5 ms·

> No one able to vote in the US should be sitting this one out I disagree. People who haven't taken the time to thoroughly research the candidates should not b

> No one able to vote in the US should be sitting this one out I disagree. People who haven't taken the time to thoroughly research the candidates should not be encouraged to blindly push a button, especially this year. Most of them will probably be persuaded by fear mongering or partisan mud-slinging. That's not democracy, it's just mob rule.

gizmo 10y ago
It doesn't take a lot of research to choose when one candidate is comically unqualified. The people voting is the entire point of democracy. Smart people and dumb people. Policy wonks and random button pushers. It doesn't matter, everybody gets one vote. That way whatever the outcome is, it reflects the will of the people. To oppose this is to oppose democracy itself.
- lintiness 10y ago
  he didn't oppose the right to vote; he said not everyone should vote. and please, just because you think we'd never have heard of hillary if her husband hadn't been president does NOT make her "comically unqualified". let's leave the politics to the sensationalist 24/7 "news" machine, mkay?
  - gizmo 10y ago
    I would never call somebody who has been appointed to high political office comically unqualified to run for president.
- gthtjtkt 10y ago
  There are (at least) two comically unqualified candidates in this year's election. Thank you for proving my point.
  - gizmo 10y ago
    She is literally the most qualified presidential candidate in a generation. She has the bipartisan support of all five living presidents today. That's unheard of. And she's running against a con man who scams his suppliers, scams students with his fake university, and who is utterly ignorant of foreign policy.
    - enraged_camel 10y ago
      >>She has the bipartisan support of all five living presidents today. That's unheard of. And she's running against a con man She has the bipartisan support of all five living presidents because she is running against a con man who has either directly insulted and indirectly embarrassed those presidents and their families.
  - bajsejohannes 10y ago
    I see this claim a lot, but I really don't get it. What is it that makes Hillary "comically unqualified"? She might not be your favorite, but unqualified seems like an exaggeration. Her opponent does seem unqualified (and dangerous). I'm not an American, so I might not follow it as close as you.
    - sidlls 10y ago
      "Comically" is certainly an exaggeration. But her corruption, a resume lighter than GWB's, and dishonesty that makes other politicians blush (some with envy, others with shame), etc. make her qualifications at best questionable. Neither candidate would be a candidate if we had a functioning democracy.
    - gthtjtkt 10y ago
      She's a textbook demagogue whose career has been plagued with scandals and corruption since before she even set foot in the White House as first lady. Google 'Hillary Clinton cattle futures' if you want to start from the beginning.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- foolfoolz 10y ago
  this comment could easily be pro trump or pro clinton. keep an open mind to what the other side think
- makomk 10y ago
  Unfortunately, the comically unqualified candidate is up against an embarrassing demonstration of what exactly "qualifies" someone to be President in the US these days. Which mostly seems to involve support from Fortune 100 CEOs, involvement in ill-conceived military interventions abroad, and sounding exactly like a Republican whilst running on a Democrat ticket. Oh, and lots of friends in the press. Not to mention the kind of connections and sharp political skills that let her blatantly race-bait against Obama in '08, publicly accuse people who pointed this out of being the real racists, wrangle the Senator of State position out of him afterwards, and then pretend the whole thing never happened. There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton is eminently skilled and effective at being a politician. That's the problem.
  - gizmo 10y ago
    Yes, there is some truth to that. When Obama and Bush got elected they were very inexperienced (comparatively speaking) and therefore also less scuffed up by a life in politics.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  Though I agree one is "comically unqualified", I also believe that neither majority candidate is an acceptable option. Your view assumes that there are no 3rd party options, which actually takes some time to research.
arenaninja 10y ago
No candidate is perfect, but let's remember there ARE third-party candidates
cloudjacker 10y ago
Also anybody that has an opinion and doesn't live in a swing state. They should just sit it out, statistically.
pdog 10y ago
This is why some people believe there should be a (nominal) cost to voting. If you have to pay to vote, you'll be much more motivated to research the candidates and issues. It will also be much more expensive for campaigns to "buy" unreliable voting blocs, a.k.a. "get-out-the-vote" targets.
- mikeyouse 10y ago
  "Some people" who support poll taxes have historically been Southern racists trying to prevent African Americans from voting. In fact, people were so disgusted with the idea that they passed a Constitutional amendment to prevent poll taxes from existing. I doubt we'll ever see them again (for good reason), the text in the Constitution is pretty straight-forward: > The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
alasdair_ 10y ago
I hate the current voting system. The mess of voting for a district, which votes for a state, which votes for an electoral college, which votes for a president is ridiculous and leads to only a tiny number of votes actually having the chance to determine the outcome of the election. I worry that by voting, I give whoever wins a stronger appearance of a mandate. I would prefer not to give them this mandate.

gizmo 10y ago

It doesn't take a lot of research to choose when one candidate is comically unqualified. The people voting is the entire point of democracy. Smart people and dumb people. Policy wonks and random button pushers. It doesn't matter, everybody gets one vote. That way whatever the outcome is, it reflects the will of the people. To oppose this is to oppose democracy itself.

lintiness 10y ago
he didn't oppose the right to vote; he said not everyone should vote. and please, just because you think we'd never have heard of hillary if her husband hadn't been president does NOT make her "comically unqualified". let's leave the politics to the sensationalist 24/7 "news" machine, mkay?
- gizmo 10y ago
  I would never call somebody who has been appointed to high political office comically unqualified to run for president.
gthtjtkt 10y ago
There are (at least) two comically unqualified candidates in this year's election. Thank you for proving my point.
- gizmo 10y ago
  She is literally the most qualified presidential candidate in a generation. She has the bipartisan support of all five living presidents today. That's unheard of. And she's running against a con man who scams his suppliers, scams students with his fake university, and who is utterly ignorant of foreign policy.
  - enraged_camel 10y ago
    >>She has the bipartisan support of all five living presidents today. That's unheard of. And she's running against a con man She has the bipartisan support of all five living presidents because she is running against a con man who has either directly insulted and indirectly embarrassed those presidents and their families.
- bajsejohannes 10y ago
  I see this claim a lot, but I really don't get it. What is it that makes Hillary "comically unqualified"? She might not be your favorite, but unqualified seems like an exaggeration. Her opponent does seem unqualified (and dangerous). I'm not an American, so I might not follow it as close as you.
  - sidlls 10y ago
    "Comically" is certainly an exaggeration. But her corruption, a resume lighter than GWB's, and dishonesty that makes other politicians blush (some with envy, others with shame), etc. make her qualifications at best questionable. Neither candidate would be a candidate if we had a functioning democracy.
  - gthtjtkt 10y ago
    She's a textbook demagogue whose career has been plagued with scandals and corruption since before she even set foot in the White House as first lady. Google 'Hillary Clinton cattle futures' if you want to start from the beginning.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
foolfoolz 10y ago
this comment could easily be pro trump or pro clinton. keep an open mind to what the other side think
makomk 10y ago
Unfortunately, the comically unqualified candidate is up against an embarrassing demonstration of what exactly "qualifies" someone to be President in the US these days. Which mostly seems to involve support from Fortune 100 CEOs, involvement in ill-conceived military interventions abroad, and sounding exactly like a Republican whilst running on a Democrat ticket. Oh, and lots of friends in the press. Not to mention the kind of connections and sharp political skills that let her blatantly race-bait against Obama in '08, publicly accuse people who pointed this out of being the real racists, wrangle the Senator of State position out of him afterwards, and then pretend the whole thing never happened. There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton is eminently skilled and effective at being a politician. That's the problem.
- gizmo 10y ago
  Yes, there is some truth to that. When Obama and Bush got elected they were very inexperienced (comparatively speaking) and therefore also less scuffed up by a life in politics.
CaptSpify 10y ago
Though I agree one is "comically unqualified", I also believe that neither majority candidate is an acceptable option. Your view assumes that there are no 3rd party options, which actually takes some time to research.

arenaninja 10y ago

No candidate is perfect, but let's remember there ARE third-party candidates

cloudjacker 10y ago

Also anybody that has an opinion and doesn't live in a swing state. They should just sit it out, statistically.

pdog 10y ago

This is why some people believe there should be a (nominal) cost to voting. If you have to pay to vote, you'll be much more motivated to research the candidates and issues. It will also be much more expensive for campaigns to "buy" unreliable voting blocs, a.k.a. "get-out-the-vote" targets.

mikeyouse 10y ago
"Some people" who support poll taxes have historically been Southern racists trying to prevent African Americans from voting. In fact, people were so disgusted with the idea that they passed a Constitutional amendment to prevent poll taxes from existing. I doubt we'll ever see them again (for good reason), the text in the Constitution is pretty straight-forward: > The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

alasdair_ 10y ago

I hate the current voting system. The mess of voting for a district, which votes for a state, which votes for an electoral college, which votes for a president is ridiculous and leads to only a tiny number of votes actually having the chance to determine the outcome of the election. I worry that by voting, I give whoever wins a stronger appearance of a mandate. I would prefer not to give them this mandate.