I've seen a number of OPs stating that a candidate should be "disqualified"

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

for something they did or said, maybe recently or maybe decades ago. Maybe it's bad or maybe it's trivial (an evaluation that is often in the estimation of the critic). So how is that disqualification supposed to happen? Does someone at the DNC sound a buzzer and pull a lever and the candidate drops through a trapdoor, never to be seen again? Or are they pulled off the stage with a hook, or tased into submission and dragged away?

Or does each voter get to decide whether a candidate is "disqualified" by just not voting for them? If someone tells me Candidate X is disqualified because... what? They failed to return a library book in 1982, or it's discovered that they attend KKK meetings, or a body was found in the trunk of their car, or they couldn't remember the name of the president of another country? Shouldn't I be the one to decide that question?

Don't tell me some candidate you don't like is "disqualified," because the only person who decides that is me. They get my vote or they don't. I have disqualified Sanders and Gabbard, meaning I won't vote for either of them in my state's primary election. I won't and can't disqualify them for other people who can make their own decisions based on their own criteria. That's why we have elections, so don't fucking tell me anybody is "disqualified" just because you don't like something they did.

[jberryhill]

1. If you have to ask, you're disqualified

It’s a lot like not being economically viable.

[IronLionZion]

2. You're disqualified! And you're disqualified! And you're disqualified too!

[Hassin Bin Sober]

3. .

[guillaumeb]

4. Undecideds are automatically disqualified...........

from posting in the candidate specific groups.

[Faux pas]

5. Kickin'

Because I'm so sick of the bickering around here. Thank you The Velveteen Rabbit

[pazzyanne]

6. +1 nt

[Fla Dem]

7. Ocelot, not Rabbit