zlacker

>What are our collective priorities? Human leaders capable of leading humans? Or perfection which effectively translates to no edges, risk adverse, and ultimately flacid and unfollowable?

Sure, I'd take humans leading humans. Probably is we're in an era of humans trying to exploit other humans to appeal to semi-human stock market dynamics (likely funded by rich humans who have much better financial security).

I want empathy, and representation of the people's needs. Not some infeasible goal to keep growing profits even amidst a potential recession. I don't know Tan that well, but nothing in the conversation I've read over the past few days has even mentioned him being like that.

I don't necessarily have any vested interests here, but I definitely don't have sympathy.

>>johnny+(OP)
Collective is to say this isn't Left or Right issue. We elected the electable. That is, those who campaign best. That doesn't mean they'll be great representatives. That doesn't mean they're capable of leading. If fact, we've normalized a bastardized definition of leader and apply that label without shame.

We see this time and again. And yet every election cycle we go back for - and/or are only given - more of the same.

>>chiefa+el1
oh yeah, 100%. I don't exactly think it's optimal for my country's 82 YO incumbent president to continue to run for 4 more years either. Frustrating realities of a 2 party system, you're just picking the lesser bad instead of a proper represenative of your values.