Or the person is not 15 years old, and doesn't believe there are "good persons" in politics, or that the alternatives (in GOP or Dems) were better people.
Or the person goes even further, and doesn't believe the puritan tenet that "good person == good politician". There were excellent politicians that were bad in their behavior, and vice versa.
E.g. the person might care more about not encouraging a hawkish member of the establishment, that continued to beat the drum of American supremacy and threatened even more wars and tension coming on (e.g. with Iran) -- compared to merely voting someone who is e.g. sexist (as if that matters for the kind of decisions a President takes).
Being sexist doesn’t matter for the kinds of decisions a president makes? Excuse me? Supreme Court justice nominations, for instance?
In fact, the Supreme Court invalidates your entrie argument, because guess what: I want people I think are “good people” to be in charge of interpreting the constitution. I think everybody can agree with that.
>Being sexist doesn’t matter for the kinds of decisions a president makes? Excuse me? Supreme Court justice nominations, for instance?
Yeah, it doesn't matter. Worse case you get more male justices. What do you really expect will happen? Some justice will be unpointed which will undo women's voting rights or equality laws?
>In fact, the Supreme Court invalidates your entrie argument, because guess what: I want people I think are “good people” to be in charge of interpreting the constitution. I think everybody can agree with that.
Well, I don't agree with that. I would not care less if one of my "constitutional interpreters" drinks, takes cocaine, or has extra marital affairs for example. I only care that the direction they take the law is good. There have been legendary lawmakers and politicians that had all kinds of personal vices.
Then again, I'm not American, so I don't have the puritan trait. You guys managed to have a problem with the personal life of MLK too. Nobody in Europe would even think to ask such a BS question:
Given that’s exactly what has happened, yes I do think that’s what would happen. I’m sure even as a non-American you’re aware of Brett Kavanaugh and his potential effect on abortion law.
And I don’t care what they do in their personal life either. I care about how those things will effect they laws the pass: if someone drinks and does cocaine and has extramarital affairs, but doesn’t fuck over women/minorities, I’m all for them. If someone does the opposite, I’m against them.
> sexist (as if that matters for the kind of decisions a President takes).
Considering that the President has an powerful role in all federal legislation, an even more powerful role in federal regulation, and can appoint like minded people to a variety of positions (including, but not limited to, the federal judiciary) that have extensive influence and whose terms extend beyond his own, yeah, bigotry—whether based in gender, race, religion, or whatever else—in that office matters quite a bit.
Or the person goes even further, and doesn't believe the puritan tenet that "good person == good politician". There were excellent politicians that were bad in their behavior, and vice versa.
E.g. the person might care more about not encouraging a hawkish member of the establishment, that continued to beat the drum of American supremacy and threatened even more wars and tension coming on (e.g. with Iran) -- compared to merely voting someone who is e.g. sexist (as if that matters for the kind of decisions a President takes).