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