IT IS REPORTED RFK.Jr. leaving Democratic Party, run as an Independent

[Dill]

(10-03-2023, 09:14 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: It would be nice to have more choices if the choices were say, sane or at least decent.

As in, only if they are in line with your particular views, right?

Hard to imagine someone who doesn't think his own particular views are "sane or at least decent."

And even harder to imagine anyone voting for whomever he thinks is the less sane/decent candidate,
or less in line with the voter's own particular views.

Who says "Sure, I think Trump is an anti-democratic grifter who tried to overthrow the government and will continue to
sow chaos if re-elected--but he gets my vote because I'm not looking for someone who just aligns with my views on sanity and decency"?

Someone might counter-argue that there are people who believe Trump is all that, but would still vote for him because they think he'd
boost their oil stocks or gun sales or whatever--but even those people are still voting in line with their particular views, setting priorities thereby.

The discussion really ought to be about what counts as sane and decent.

And that should include questions/discussions about how so many become anti-vaxxers or get sucked into
conspiracy theories--or I guess from the conspirator's side, how so many were fooled by the international Globalists
who pick our candidates anyway. 

That would eventually lead to discussion of how we determine what is "fact" or "truth" in political matters, how much
empirical evidence plays in that determination and how much other factors, like identity, ideology and disinformation.

In turn, this will finally resolve itself into a conflict between (empirical) fact-based and faith-based methods. 
(By "faith" I am not singling out religious folks and value judgements (which aren't judgments of fact)
but ANY who think personal feelings and what-I-just-WANT-to-believe should trump facts.)