Candidates for president should be WORTHY, not entitled

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
When casting their votes for the presidency, Americans should do their best to select candidates that are worthy rather than "entitled" by representing certain minorities or because of "political correctness."

In 2008, Americans elected the first black -- call him half-black, if you prefer -- president. And in the eyes of many voters, the racial considerations trumped experience and ability to do the job.

In 2016, many voters will undoubtedly feel it's time for a female president. And after two terms of a black president and two more of a female president, what's next? The first openly gay president in 2024 and the first Muslim president in 2032?

There's nothing wrong with presidential candidates falling into classifications such as women and/or gay, but the first president in such categories should be WELL-QUALIFIED and ABLE, and not just worthy of election because they fall into certain "politically correct" classifications.
 

Greg T.

The Jizz Slinger
Good points, AW. I said that right from the beginning, and have practiced that from my second election forward. I'll admit that I voted for McGovern because it was cool to a democrat back then. Since I started familiarizing myself with issues and current affairs, I have voted for the person who best represents my views, rather then party. I think it's of the utmost importance to vote for the person and not party, gender, race, or what's trending now.
 

REVerse °

Addicted Member
Owe-Malley is further left than BHO and is a full blown Communist. Maryland is also the most "Liberal" state in the union. More than California!

 

WAMO

Spanking His Monkey
NOONE "WORTHY" WOULD RUN BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY CANT FIX ALL THE PROBLEMS AND IT WOULD ACTUALLY BOTHER THEM.
 

livespive

Well-Known Member
Good points, but as mentioned by bbfreeburn if that was the case no one would vote because there isn't any one worthy of the job....

BHO got in because there just wasn't any on the other side of the fence that anyone liked and because of the Good old boys rule.
" we would rathe have a black MAN, than a woman" so he got the nod. Now she is up again there is no one to stop her, but herself.
Same thing, there isn't anyone on the other side of the fence that everyone is going to agree on to take her down, so there you have it, she is in if she runs.
 

Greg T.

The Jizz Slinger
The last few elections for me were all about who is the biggest threat. I research the issues and their proposed plans, and then vote against the one that looks the worst. I know it's a fucked up way to choose, but it's all we have right now.
 

bbfreeburn

Active Member
Lets face it folks. There is a long held truism that anyone bright enough, qualified enough to be president wouldn't take the job. In this case it's true.
 

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
The last few elections for me were all about who is the biggest threat. I research the issues and their proposed plans, and then vote against the one that looks the worst. I know it's a fucked up way to choose, but it's all we have right now.
... but too many voters do little or no actual research, but their votes count as much as those who do fully research the candidates and issues.
 

WAMO

Spanking His Monkey
VOTING AGES SHOULD BE 30 AND OVER AND UNDER 60. NOT THAT MANY PEOPLE UNDER 30 HAVE HAD REAL LIFE EXPERIENCES TO KNOW HOW IT REALLY WILL AFFECT THEM. AND EVERYBODY OVER 60 IS TO SET IN THEIR WAYS TO ACTUALLY VOTE FOR SOMEONE WHO HAS IDEAS OUTSIDE THEIR REALM OF THINKING.
 

Greg T.

The Jizz Slinger
VOTING AGES SHOULD BE 30 AND OVER AND UNDER 60. NOT THAT MANY PEOPLE UNDER 30 HAVE HAD REAL LIFE EXPERIENCES TO KNOW HOW IT REALLY WILL AFFECT THEM. AND EVERYBODY OVER 60 IS TO SET IN THEIR WAYS TO ACTUALLY VOTE FOR SOMEONE WHO HAS IDEAS OUTSIDE THEIR REALM OF THINKING.

HEY!! Under 60?? Should be OVER 60. We're the ones with the wisdom, common sense and experience to vote!
 
Top