3 ms·

Yes this man was democratically elected. There didn’t seem to be a particularly appealing set of options for the electorate. As an outsider it seems a lot like

by jarym 1y ago

Yes this man was democratically elected. There didn’t seem to be a particularly appealing set of options for the electorate. As an outsider it seems a lot like groups pulling the political levers in the US only ensure candidates that can be ‘handled’ are put forward and those that can’t will be rooted out. That’s why the choice was between braindead Biden vs deranged Trump. And when it was clear Biden wasn’t an option, a belated shift to try sell Kamala to the electorate. I don’t think we’ll see strong presidential candidates - those clearly motivated to better the country and its citizens - in the near future either. The process now seems to suit the corporate and lobby groups who jostle to get their share of influence.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
datavirtue 1y ago
This. Some things are going very wrong for the body politic.
latexr 1y ago
> There didn’t seem to be a particularly appealing set of options for the electorate. I mean, there was one candidate who fawns over dictators, is a felon, always acts in his own personal interest, and had very public plans to try to dismantle democracy and seize ultimate power. Then there was another who would at worst continue the status quo and not try to overthrow the government. It feels ridiculous to claim there was no appealing option. It’s like being given the option between losing both arms or being slapped in the face and shrugging that none of the options is appealing. At least try to pick the least unappealing.
- jarym 1y ago
  > at worst continue the status quo That’s what you have spelled out but failed to appreciate the significance of. For a chunk of the electorate the status quo wasn’t working for them. I see from all the down votes people seem blind to this. The ‘status quo’ may have been fine for you hence why you think that was better to continue…
  - latexr 1y ago
    > For a chunk of the electorate the status quo wasn’t working for them. No doubt. But voting for someone who openly makes the worst parts of the status quo worse isn’t a solution either. If the current situation isn’t working for you, choosing to make it more difficult on yourself is nonsensical. > The ‘status quo’ may have been fine for you hence why you think that was better to continue I’m not American. But please do elucidate me on which groups exactly were being handed a bad hand by the status quo and are now better off. I think the answer will be quite enlightening.
Gormo 1y ago
> That’s why the choice was between braindead Biden vs deranged Trump. Why would a political apparatus that only wants to offer candidates that can be 'handled' instead offer up a senile geriatric and a stubborn narcissist, both of whom are severely lacking in their capacity to take direction?

by jarym 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

datavirtue 1y ago

This. Some things are going very wrong for the body politic.

latexr 1y ago

> There didn’t seem to be a particularly appealing set of options for the electorate. I mean, there was one candidate who fawns over dictators, is a felon, always acts in his own personal interest, and had very public plans to try to dismantle democracy and seize ultimate power. Then there was another who would at worst continue the status quo and not try to overthrow the government. It feels ridiculous to claim there was no appealing option. It’s like being given the option between losing both arms or being slapped in the face and shrugging that none of the options is appealing. At least try to pick the least unappealing.

jarym 1y ago
> at worst continue the status quo That’s what you have spelled out but failed to appreciate the significance of. For a chunk of the electorate the status quo wasn’t working for them. I see from all the down votes people seem blind to this. The ‘status quo’ may have been fine for you hence why you think that was better to continue…
- latexr 1y ago
  > For a chunk of the electorate the status quo wasn’t working for them. No doubt. But voting for someone who openly makes the worst parts of the status quo worse isn’t a solution either. If the current situation isn’t working for you, choosing to make it more difficult on yourself is nonsensical. > The ‘status quo’ may have been fine for you hence why you think that was better to continue I’m not American. But please do elucidate me on which groups exactly were being handed a bad hand by the status quo and are now better off. I think the answer will be quite enlightening.

Gormo 1y ago

> That’s why the choice was between braindead Biden vs deranged Trump. Why would a political apparatus that only wants to offer candidates that can be 'handled' instead offer up a senile geriatric and a stubborn narcissist, both of whom are severely lacking in their capacity to take direction?