If both US major parties had any sense, one would be sent to an elderly home and the other to jail, then start looking for candidates that can at least finish two terms without reaching 65
Yeah. Republicans will just put forth another far right candidate like Cruz, DeSantis.... they're such Trump suck ups they've completely deviated from being moderates. Well Cruz was always a bit extreme but the party as a whole has lost its mind. The decent ones with a conscious got out. As for Democrats who is a compelling candidate. Warren? Harris? I could Governor Whitmer taking a run but not this cycle. I wish Bernie Sanders was younger lol.
That's why articulate is not enough in itself, hence "intelligent" and "balanced". Implicitly that means being able to push for good policies that take into account reality/facts as well as addressing the needs/anxieties of both sides of the political divide.
In some circles someone like Ben Shapiro would pass off as "articulate", and definitely "intelligent", but no way in hell is he balanced. He once compared waiting in line at Disney Land to waiting in line to cast a vote, as though taking a ride at Disney were a constitutionally protected right and if you could wait in line for hours at one at the former, you could definitely wait in line for hours at the latter.
Bringing up intelligence at all is pointless, obviously nobody wants a stupid candidate. The issue is what defines intelligence. For many it's good rhetoric instead of good substance. As for balance, excessive centrism is also bad. Policy is the best way to gauge all that, and rhetoric only matters because people make it matter.
Articulate, intelligent, and balanced are everything we need in a presidency.... You forget how little actual legislative power a president holds themself, but their presentation to the US citizens and the international powers is a key part of the role. We need a strong and diverse cabinet, moderate stances on policy, and uncorruptable pockets.
As it is, people are already voting on "policy" by blindly voting for the biggest extremists in their respective party... It's either giant douche, or turd sandwich with no in between.
As it is, people are already voting on "policy" by blindly voting for the biggest extremists in their respective party...
No, people on the right are voting for extremists because of populist rhetoric, not because their policies actually make sense. On the left it has been moderates winning the primaries.
It's either giant douche, or turd sandwich with no in between.
Le funny classic meme, but in the end, the smear campaign about "turd sandwich" Hillary ended in nothing. Voters are self-righteous morons who are easily duped.
It's partially because policy is not one person, but who they surround themselves with. You can get the administration without the man at the top, to a certain extent.
Frankly it's the foreign policy experience for Biden that no one else has. Though presidents routinely consult their predecessors, so it's not like that is entirely lost should he bow out and wish to contribute.
That said, Biden can still command facts and be persuasive in the substance of arguments, he's just waning on presence.
We don't have a choice of policy, though. We have a choice of people. And the policy those people have been involved with is not solely their doing. If you were part of a majority in a blue state, your policy accomplishments are going to look better than if you were a minority in a red state, for example. If you were a governor, your policy is what the legislature put on your desk. Obviously we can look at things like sponsors and co-sponsors, but even these can be manipulated for political gain-- "oh, I co-sponsored this radically progressive bill in South Dakota" that they knew wouldn't be passed, while telling their donors not to worry, it was DOA.
Of course you are. I guess my comment wasn't clear to you, but there was no doubt about what you meant.
How do you judge what policies they "want" to enact? By looking at past policy, and looking at what they say. Neither of those are reliable.
And on top of that, everyone knows you also have to consider whether that person has a chance at getting elected. My cousin Jeff has the best overall policy in my opinion, but he didn't make the ballot this year. Intelligent people support stupid politicians if they think those politicians will win and move the needle in their direction.
Being articulate is a reasonable proxy for intelligence. And intelligence doesn't determine where your motivations and goals lie, intelligent people can be self-interested.
I'd love to live in your world where all the voters on both sides look at policy goals, but only stupid people will decide to act as if they live in that world when everyone else is still living in the current world. Eloquence, demeanor, intelligence, commitment, attitude, character-- in our world, these things do matter, because anyone with money can hire a consultant to write a popular policy platform and send it to a web designer.
How do you judge what policies they "want" to enact?
Simply by what they say. And if they don't do as they say, then protests will happen, or worse. In fact, eloquent people are better liars.
Intelligent people support stupid politicians if they think those politicians will win and move the needle in their direction.
The stupid politicians will win because of the stupid majority. Granted, I think Biden is still relatively smart, and most people are clueless about his policies, which I think have been generally smart.
Being articulate is a reasonable proxy for intelligence.
It absolutely is not. Only a very basic level of intelligence, but today it's a world of pseudo-intellectual demagogues. Some people are good only at bullshitting, and most people are so stupid that all you need is confidence. Being born rich like Trump is also a huge help.
And intelligence doesn't determine where your motivations and goals lie, intelligent people can be self-interested.
So can stupid people, moot point. Trump isn't what I would call "eloquent", but his level of rhetoric is what people relate to, and he is a massive liar.
only stupid people will decide to act as if they live in that world when everyone else is still living in the current world.
At no point did I ever say we live in that world, literally my first comment was "I would love to live in that world", not that we do live in it. Since we don't, appearances are extremely important, I just wish they weren't.
Eloquence, demeanor, intelligence, commitment, attitude, character-- in our world, these things do matter, because anyone with money can hire a consultant to write a popular policy platform and send it to a web designer.
They can hire speech writers too. It should be obvious that lying is a whole other issue.
It's clear you're more interested in having a contradiction than a meaningful discussion or debate. Earlier, your main arguments were that we should vote for intelligent people, and vote based on policy. My counter is that it's very hard to judge what policy a candidate will enact, and that other traits must also be considered. Why do I say you're just contradicting thoughtlessly instead of thinking critically? How about this: "intelligent people can be self-interested" (clearly arguing that we should look at other traits that give us a clue about honesty and motivation) to which you rely "so can stupid people, moot point." No, not only does that not make my point moot, it is shallow whataboutism. I did not argue we should select stupid people. That's not a counter-argument to my response that intelligence isn't sufficient. Think before you write next time.
if they don't do what they say, protests will happen, or worse
Okay and I'm pretty sure you're an idealistic 12-year-old. I'm gonna stick to ad hom here because this is too dumb of a claim to waste real effort responding to it.
Being articulate absolutely is a good proxy for intelligence, and your counter-arguments are mind-numbing. Having confidence and bullshitting isn't being articulate. Case in point: *you literally brought up Donald Trump as a counter-argument.* He is one of the least articulate politicians to ever step foot on a national stage, are you serious? I think the issue is that you literally don't know what "articulate" means. You think that getting people fired up with speech inherently makes you articulate. It doesn't.
Bottom line: we are stuck doing our best trying to determine if a politician is a "good person" in our judgement or not, because if they're not a good person, there's no reason to believe they will faithfully pursue policy for our good.
Feel free to have the last word, but honestly you're not worth any more of my time so I'm not going to read it.
3.0k
u/MedaurusVendum Jul 12 '24
If both US major parties had any sense, one would be sent to an elderly home and the other to jail, then start looking for candidates that can at least finish two terms without reaching 65