his own

I’m glad you care, Travis. But if possible, I would like to talk more about the woman with the email account who was apparently a bad candidate. Hint: there is a difference between being a bad candidate and running a bad campaign.

And then there are bad candidates that run bad campaigns, as was the case with the Hillary.

I find Mueller to be extremely frustrating. And a complete waste of time, frankly. The GOP keeps saying it, and I find myself in agreement (on that point and that point only, to be clear), which is dismaying. I don't agree that this has all been a witch hunt, but I don't see that anything positive has come from this. And considering the way today is going, I don't see that as likely to change.

I'd almost prefer he just come right out and say "my report totally exonerates Trump" so that we can all stop waiting for a hero who's not coming. Given the amount of shit he's apparently willing to take from Republicans, I suspect he wishes he could honestly say that. I can conceive of no other explanation for why a seemingly honorable and severe man would let a bunch of turds drag him like this without any significant push back.

I'm still 100% for impeachment hearings. I think there's plenty of meat on that bone.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Yeah, what can you learn from the past anyway? But it's too bad that there isn't an option on this site that lets you scroll past posts that you don't want to read.

But fine. At this point, based on what little we know, all of them fit the mold that I described. All seem to be decent people as politicians go (a very low bar), which is to say that they all seem to be less of pieces of shit than Hillary (which has nothing to do with Benghazi or e-mails, or whatever tired sarcastic response certain posters would be sure to respond with if I didn't include this disclaimer). But it's impossible to say if any of them are going to take states for granted. And it doesn't matter when most of them won't still be in the race by the time the primary rolls around for any of us.

You can only learn from the past once though. Once you learn it you’ve learned it so I mean, we probably don’t need to go over it over and over and over until our eyes bleed.

I think Biden far and away stands the biggest chance of doing what you described and falling into old traps.

Wait, you're complaining about repetitive posting? Really? LOL, yeah, no one does that around here. Either way, I'm not so sure that people around here have learned from the past, so it bears repeating. If that annoys you, don't read it.

Agree about Biden. I think he'd be a terrible choice. I fear that he'll be who the powers that be at the Dem party prefers, and that usually ends up wrong.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

I’m glad you care, Travis. But if possible, I would like to talk more about the woman with the email account who was apparently a bad candidate. Hint: there is a difference between being a bad candidate and running a bad campaign.

And then there are bad candidates that run bad campaigns, as was the case with the Hillary.

I disagree. I broke with her on many foreign policy issues, and she was certainly the consummate politician, but her experience and policy knowledge ran much deeper than what you get from most candidates.

DWags wrote:Key is, it wasn’t Trumps base that got him elected, it was the voters who stayed at home. Get them off their ass to be a vote against Trump and he’s gone. But will the DNC have a clue to how do do it?

Agree with this. Make it a referendum against racism, trumpism and how this is bad for our country.

the same misogynists who didn't vote for Hillary sure as hell aren't gonna vote for Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris.

Turtleneck wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
And then there are bad candidates that run bad campaigns, as was the case with the Hillary.

I disagree. I broke with her on many foreign policy issues, and she was certainly the consummate politician, but her experience and policy knowledge ran much deeper than what you get from most candidates.

yep - if people would switch off their TV, they would've understood that Hillary is/was probably the most qualified candidate for president in a generation.

it's hard to believe we're still even having this discussion - - but it just goes to show how incredibly dumb America is.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

I disagree. I broke with her on many foreign policy issues, and she was certainly the consummate politician, but her experience and policy knowledge ran much deeper than what you get from most candidates.

yep - if people would switch off their TV, they would've understood that Hillary is/was probably the most qualified candidate for president in a generation.

it's hard to believe we're still even having this discussion - - but it just goes to show how incredibly dumb America is.

Being more qualified doesn't mean that they are a better person or that they would be a better president (speaking in general - of course Hillary is a better person and would have been a better president than Trump, but that's a really, really low bar to be compared to). I can't imagine that you always vote for the most qualified person for president or other offices.