Enter for a chance to win... jury duty. No thanks!
I'm pretty sure that you can now get jury duty without being registered to vote.
$1M VotePlz Sweepstakes
71–80 of 112 posts
Re: $1M VotePlz Sweepstakes
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are (at least) two comically unqualified candidates in this year's election. Thank you for proving my point.
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.
"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.
Re: $1M VotePlz Sweepstakes
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 t…
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.
Re: $1M VotePlz Sweepstakes
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And I'm sure somebody or other's legal team has reviewed this language and signed off on it. Not really related to this but I think you would be surprised how often this is not the case. I've been involved in many big contracts where I've realized no actual lawyers have been involved at all.
In this case there's a lengthy terms and conditions document, clearly drafted by lawyers.
Yeah, you are probably right but I wanted to get that off my chest anyway. Sorry for OT.
Re: $1M VotePlz Sweepstakes
#75> 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.
Also anybody that has an opinion and doesn't live in a swing state. They should just sit it out, statistically.
Re: $1M VotePlz Sweepstakes
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have been the victim of the conservative spin machine if you think one of the most experienced candidates that either party has fielded in decades isn't "competent".
let me guess, romney was "too robotic" and "didn't stand for anything" ... ?
I don't see how my opinion of Romney's personality has any bearing on Clinton's resume.
Re: $1M VotePlz Sweepstakes
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are (at least) two comically unqualified candidates in this year's election. Thank you for proving my point.
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.
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.
Re: $1M VotePlz Sweepstakes
#78Not a criticism! Replace benefitting party as you wish. It is interesting when these initiatives present themselves as non-partisan. If you target a demographic that polling suggests will go for your preferred party, plough tons of money to encourage them to vote, can it truly be described as non-partisan? edit: And if so, should they be obligated to disclose their preference and intention?
There are two parts to it. First it encourages young people to vote. This is important because young people will be the most affected by policies enacted by the next president. This part is non-partisan, because it forces both political parties to take young people more seriously as a voting block. Second it's clearly against Trump, because Trump's base consists of older white people with racial anxiety/anger. Young…
> Second it's clearly against Trump, because Trump's base consists of older white people with racial anxiety/anger. Young people lean democrat, but they don't get out to vote.
If you honestly believe this, you are very out of touch with reality.
Young voters hate both major party candidates almost equally.
Re: $1M VotePlz Sweepstakes
#79Obligatory. - Incentivizing to vote with cash prizes. Isn't that illegal?" - "Illegal? Sam(ir) this is America".
Not a lawyer, but as far as I know, the relevant statute would be 18 USC 597, which says: "Whoever makes or offers to make an expenditure to any person, either to vote or withhold his vote, or to vote for or against any candidate [...]" Which I strongly suspect is why the language around the offer universally refers to "check[ing] voter registration status". And I'm sure somebody or other's legal team has reviewed th…
From the sweepstakes rules:
> YOU AND INDIVIDUALS TO WHICH YOU PROVIDE THE REFERRAL LINK DO NOT HAVE TO REGISTER TO VOTE TO RECEIVE ENTRY INTO THE SWEEPSTAKES. This Sweepstakes is non-partisan and open to all individuals who satisfy the eligibility requirements above. The number of unique individuals who check their voter registration using your link may impact the VotePlz leaderboard, but entry into this Sweepstakes is solely based on the steps provided above.
Re: $1M VotePlz Sweepstakes
#80"The 2016 US Presidential election feels like the most important one so far in my lifetime." -sama I'm the same age as Sam. But I must confess I don't see why he sees this one as the most important. Both candidates are terrible (for different reasons). It's quite damning of the entire political establishment. I just want to get through the next 4 years and hope that either party can finally find one good candidate.
"I don't see why he sees this one as the most important." This cycle realigns the USA. Like Reagan did in 1980, in reverse. Baring an Act of God, Hillary has already won. Ignore the polls. Everyone has their own reasons to pretend its close. Media wants a horse race and more advertising dollars. If Hillary's base thinks the election is in the bag, they might stay home. Donald is Donald. Hillary's campaign is pushing…
538 has Trump .6% ahead of Clinton, the other polls have CLinton ahead, but her highest is at 54% right now. That's basically a coin flip, not an act of god.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?...