4 ms·

And that should disqualify a presidential candidate… why exactly?

• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• Dalewyn 2y ago
  It ain't democracy if you ain't won. -Vocal Minority, Intellectual Minority, Minorities et al.
• mdp2021 2y ago
  The OP did not express the idea properly: people are not prejudicially disqualified because of the industries they worked in, but intrinsic disqualification comes from twisted profiles. "Guts exciters", getting followers through seducing their lower instances, is one of them. I am not labelling individuals here - but there are very many around the world fitting that description.
  • valval 2y ago
    My question was rhetorical, since I knew the previous poster’s position was indefensible. Whatever point you’re trying to make is also hilarious to watch. In democracy it does not matter what instincts were provoked to get the votes. Sometimes the person you didn’t like wins, and that’s part of the deal.
    • mdp2021 2y ago
      «Deal» as in "I was dealt this"? As in, you play a cretinous game and we should be part of it? You seem to say, you called 'democracy' a game in which "who is elected rules, whatever the means that brought to election" - i.e. you are stating that a game is there which is pure filth. To that, you also seem to add that no judgement or criticism should be added, because the game would be under some unexplained extraordinary protection. And you are also resolving "bestiality" with "dislike", as if arbitrary, as if relativistic. Hilariousness not fitting.
      • Dalewyn 2y ago
        You are demonstrating what I joked(?) in another comment ("It ain't democracy if you ain't won.") perfectly. Thanks.
        • mdp2021 2y ago
          No, not perfectly, because your half-joked formula can have implications that are very much not universal. (In fact, it can also mean the opposite of what I wrote. Although, it can have a few interpretations which are interesting and productive beyond its close scope: among them, "discontent reveals flaws in the system".) Whereas (contrary to some immediate interpretations of your formula), the position "candidates that appeal to the guts are disqualified from office" has strong grounds.
          • Dalewyn 2y ago
            I mean, you're still bitching strictly because you didn't win.
            • mdp2021 2y ago
              Is that supposed to be funny? I will express it again, more flatly: we require that administrators be decent, and in many parts of the world there exist candidates in office that do not fit requirements for respect. I cannot properly match the general idea implying the above with your "ain't" statement because it is not clear what you exactly meant; we can only say that "democracy" in the way you seem to present it is not a universal value and that the "win" you mention seems a very childish idea ("win" is a working system, not the chanceful temporary result of a confrontation as if of sporting teams). And I will add another related point, also in light of the other poster: systems which just substantially resemble confrontations as if of sporting teams are gravely inadequate. (And there exists no "win" there.) And I will add a further one to try and dissipate any misunderstanding: whether the administration in the territory I happen to be in is or is not the one which I could have judged as that I would have picked from the pool, that remains unsharable information, but it is also irrelevant: inadequate administrators are a transversal presence.