How true is this statement; "If someone is not fit for office, it doesn't matter that someone else may be even worse"?

SP5 Mark Kuzinski — Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:26:30 -0400

Many Americans, not just conservatives, will cast essentially negative ballots. Is the only real argument for Hillary Clinton that she is not Donald Trump? Is the only real argument for Donald Trump that he is not Hillary Clinton? Neither argument is convincing. If someone is not fit for office, it doesn't matter that someone else may be even worse. Comments please.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Oct 17 at 2016 9:29 AM

LTC Stephen F. — Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:29:06 -0400

SP5 Mark Kuzinski that is an interesting question. Thankfully fit for the office of President of the USA is not subjective. No matter how many time Hillary Clinton vents that her opponent is not fit for the office of the president since her views are inherently biased and are irrelevant.
THE US Constitution sets forth the perquisites for President,

Response by COL Mikel J. Burroughs made Oct 17 at 2016 9:30 AM

COL Mikel J. Burroughs — Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:30:28 -0400

SP5 Mark Kuzinski I still think that everyone should vote - even if the outcome has been bought and paid for - just my opinion Mark!

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 17 at 2016 9:31 AM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:31:13 -0400

You can vote for anyone on the ballot, write in a name, or not vote. Those are your choices.

The reality as I see it though is we really have a choice of two. The rest simply are competitive enough to succeed.

So I see my options as pick the best and vote for him/her or pick the worst and vote for the other.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Oct 17 at 2016 9:36 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:36:55 -0400

Some of the worst presidents in history have been viewed as fit for office. When was the last time anyone voted for a candidate because he (or now she) was their first choice? Fit for office is a political attack, not a real fact. Our Democratic Republic has transmogrified into something controlled by the establishment as a whole, while watched and accepted it.

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Oct 17 at 2016 9:38 AM

MSgt James Mullis — Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:38:47 -0400

"If someone is not fit for office, it doesn't matter that someone else may be even worse." Completely False. Read John Kennedy's book Profile's in courage. Sometimes you need to do what's right for your country and not what makes you feel good about yourself or what is good for you personally, even if your friends might not like your decision.

Response by SPC Danny Hahn made Oct 17 at 2016 9:55 AM

SPC Danny Hahn — Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:55:16 -0400

Hillary Clinton cannot be trusted to run our country, much less our military. If any of us had done a fraction of what she's done, we'd be in Levinworth breaking big rocks into small ones for the rest of our lives, and rightfully so. She is a threat to this country and a threat to our Constitution. She must not win, or this country as we've known it, I'd dead.

Response by MSG Stan Hutchison made Oct 17 at 2016 10:00 AM

MSG Stan Hutchison — Mon, 17 Oct 2016 10:00:16 -0400

Before one can respond to this question, we need a definition of "fit for office."

Response by Cpl Justin Goolsby made Oct 17 at 2016 10:10 AM

Cpl Justin Goolsby — Mon, 17 Oct 2016 10:10:45 -0400

You are correct. If someone is not fit for office, it doesn't matter that someone else may be even worse. Trump very well may be the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler... that does not mean I am going to vote for Hillary. It also doesn't mean I'm going to vote for Trump just to keep Hillary out. If I am not going to vote for someone, there is going to be a legitimate reason for me to not support them. In the same manner, if I am going to support someone, there is going to be a legitimate reason for me to support them and not just to keep someone else out.

For example... I will not support Hillary. Ignore Benghazi. Ignore the scandals. Ignore her husband's past. I will not support Hillary because she mishandled classified information and got off scot-free where others were crucified publicly for lesser mishandlings. It honestly doesn't even matter what was actually in the information she mishandled. It could have been anything from the President's dietary habits, VIPs itineraries, names and backgrounds of personnel security details. Anything that could have been used against this Country. That's why I can't give her a free pass because even out of the military I still have to go through the same hoops to keep and maintain my security clearance.

I'm on the fence with Trump. I see why people like him, but if I vote for him, it won't be simply to stop Hillary. For me, the most appealing thing about Trump is that both the Republican and Democratic parties have been trying to destroy him. By all appearances, he looks like he can't be bought by the establishment government powers or the standard special interests.

The biggest thing to remember is that people laughed at the idea of a Hollywood actor sitting in the Oval Office and many people revere Ronald Reagan. Trump may be unrefined, but he very well might be what we need in the Office. Who knows, only time will tell.

Response by SFC George Smith made Oct 17 at 2016 10:30 AM

SFC George Smith — Mon, 17 Oct 2016 10:30:20 -0400

Point made... Think about the Elections in the last 24 years...

Response by Sgt Mark Ramos made Oct 17 at 2016 10:32 AM

Sgt Mark Ramos — Mon, 17 Oct 2016 10:32:41 -0400

Completely untrue, in fact, just the opposite. The other options are of utmost importance.
"Not fit" is different than "not qualified". Although not specified, I think it's safe to assume that both are qualified, meaning that they meet the constitutional requirements. Therefore, "not fit", is a judgement call. So, just like in other life decisions, sometimes you need to choose the best of the bad options. Often, selecting the best of the bad options, can make a significant difference in your life. Choosing correctly when all your options are bad can be the most important decisions of your life.

Response by SMSgt Thor Merich made Oct 17 at 2016 10:52 AM

SMSgt Thor Merich — Mon, 17 Oct 2016 10:52:03 -0400

Who decides what "fit for office" means. Those polarized for either Trump or Hillary would argue that the other is not fit for office. However, in our electoral system no where does it say that someone needs to be fit for office. Its a made up term by the folks trying to convince you that their opponent isn't fit.

The sad part of this whole process, is that prior elections put both Trump and Hillary where they are today. Voters have to make a final decision based on what we have. If folks got involved in the process from the beginning and were more thoughtful about their choices, maybe we could avoid this in the future.

But I am not holding my breath....

But I am ardent believer in voting. People who opt out of the process because they dislike the choices are taking a cowards way out and help no one. Plus, you cant bitch if you didn't participate.

Response by PO3 Donald Murphy made Oct 17 at 2016 11:01 AM

PO3 Donald Murphy — Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:01:19 -0400

And of course, as our vote doesn't count (unless we are electoral voters), then the question is not "do we think they are fit," but rather, "do the elector voters think they are fit?" "I'm worse off under Hillary." Good for you. But will the EV's in your state be worse off? If no, then say hello to the first lady president.

The stocks in this country have been steadily rising. Hilary enters the race R I C H. Donald of course, is a known financial quantity. So both have equally large AMEX cards. Who will Wall Street feel more comfortable with? On the one hand, both Hilary and Donald are like stocks: one is bullish while the other is bearish. There's talk of another depression coming and talk of another housing boom coming. The people standing behind both statements are system experts. So who does Wall Street trust to lead them through that?

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Oct 17 at 2016 11:05 AM

SrA Edward Vong — Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:05:04 -0400

On paper, many individuals in the country are qualified to be president. Whether or not they belong there is up to our votes. We put them there.

Response by Maj John Bell made Oct 17 at 2016 11:16 AM

Maj John Bell — Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:16:05 -0400

Essentially I been forced into a devils bargain. Who do I think will be less damaging? If Mr. Trump is telling the truth about is SCOTUS nominees I'd choose that devil. But I don't believe him. If I thought Secretary Clinton wouldn't sell us down the river to line her pockets (via Bill Clinton or Chelsea) I'd pick her. If I thought Gary Johnson could read a map or a newspaper I'd pick him. I think Jill Stein is probably the most personably honorable but I cannot support her agenda. I'd like to be put in cryogenic suspension until 2020, because if Kanye West wins the Democratic nomination then it really is time to kill myself.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Oct 17 at 2016 11:29 AM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:29:04 -0400

MY answer to the question is false! Understand I was a typical "C" student with a very hard work ethic believing that a hard days work = a hard days pay, and that you have a choice in life you can either get off your ass and earn your money or rely on the government to be your sugar daddy and live off whatever scraps you find.....I rather be my own person and take responsibility for my action by earning my way in life.

I cannot emphasize how important this election is, not only for our immediate future but the future of our children and their children. Damn near everyone on this forum has put their ass on the line and stepped up to "engage and destroy" the enemies of our country - our sacrifices also went on to preserve our freedoms, freedom of speech and the freedom to chose who we want to vote for. I ask you, I emplore you to exercise your right to vote, that right that we all deployed and fought to protect. YOU EARNED IT!

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Oct 17 at 2016 11:44 AM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:44:22 -0400

First of all, define "unfit for office". What are the standards for office? Compared to what? Who's standards are we using and what makes their standards "the golden standard"? Now compare to past Presidents. Tell me what the Constitution says, what are it's standards?

Response by SPC Sheila Lewis made Oct 17 at 2016 12:26 PM

SPC Sheila Lewis — Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:26:52 -0400

Each of us should do our own research and vote accordingly but the underlying concern is the degree of character decline which activates the American society's moral compass.

Response by Sgt Wayne Wood made Oct 17 at 2016 12:27 PM

Sgt Wayne Wood — Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:27:28 -0400

if person A is unfit for office then, by definition, if person B is worse then they are also unfit. now you have to ask, by what objective definition are you deciding unfitness?

Response by SFC Everett Oliver made Oct 17 at 2016 1:15 PM

SFC Everett Oliver — Mon, 17 Oct 2016 13:15:22 -0400

I'm not voting for the office of the President... All people on the ballot are about worthless. However, I will be voting for the person who will be appointing perhaps as many as 3 or 4 supreme court justices... And one of those candidates has promised to stack the court to follow her whims.... If you can read between the lines....

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Oct 17 at 2016 2:22 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:22:20 -0400

So who decides the if a persons is not fit for office other then the voters. I say this because looking at congress a lot of them are not-fit for office, and yet they get re-elected.

Response by CPT Alan Bentson made Oct 17 at 2016 2:28 PM

CPT Alan Bentson — Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:28:35 -0400

I'm not sure how to define "not fit for office."
Abe Lincoln was primarily a self-educated lawyer. Served one two year term in Congress.
I think the real question is who is fit for a moment in history. FDR was a good fit for 1933 and Reagan for 1981. But not necessarily the other way around.

Response by SPC Phil Norton made Oct 17 at 2016 5:51 PM

SPC Phil Norton — Mon, 17 Oct 2016 17:51:35 -0400

On your question the answer is yes. Sometimes you just pick the nominee that you feel could do less damage to the Country. So I pick Trump Hillary has already shown how bad she is Bengahzi

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Oct 18 at 2016 3:27 PM

Capt Seid Waddell — Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:27:16 -0400

Very untrue. When faced with a binary choice between two unfit candidates one must try to choose the unfit candidate that will do the least permanent damage to the country.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 18 at 2016 5:22 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 18 Oct 2016 17:22:53 -0400

I agree, and while he is not the most qualified candidate ever, I like the idea of Gary Johnson as a positive selection. Even if he has a lackluster Jimmy Carter-esque term, the two party system will have been cracked. Even with his not so great chances this time, a significant portion of the vote will make the third party more viable next time. I also think there will be an X factor on election day: "Hillary Nope, Trump nope....third guy...hmmmm...".