• abracaDavid@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s a low bar. If we’re now judging candidates in comparison to Trump then we’re in trouble.

    Trump isn’t the standard. He’s an anomaly, and we should aim way higher.

    • ulterno@lemmy.kde.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Well, Trump did make a ton of people madly follow him.
      It may be leading the world to ruin, but it is still leading.

      I’d put the impact rating as “high”.
      The direction being undesirable.

    • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      I don’t agree. A scale has to be useful for separating what you’re measuring. Any scale that puts Kamala as “low” is like trying to measure the size of a banana and an orange in kilometers, they’ll both measure “low”. There is no decent measure by which Trump is anything but scum. Kamala (or just about anyone who isn’t a Trump voter) ranks so far above Trump that they can’t be anything under “excellent” on a scale designed to meaningfully compare these candidates.

      Obviously the scale we should be using for our politicians SHOULD be better, and that’s because we should have produced better candidates. With the candidates we have, we don’t get to use a better scale because in doing so we’ll be playing right into Republican narrative of “they’re both the same” or Kamala is “low” quality so vote for Trump.