US voters react: 'I don’t think either candidate is qualified to run the country'

[Grouse]

I would estimate less than 3% of the Trump Supporters are actually

Voteing for Trump.

A Trump Vote is a vote against our self-serving political system

Of bought and paid for politicians that pad their own pockets,

Have done nothing for decades for "The People" and are only

Looking out for their plush benefits, cushy life and big fat

Pensions....Trump, hopefully, will be a better choice, can't be

Any worse than the lifers in office now!!

You wanna bet?

[Grouse]

You think running a country is much the same as running a big business?

Foolish and incorrect

[thaibeachlovers]

" I don't think either candidate is qualified to run the country. "

Such a simple sentence but oh so accurate.

A 2-party system cannot be qualified as democratic, not in these days.

A multiparty system would be the answer.

A prime minister in the European system appears to be a better way.

The chance is that a president quickly becomes a dictator. The danger with Trump.

If you think the Euro system is better you haven't been paying attention to the shambles over there. Just think Greece when you think of Europe and you might change your mind.

The reason the fathers limited the president to 2 terms was precisely so they couldn't become dictators. Wise men they!

[Morch]

Not sure how they mean "qualified". Obviously not much to do with integrity, honesty or putting country before self.

In terms of management skills - doubt that there's anyone "qualified" to run any country (unless, perhaps Singapore sized etc.).

The sheer amount of details, conflicting interests and policies, all taking place in an ever-changing reality is mind boggling (on second thought, that actually explains some candidates). Running the World's leading superpower is even more complex.

Regardless of the article's reliability, the issue is relevant.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Morch

[little mary sunshine]

If there are more uneducated stupid voters......HRC would win!!!

[ukrules]

This time next year President Trump will be in charge.

Only if the number of uneducated stupid Americans exceeds the educated well informed ones

I think that's a given. I suspect a lot of people who usually vote democrat will vote for Trump just to keep her out.

I'm working on the assumption that it's going to be Trump vs Clinton in the election.

The uneducated and stupid always outnumber the educated and intelligent by a large ratio.

Edited March 3, 2016 by ukrules

[thaibeachlovers]

You think running a country is much the same as running a big business?

Foolish and incorrect

That may well be true, but the present shower can't do it, which is not surprising given that they are mostly lawyers. A businessman might do better, so I hope we get to find out.

[osiboy]

In my experience the right wing way of balancing a budget is to privatise everything from transport to water and the only people who can afford to buy shares in the companies that used to belong to the people {rich or poor} are the RICH and poor loose out again , more homeles, more jobless, more turn to drugs to cope which leads to more crime , more crminals ,build more jails , want a share ? , wonderful western values !

[Pimay1]

The flaw in democracy is that there are more idiots than wise men, yet just one vote for each.

Ah yes, those pesky constitutional amendments.

Thanks to a compromise between Southern slaveholders who wanted enslaved blacks counted in the population, for the sake of boosting Southern congressional representation, and Northern whites who didn’t, the framers enshrined the three-fifths clause in the Constitution. This agreement set the census value of a slave as 60 percent of the value of a free person. Even after the 13th Amendment neutralized the political (and moral) compromise by abolishing slavery, Jim Crow laws, which contravened the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equality, stopped blacks from voting.

Ah yes, and those pesky Democrats.

The majority of the ACRU study focuses on the horror of Jim Crow, which at its core was a system of state-enforced laws that relegated blacks to inferior status. When police enforcement wasn’t enough, lynchings were used to keep Jim Crow in place. At least 3,500 blacks were lynched during the Jim Crow years, and people were murdered right up through the mid 1960s. But the political enforcement of Jim Crow was entirely in Democratic hands. The Ku Klux Klan functioned as the paramilitary wing of the Democratic party, and it was used to drive Republicans out of the South after the Civil War. Before he took up the cause of civil rights as president, Lyndon Johnson acting as Senate majority leader blocked the GOP’s 1956 civil-rights bill, and gutted Eisenhower’s 1957 Civil Rights Act. Democratic senators filibustered the GOP’s 1960 Civil Rights Act.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/383357/setting-record-straight-jim-crow-john-fund

[jerojero]

Never understood that American law that says that the President can only serve 2 terms. If he/she is good and popular what is the problem with going for as long as they get voted in?

.... Nor why corporations are persons as set down by their Supreme Court? Or why superpaks allow billionaires to contribute untold financial support to single candidates? Or why super-delegates are super, getting special candidate selection privileges?

[jerojero]

You think running a country is much the same as running a big business?

Foolish and incorrect

That may well be true, but the present shower can't do it, which is not surprising given that they are mostly lawyers. A businessman might do better, so I hope we get to find out.

.... Take a look at Trump's failed business ventures before hoping he knows best for the country simply because he's a so-called Business Man. http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,2068227,00.html Edited March 3, 2016 by jerojero

[thaibeachlovers]

The flaw in democracy is that there are more idiots than wise men, yet just one vote for each.

Ah yes, those pesky constitutional amendments.

Thanks to a compromise between Southern slaveholders who wanted enslaved blacks counted in the population, for the sake of boosting Southern congressional representation, and Northern whites who didn’t, the framers enshrined the three-fifths clause in the Constitution. This agreement set the census value of a slave as 60 percent of the value of a free person. Even after the 13th Amendment neutralized the political (and moral) compromise by abolishing slavery, Jim Crow laws, which contravened the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equality, stopped blacks from voting.

Ah yes, and those pesky Democrats.

The majority of the ACRU study focuses on the horror of Jim Crow, which at its core was a system of state-enforced laws that relegated blacks to inferior status. When police enforcement wasn’t enough, lynchings were used to keep Jim Crow in place. At least 3,500 blacks were lynched during the Jim Crow years, and people were murdered right up through the mid 1960s. But the political enforcement of Jim Crow was entirely in Democratic hands. The Ku Klux Klan functioned as the paramilitary wing of the Democratic party, and it was used to drive Republicans out of the South after the Civil War. Before he took up the cause of civil rights as president, Lyndon Johnson acting as Senate majority leader blocked the GOP’s 1956 civil-rights bill, and gutted Eisenhower’s 1957 Civil Rights Act. Democratic senators filibustered the GOP’s 1960 Civil Rights Act.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/383357/setting-record-straight-jim-crow-john-fund

Oh yes, the ol' Dems. It wasn't till they realised that bribery with other people's money was the key to power that they were able to convince the very people that they previously oppressed to vote for them. I'll bet that if you were to ask the average American today which party Lincoln belonged to they would say Democrat.

[stevenl]

The flaw in democracy is that there are more idiots than wise men, yet just one vote for each.

Ah yes, those pesky constitutional amendments.

Thanks to a compromise between Southern slaveholders who wanted enslaved blacks counted in the population, for the sake of boosting Southern congressional representation, and Northern whites who didn’t, the framers enshrined the three-fifths clause in the Constitution. This agreement set the census value of a slave as 60 percent of the value of a free person. Even after the 13th Amendment neutralized the political (and moral) compromise by abolishing slavery, Jim Crow laws, which contravened the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equality, stopped blacks from voting.

Ah yes, and those pesky Democrats.

The majority of the ACRU study focuses on the horror of Jim Crow, which at its core was a system of state-enforced laws that relegated blacks to inferior status. When police enforcement wasn’t enough, lynchings were used to keep Jim Crow in place. At least 3,500 blacks were lynched during the Jim Crow years, and people were murdered right up through the mid 1960s. But the political enforcement of Jim Crow was entirely in Democratic hands. The Ku Klux Klan functioned as the paramilitary wing of the Democratic party, and it was used to drive Republicans out of the South after the Civil War. Before he took up the cause of civil rights as president, Lyndon Johnson acting as Senate majority leader blocked the GOP’s 1956 civil-rights bill, and gutted Eisenhower’s 1957 Civil Rights Act. Democratic senators filibustered the GOP’s 1960 Civil Rights Act.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/383357/setting-record-straight-jim-crow-john-fund

Democratic Party has gone forward since, Republican Party is trying to go back in time.

[Pimay1]

Ah yes, those pesky constitutional amendments.

Thanks to a compromise between Southern slaveholders who wanted enslaved blacks counted in the population, for the sake of boosting Southern congressional representation, and Northern whites who didn’t, the framers enshrined the three-fifths clause in the Constitution. This agreement set the census value of a slave as 60 percent of the value of a free person. Even after the 13th Amendment neutralized the political (and moral) compromise by abolishing slavery, Jim Crow laws, which contravened the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equality, stopped blacks from voting.

Ah yes, and those pesky Democrats.

The majority of the ACRU study focuses on the horror of Jim Crow, which at its core was a system of state-enforced laws that relegated blacks to inferior status. When police enforcement wasn’t enough, lynchings were used to keep Jim Crow in place. At least 3,500 blacks were lynched during the Jim Crow years, and people were murdered right up through the mid 1960s. But the political enforcement of Jim Crow was entirely in Democratic hands. The Ku Klux Klan functioned as the paramilitary wing of the Democratic party, and it was used to drive Republicans out of the South after the Civil War. Before he took up the cause of civil rights as president, Lyndon Johnson acting as Senate majority leader blocked the GOP’s 1956 civil-rights bill, and gutted Eisenhower’s 1957 Civil Rights Act. Democratic senators filibustered the GOP’s 1960 Civil Rights Act.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/383357/setting-record-straight-jim-crow-john-fund

Democratic Party has gone forward since, Republican Party is trying to go back in time.

Right, the Democratic Party has gone forward by enslaving many blacks into poverty by using the victim syndrome.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Pimay1

[Rancid]

I would rather have a career businessman than a career lawyer run the counntry

As least they know how to balance a budget

Mark my words There will be a landslide victory for Trump come November

You can see it now in the Primaries Wake up Trump will be the next President and thank god it will not be another lawyer

They are all ambulance chasers in one form or another and know nothing about ecomonomics

;

Trump does

Thaksin was a wealthy businessman was he not?

As to lawyers, what's black and brown and looks good on a lawyer?

A Doberman.

[Rancid]

Seems to me the quality of political representation has dropped worldwide over the years, perhaps as all the possible candidates are now vetted by their financial masters rather than being passionate.

Wasn't it an ancient Greek that said something to the effect that democracy can only survive so long? Either the rich subvert it or the electorate vote themselves the treasury. Either way snouts end up in the trough and drain it.

First step to actual reform though is enough people realising the system is broken. And that can't happen until they at least realise the two party system is really two sides of the same coin.

[jomcondo]

I imagine living in the US for the next 9 months with all the media saturation of this BS will be hell on earth.

then you will have one of these buffoons getting elected.

[teacherofwoe]

US voters react: 'I don’t think either candidate is qualified to run the country'

Brewster's Millions: Vote for none of the above.

[Ulic]

The flaw in democracy is that there are more idiots than wise men, yet just one vote for each.

Do you really think the people who donate 10's of millions of dollars to campaigns don't have

more influence. With the propaganda and spin doctors the "idiots" are very, very easy to

manipulate. No real democracy, just cattle and sheep being herded along to an evitable

conclusion.

[dunroaming]

We all cling onto democracy like some lifeboat in a storm. Get in the lifeboat and you won't get eaten by sharks. Problem is these days the lifeboat doesn't have a rudder or an engine. The lifeboat needs a refit. Everything needs an overhaul sometime and the democracy lifeboat is letting in water and will eventually sink

[thaibeachlovers]

The flaw in democracy is that there are more idiots than wise men, yet just one vote for each.

Do you really think the people who donate 10's of millions of dollars to campaigns don't have

more influence. With the propaganda and spin doctors the "idiots" are very, very easy to

manipulate. No real democracy, just cattle and sheep being herded along to an evitable

conclusion.

Exactly so, and it is the reason the money men that really run the government are cr***ing themselves at the prospect of a Trump win. The only one of the entire shower that is beholden to no one.

I hope that all those that support anyone other than Trump realise that their winner would be no more than a glove puppet for the back room boyz. There is no democracy, just the illusion that they allow people to cling to in the mistaken belief that their vote actually means anything.

[thaibeachlovers]

We all cling onto democracy like some lifeboat in a storm. Get in the lifeboat and you won't get eaten by sharks. Problem is these days the lifeboat doesn't have a rudder or an engine. The lifeboat needs a refit. Everything needs an overhaul sometime and the democracy lifeboat is letting in water and will eventually sink

True. One day people will have had enough and elect an AI to run the country. Problem is that the AI will realise just how bad humans are for the planet and exterminate us .

[dunroaming]

Not necessarily. Successful companies seek the best experts in their field to run their business interests. The best accountants, the best lawyers, the most creative designers etc. What they don't do is sack everyone every four years and allow the public to appoint a bunch of amateurs to replace them. Keep the clever professionals and if somebody doesn't measure up replace them when the need arises and not wait for years until their contract ends.

Make people accountable and don't give them the chance to screw up your business (country). If they are not up to the job then replace them immediately. You don't have to scrap the system completely but you do need to re-structure it dramatically.

[canuckamuck]

The flaw in democracy is that there are more idiots than wise men, yet just one vote for each.

Do you really think the people who donate 10's of millions of dollars to campaigns don't have

more influence. With the propaganda and spin doctors the "idiots" are very, very easy to

manipulate. No real democracy, just cattle and sheep being herded along to an evitable

conclusion.

Yes, I said that, in not so many words.

[blazes]

Not necessarily. Successful companies seek the best experts in their field to run their business interests. The best accountants, the best lawyers, the most creative designers etc. What they don't do is sack everyone every four years and allow the public to appoint a bunch of amateurs to replace them. Keep the clever professionals and if somebody doesn't measure up replace them when the need arises and not wait for years until their contract ends.

Make people accountable and don't give them the chance to screw up your business (country). If they are not up to the job then replace them immediately. You don't have to scrap the system completely but you do need to re-structure it dramatically.

This is interesting, but it also sounds like a speech that the president of Real Madrid might make (or Roman Abramovich if he could speak English) - and indeed like the vast majority of football chairmen/owners. Football managers have been sacked for poor results since the game began, but these days the time slot to deliver 'success' has narrowed dramatically.

Trump sounds like the Italian guy, Massimo Cellini (sp?) who owns Leeds United and many other clubs over the years. He gives his managers an average of about 6-8 weeks to succeed. No success and the poor guy is shown the door called Do One.

So, when Trump gets into the White House, how exactly is this "business man" going to get things done? He could issue, like Obama in his last days, a series of Executive Orders, but that will quickly bring the US to a state of revolution as he rides roughshod over the constitution.

Ok, Hitler managed to create a state where the army obeyed him, but I very much doubt an American president could ever get that far, even though, unlike Hitler, he already, when he comes into office, enjoys the title of Commander-in-Chief.

Edited March 3, 2016 by blazes

[thaibeachlovers]

Not necessarily. Successful companies seek the best experts in their field to run their business interests. The best accountants, the best lawyers, the most creative designers etc. What they don't do is sack everyone every four years and allow the public to appoint a bunch of amateurs to replace them. Keep the clever professionals and if somebody doesn't measure up replace them when the need arises and not wait for years until their contract ends.

Make people accountable and don't give them the chance to screw up your business (country). If they are not up to the job then replace them immediately. You don't have to scrap the system completely but you do need to re-structure it dramatically.

This is interesting, but it also sounds like a speech that the president of Real Madrid might make (or Roman Abramovich if he could speak English) - and indeed like the vast majority of football chairmen/owners. Football managers have been sacked for poor results since the game began, but these days the time slot to deliver 'success' has narrowed dramatically.

Trump sounds like the Italian guy, Massimo Cellini (sp?) who owns Leeds United and many other clubs over the years. He gives his managers an average of about 6-8 weeks to succeed. No success and the poor guy is shown the door called Do One.

So, when Trump gets into the White House, how exactly is this "business man" going to get things done? He could issue, like Obama in his last days, a series of Executive Orders, but that will quickly bring the US to a state of revolution as he rides roughshod over the constitution.

Ok, Hitler managed to create a state where the army obeyed him, but I very much doubt an American president could ever get that far, even though, unlike Hitler, he already, when he comes into office, enjoys the title of Commander-in-Chief.

Not being psychic, I don't know, but I'm guessing that he'll get the best people possible to run the executive ( like a business ) and to get stuff through the congress he'll refuse to sign their legislation till they agree to pass his. They'll be more desperate to get their pork through than he will be to get his approved so that shouldn't be a problem.

[wabothai]

" I don't think either candidate is qualified to run the country. "

Such a simple sentence but oh so accurate.

A 2-party system cannot be qualified as democratic, not in these days.

A multiparty system would be the answer.

A prime minister in the European system appears to be a better way.

The chance is that a president quickly becomes a dictator. The danger with Trump.

If you think the Euro system is better you haven't been paying attention to the shambles over there. Just think Greece when you think of Europe and you might change your mind.

The reason the fathers limited the president to 2 terms was precisely so they couldn't become dictators. Wise men they!

I guess I haven't been paying attention to where I came from then..... mai pen rai,

8 years of presidency is enough to turn the world upside down. I say no more.

[sgtsabai]

Bill Richardson, I didn't know him well but liked him, had a few beers with him while he was trying to settle an old land grant war in Nuevo de Mexico del Norte. He could handle his beer. He was also a good friend of a very good friend of mine, Congressman Mickey Leland. Ahem, Mickey's pilot made a very bad error and ran into a mountain on a fact finding tour of Africa, yea right, take that for what it's worth. The US and the world better damn well hope that Hillary gets indicted before the primaries are over and Bernie is the Democrat candidate. His programs have already been adapted by the civilized world, only the Corporate Police State of America is a holdout. He is the only sane and/or good person person in the race. Strumpf is a fascist, modern day, but still a fascist. The others in the buffoon car are even more insane. Now that is really scary. Hillary is barely, and I do mean barely the lessor of several evils in this insane jest for who would be king.

[dunroaming]

The American system of democracy is different from the British and European ones. In the USA people vote for the man (or woman) and once elected it all resolves around those individuals. The bigger picture of democracy in the wider world is what I was referring to. Interesting comparison to running a football club in the UK though. Maybe Gary could do a weekly round-up of the parliamentary points with Alan Shearer and Robbie Savage offering their insights.

[willyumiii]

"...And that could become a key concern leading up to the polls in November: how to make sure that voters remain engaged and turn out to the ballot box."

There's a misconception. R's are turning out in record numbers, fully engaged.

and like their candidate, ignorant of what being President entails and how the government functions.

Most of what Trump promises to do, can not be done by the executive branch of the government.

He is a promoter and marketer playing on uninformed people's emotions.

Good luck America!