THis is exactly the bullshit I am talking about, you are presuming my political leanings in your comments back to me. Your comment through some libtard reference to my comment. You don't know my political leanings so you assume and that is why your comment is off base.
Ohh gawd, hopefully not the federalist centrist rap coming.
Who was the richest candidate/president in American history before Trump or ever for those who thing trumps wealth is bogus?
That's right. George Washington.
Do I think that he - despite his wealth- had as much right, entitlement, knowledge, validity, authority to run as a candidate who can speak for many Americans, including the commoners as other candidates who may articulate their perspective from their experience? You bet your arse. The voters can sort it out.
As I said, I dont automatically accept the lawyer/politician model as the only path to the White House and it isnt enough. That's why people pad their resumes by trying to be fake indians and the like. Kamala Harris for example is/was the traditional lawyer/political hack, concubine of a political boss handing out favors in return for favors. Is she "qualified" to run? Sure, go for it. But not necessarily moreso than George Washington was just because he was rich.
And true, the smart asses can say that Howard Shultz or Bloomberg are not George Washington but neither were FDR, Kennedy, and John Heinz Kerry, etc. Let em work it out on the playground with the voters.