politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
And the problem with that, is that other people do. And if you don't pick a candidate that is acceptable to a broad enough coalition to win the election: you don't win the election.
Its not a matter of what you'll accept out of a candidate; its a matter of what the electorate will accept as a candidate. And while you might be accepting of pants-shitter to make some of the most impactful decisions that will affect almost every person on the planet, the American people wont. You being willing to accept less makes you irrelevant; you aren't a vote we need to work to get. Which is fine. Its your vote. Do what you will. You don't need to have standards.
But, by putting the bar so low and accepting a pants-shitter, you sabotage our collective ability to actually get that person into office. It should be obvious to you now, that not enough other people wanted to elect a pants-shitter. And as a cohort, the Biden apologists, by insisting that everyone else lower their standards to that of a geriatric who was barely present, these people are saboteurs who kneecapped our ability to stop Trump.
And since you have such low standards, I expect that you should be willing to accept that your view doesn't matter and shouldn't be weighted as highly as people who need something more, like a specific set of policies or a certain level of competency. We don't need to work for your vote: you'll vote for a pants-shitter. This is great because it lets us narrow down the field to candidates for people who do have some standards, for example, that they don't want to vote for someone who is an advocate for genocide them as a people. Or who want police reform. Or any number of other issues. Literally any ones opinion should be weighted more highly, since, like you said, you'll basically vote for anyone, even a barely walking, senile geriatric, who shits their pants on stage.
That's some impressively aggressive ableist language dripping throughout your comment. I assume your words come from anger and not thinking about perspectives other than the one that upsets you the most. Lots of people shit their pants, it wasn't something that our last two presidents invented.
Behold, a president who needed significant assistance, because he'd otherwise have shit his pants. And possessed the kind of personality I mentioned where he wouldn't have made pointing out other people's poopie pants his entire identity:
Okay, but it's not like these are people with lifelong conditions and injuries that cause a disability. They're just so god damn old they have allegedly lost bowel control.
That certainly happens to many with age, but if you are old enough to have lost bowel control from age alone I'm going to question if that advanced age has not effected their mental capacity.
Our leaders need to be mentally competent. Suffering physical symptoms of advanced age makes it seem like they are/were not able to handle the very demanding job of running the country