don't need a perfect candidate, just don't need an anti-woman, homophobic, transphobic, racist or anti-homeless one you're democrats, the so-called "lesser evil" and you got 3 years to find someone surely you can find someone who fits that criteria in your whole stinking party, no?

Nice strawman!

I'm suggesting that anyone who wants to be a candidate better learn to purify themselves, or accept that they've already lost.

Ok, wait, so a candidate should pass a purity test, but there's no viable candidate and no purity test? Sorry, Im getting confused.

I can see that you're getting confused. It's evident in how you're inventing premises to be confused by. Would you like to start over and ask a better question?

Yes, I'll start again. (Might need a 2-parter) Im confused why ppl who say candidates shld pass some purity test get angry if others say theyre expecting candidates to pass some purity test. For ex: Cand A takes AIPAC $, B isn't pro-trans enuf, C's ok w/Ai. Theres always something, none perfect...

The problem is that what Dems are complaining about isn't a "purity test." If I hand you a gold bar, you can test it for the purity of the gold. If I hand you a cow pie & ask "what purity is this gold?" That is an insane question. You can't meaningfully talk about testing the cow pie for purity.

Dems are talking about running candidates who oppose civil rights & fundamentally are not progressive, & talking about "purity tests". So if that's the language they want to use, then fine, but they need to accept they the burden is on them to purify themselves.

Of course, no one *wants* a cow pie on its own, but a wall of cow pies and gold is strong enough to stop a flood promising full scale death and destruction. There are not enough gold bars to stop a deluge, so many wonder why wouldn't ppl want to manage the giant threat first?

To be clear, your "flood" has no place in the metaphor. Newsom is actively courting the far right so he can publicly agree with them. If you want to use a "flood" in the metaphor, then remove the cow pie entirely, & consider how one would test the flood for it's purity as a bar of gold.

I'm trying to imagine a possible world where you typed that in good faith. Unfortunately, my imagination has limits.

Sorry, why was that hard to understand?

It wasn't hard to understand. It was just such an amazing attempt to divorce the metaphor from reality and paint it on to a reality that doesn't exist, that I can't imagine that you could've typed it in good faith.

Blud, just say you hate transsexuals people. We understand, it's the inherent urge of a liberal to throw minorities under the bus.

Congratulations, you're as smart as a bot.

Congratulations, you are as moral as Dick Cheney.

The <2 evils ppl understand that there is no purity, & see the 2 evils not as crap vs crap, but as crap vs immediate danger, Defcon 1, bitches gotta go. (Oops 3 parts, sorry...)

So my ? is why are ppl using any 1 major prob as a litmus test or decision maker if it kneecaps our ability to oust someone who fails every litmus test that exists? Ty.

The problem here is that we're not expecting someone to be perfect, we're expecting them to have acceptable positions on the big picture stuff. The Democrats ensure that such people don't make it through their rigged primary process, and instead we're left with trash like Clinton, Biden, and Harris.

Yes, I respect that.

Congratulations on winning the debate as demonstrated by the insult only replies. Absolutists thinkers… they group anyone who disagrees with them in the slightest as “evil”.

Absolutism is ok, I think; genocide bad is a good ethic. Direct actors & enablers shld be tossed. My immediate concern is having power to do that. If current regime stays, genocide continues in + quickly spreads globally. Same w trans hate, deportations, loss of life, rights, etc. Lotta issues rn

HAVING MORAL OR ETHICAL STANDARDS IS NOT A FUCKING PURITY TEST, MOTHERFUCKER!

Old age should hurry up because your brain is rotting at an incredible rate.

Yes, because lazy ageism is a sign of great intelligence.

Fuck your old ass, Methuselah.

That sounds like the sort of thing an old fool might say. Keep rotting.

I wouldn't say it.

You aren't a fool 😉

Yes, ok. You too.

I'm not elderly though. You are.

Ok

How does it feel to be rotting?

Fine. Thanks for asking.

Breaking news: Person finds out how elections work!

No, only that there are many corrupt/compromised/contaminated candidates we should NOT vote for and common sense tells us we should make sure we know who they are.

are you suggesting transphobia, camps for the homeless and genocide is "good" to you?

No one is doing this.

Your standards for perfect is on the ground and you still failed.

Anyone who has a standard for perfect is not a serious person.

Which is funny because you think "No compromise for trans rights and no genocide = perfect" 😂 It should be the bate minimum, idiot!

*bare

Are you a fucking child with a baby brain? Because when you say dumbass shit like this it sounds like you’re a child with a baby brain.

No. Why would you assume that? But there should be a candidate that doesn't destroy coalitions by throwing part of the coalition under the bus then wonder why they lose supporters. "Perfect candidate" is another lazy attack. We have 3 years to discuss candidates. Anointing a chosen one is stupid

Im.) not attacking anyone. Purity suggests pefection, so it was a logical question. There's no gotcha happening here. I agree, there shld only be good candidates. Sadly, that'll take some time to achieve, some chipping away. Might hafta put out a really big fire 1st.

Yeah. That's why they renamed "having standards" to "purity test", to make it sound like something it isn't. You should be more skeptical of political language.

No, purity test only suggests we should rule out candidates that are contaminated with a high degree of undesirable traits. In most political discourse, this is called "vetting."

How did we get to the point that having standards is derided?

"It's her turn."

People forget that in 2008 more Hillary supporters voted for McCain than Bernie supporters for Trump in 2016. Obama pissed off the "stuck in '92" party leadership. ... and they STILL haven't learned a damned thing.

So you failed to read for comprehension. "Purity" is the BS attack laid on people pointing out flaws. "Perfection" is just rewording of "purity". So we agree we need to chip away and confront candidates on unreasonable policies, like throwing part of the coalition under the bus. Nobody's perfect

Fully 100 million US adult residents are systematically disenfranchised Who's 'everyone'?

People are asking for "good," you whiny schmuck, not "perfect." And y'all can't even manage that because you're too busy gargling Dick Cheney's and Charlie Kirk's balls.

man shut up