3 ms·

Highly competent is not a word heard that often about the failed 2016 Clinton campaign, especially not from people who realize that she lost under the exact sam

Highly competent is not a word heard that often about the failed 2016 Clinton campaign, especially not from people who realize that she lost under the exact same rules that was in place when Obama won. What the involved people are is highly connected which is rarely the same as competent as demonstrated by the antics of the current crop of in office politicians, and it's a huge part of the reason why crazy outsiders like Trump have a base at all. The stupid idea that people who's only achievement is climbing the rungs of an failed organization is super cometent and whose ultimate failure could only have been due to nefarious actions of supernaturally competent foreign enemies is silly and seen as such by an huge sway of the actual public as the kind of nonsense you would expect from North Korea or Russia.

tathougies 7y ago
> Highly competent is not a word heard that often about the failed 2016 Clinton campaign, especially not from people who realize that she lost under the exact same rules that was in place when Obama won. One can be a competent presidential candidate and still lose. That is the point of democracy. Clinton's campaign could be competent while still more people in the right places want Trump to be president.
- Stranger43 7y ago
  Yep but she lost which means that simply being an high ranking member of the 2016 Clinton's campaign cannot be proof of competency on it's own without the rational analysis of the campaign that's being successfully blocked by the emergence of a bunch of conspiracy theories recycled from the 1960ies as mainstream politics by the democratic party of America. Competent people fail all the time for reasons outside of their control but it's also true that incompetent people can rise to the top of an organization based on luck, connections or by being associated with someone else. So you need something more detailed then having been a part of an failed bureaucracy to justify claims of extreme competency in running software projects.

tathougies 7y ago

> Highly competent is not a word heard that often about the failed 2016 Clinton campaign, especially not from people who realize that she lost under the exact same rules that was in place when Obama won. One can be a competent presidential candidate and still lose. That is the point of democracy. Clinton's campaign could be competent while still more people in the right places want Trump to be president.

Stranger43 7y ago
Yep but she lost which means that simply being an high ranking member of the 2016 Clinton's campaign cannot be proof of competency on it's own without the rational analysis of the campaign that's being successfully blocked by the emergence of a bunch of conspiracy theories recycled from the 1960ies as mainstream politics by the democratic party of America. Competent people fail all the time for reasons outside of their control but it's also true that incompetent people can rise to the top of an organization based on luck, connections or by being associated with someone else. So you need something more detailed then having been a part of an failed bureaucracy to justify claims of extreme competency in running software projects.