With all the point, counterpoint in this year's election, how can any of the candidates claim they are qualified to be president?

According to the Constitution they are all equally qualified. As for experience, they all have some form of international and national leadership, working with large budgets, and inter-agency cooperation, on a broad spectrum of projects. of the three:

1 has never really held a private sector job. 1 has never held a public sector job. 1 has done both. Only one has actually created jobs and employed large masses of people. Only one has directly negotiated and worked with foreign leaders in the name of the US government. Only one has actually worked on government committees.

By looking at it as a recruiter, they all seem fairly qualified. Now the next step would be to see if they fit within the organizational structure of the hiring organization. 1 has political leanings which do not support the current form of government. 1 has a divisive and outspoken manner that tends to upset others. 1 has questionable practices in regards to the handling of official and proprietary information. 1 wants to redesign the established rules in favor of a non-merit limited participation required system. 1 is very experienced in using the rules and uses them in order to get the best deal and gain. 1 has an issue with the rules and even takes drastic measures to circumvent them.

All three are being reviewed for past involvement in various issues. 1 has civil cases working their way through the courts which most likely won't have a negative impact on the organization (USA) as a whole. 1 has actual FBI and other agencies conducting criminal investigations.

In most cases the company would pick the one whose experience and ideology best supports the overall goals and needs of the organization. Any potential criminal investigations would be viewed as an unwanted distraction. Civil disputes would depend on the issues and overall impact on said company's reputation. Seeking a leadership position, strength would be a strong consideration, trustworthiness, and combined experience would all need to be considered.

If the job calls for a leader who has real world experience in jobs creation, negotiating with the international community, working budgets, working within the set rules, and ability to actually get the job done...

Who is the best pick, from a purely 'you're the owner of a company' and your about the hire this person as a senior manager. And those are your only 3 choices... Who would you pick? No actual answer is required just think about who would run your business best. That should be your choice for President, because you are the employer...

If you are in the opposite party, you are unqualified. Note, they don't say much about being prepared and experienced enough rather than qualified. PO2 Ed C. is absolutely correct, heck I am qualified, and probably would be better than any of the candidates, when it comes to being honest and concerned for our nation's well being over the long haul.

No one is truly qualified to do any job until they've done it. Anyone who has ever hired a job candidate understands this. They look for qualities that reasonably may be translated as showing a propensity for meeting the needs of a job. Sadly, most voters have never sat in the hiring managers seat. Thus, they "fire" people like Barack Obama to be President. Given that history, does anyone actually think that any candidate can claim to be qualified and be challenged?