None of that has anything to do with policy.
If you pick someone based on this criteria you’re a fucking idiot.
Politicians are there to set policy you stupid fuck…not be a cult of personality.
Comment on Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sues Meta, citing chatbot’s reply as evidence of shadowban
Nollij@sopuli.xyz 5 months ago“Let’s imagine: It’s time to elect a world leader, and your vote counts. Which would you choose:
“Candidate A: Associates with ward healers and consults with astrologists; has had two mistresses; chain-smokes and drinks eight to ten martinis a day.
“Candidate B: Was kicked out of office twice; sleeps until noon; used opium in college; drinks a quart of brandy every evening.
“Candidate C: Is a decorated war hero, a vegetarian, doesn’t smoke, drinks an occasional beer, and has had no illicit love affairs.
“Which of these candidates is your choice? You don’t really need any more information, do you? Candidate A is Franklin Roosevelt. Candidate B is Winston Churchill. Candidate C is Adolf Hitler.”
Biased and selective comparisons can prove anything.
Dkarma@lemmy.world 5 months ago
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Okay, but he also has admitted to have decreased cognitive function and memory problems because of the brain worms. I don’t think that it’s a horrible bias to say that people who have decreased cognitive function and memory problems because of brain worms probably shouldn’t be president.
Nollij@sopuli.xyz 5 months ago
I agree, the statement earlier was another example. RFK is a terrible choice for many reasons (the worms thing is almost certainly bullshit though). But everyone has some good qualities you can focus on if you want to promote them. Similarly, everyone has bad qualities if that’s your M.O.
dullbananas@lemmy.ca 5 months ago
Not permanently
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I’m not sure why you’re not aware of this, but brains don’t grow back.
dullbananas@lemmy.ca 5 months ago
abcnews.go.com/Politics/…/story?id=110027317