Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
I'm starting to come around to this Clinton being the wrong candidate because she's so disliked. To me so much emphasis on it is just as silly as debates being a major criteria for choosing a president (or anything for that matter, debates are the worst venue for anything), I want to choose a candidate based on competency, policy, history, as well as communication skills.
But I'm far from a typical voter, and I understand that right or wrong it's the way the world works.
But I don't see how fighting populism with populism (by putting forward a populist liberal) in a country where the divide between the left right continues to widen is a good solution. Already the difference between left and right is less "my ideas differ from theirs" and more "if you're one of them you can't be one of us".
Being part of the rise of nationalistic xenophobic populism around the world doesn't seem like a good path forward.
|
Yup. If you worked in HR and you were hiring a president of a country, what would your criteria be?
-- Experience being a president or senior official
-- Experience in public service
-- Poised under immense scrutiny and pressure
-- Experience negotiating with opposition house officials to ensure bills get passed
And so fourth. The fact that she was first lady, currently married to a former president, a senior appointed official, an elected senator, and lawyer by trade makes her the most qualified candidate for an candidate who hasn't already served as president. And she lost to a guy who's flaws have been largely pointed out, and I didn't even know about the Twitter account.
I still believe the bulk of humanity are bigots, superficial, and/or unintelligent. Growing up in Alberta, we all knew those people who trashed native people, or hated French Canadians, or whoever else, and when its just you and that ballot, only God is your witness. Or how many people were honestly watching all the debates from both sides, following rallies, and analyzing which political spectrum they fall under, as opposed to just playing Pokemon and letting Facebook posts tell them who to vote for. How many people honestly vote for their best interests based on platforms, regardless of their own past political stances, and how many just vote their wing because of whatever ideology they created?
Occam's Razor my friends. A lot of people really do just want a wall to keep Mexicans out and to ban Muslims because their scared. A lot of people really do vote right just because of whatever reasons they have. And a lot of people don't stay informed, they just heard or know of one sticking point that they couldn't let go, like the email thing. The best one someone told me was that Hilary came out of a helicopter in Afgan and she said there was gunshots and cannons going off during an interview, but the footage showed that to be an exaggeration, hence he wouldn't have voted for her.
How can people explain Rob Ford? Rodrigo Duterte? Sarah Palin? Or any other unprofessional, unethical or otherwise clearly not qualified elected official. The voting population is people we all don't want to know, as well as the few we happen to know. The bigots, the dumb, the superficial.