663
Tim Walz says he and Harris were too ‘safe’ during 2024 presidential campaign
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2025
663 points (97.7% liked)
politics
21143 readers
4121 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We already assess people for mental health issues. I'm saying that politicians should be under massive scrutiny to make sure that we're not allowing people with deficits in the areas which would make them callous, self-serving and so on, to rule over people, particularly vulnerable people. Pathological liars and manipulators shouldn't be given a platform or the respectability of office to brainwash people on a global scale. Its almost so basic and obvious as to be unspeakable, but we know now that we must structure our societies & create standards to keep these people out of power.
We in fact should select for the traits that we want/don't want in leaders and only allow people into politics who have those traits. This testing is already happening in many professions, maybe even most. Even shitty customer service jobs use these tests - well, all I'm saying is that we need politicians to be tested as much as astronauts are. How can that possibly be a bad idea?
I don't think the metrics and so on should be any different than what already exists. Respected people in the psychology field have already said that trump is mentally ill in such a way that he's unfit to rule.
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2018/01/04/yale-psychiatry-professor-warns-trumps-mental-health-is-unraveling/23323659
The problem is that now he's manoeuvred himself into a position where he can't be removed, and soon even us talking like this will be illegal.
I'm all for disability rights, just not to the detriment of public safety - which exists in every sensitive field. Politics is a sensitive field. Politicians should be strong in emotional, compassionate and cognitive empathy, as well as sympathy. They should also have a good track record of being moral and decent people. Stealing from cancer kids charities would be a no, no matter what disability that person had.
This could be summed up as 'no tolerance for intolerance' or 'no kindness towards cruelty'.
And, again, – if you had even passing familiarity with disability circles – you'd know that there are many people who have criticisms of his this currently works. This isn't remotely a perfect system and its existence doesn't suddenly make it so.
You have an idea of a system that has already gained a complete understanding of human psychology and, also, is able to assess it without fail or error.
Think very hard and long about what that sounds like…
And disabled people have discussed, at length, of how jobs like these are heated towards abled people!
I have you that answer, in my first response. Can you guarantee that these tests won't get highjacked or used by opportunists? Can you ensure they won't unfairly exclude those who shouldn't be there (gay people had to struggle with the psychiatric community to get them to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; https://daily.jstor.org/how-lgbtq-activists-got-homosexuality-out-of-the-dsm/)? And these tests are not perfect, even right now (again, it isn't surprising you don't know this as many people don't; but continuing to ignore the erased disabled voices which have pointed this out isn't going to make them a smart idea).
And many people pointed out that this was wildly unprofessional and irresponsible (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/health/analyzing-donald-trump-psychology.html). It's common amongst psychiatric professionals to not do armchair diagnosis since there's no way you can get accurate assessment from that position. But it's a great example of the way even professionals can exercise bias and poor judgement! Again, how will you ensure this won't happen with a system you've now put in charge of gatekeeping what change is even possible?
That's a problem of other systemic issues, not because we didn't use an assessment of human psychology that's far from as black-and-white or accurate as you are presuming it is.
There are other means of detecting this than using psychiatric tests. And, while you've adjusted your requirements to include sympathy, can you guarantee that others will? Autistic people struggle with cognitive empathy, too; can you guarantee that a fear campaign won't start up, that influences those running these tests to just, well, play it safe and keep these people out of the decision-making, for now? I have no interest in spending another century arguing with people who don't belong to a marginalization while the supposed findings of psychology is used to justify civil restrictions and criminal proceedings while those groups don't get a say because, well, didn't you know that psychiatry has found those people to be antisocial and unproductive?