No, I just think you’re being disingenuous so I have no interest in whatever name by name critique you’re going to give for a list you already know 80%+ of the names for but are pretending doesn’t exist.
I don’t think a single person on your theoretical list is electable, if that’s what you mean. But I would need you to be specific about who you think might be a viable alternative in order to have any useful discussion about them. I have no need to be disingenuous. You need to actually support your point of view with more than vague suggestions and hand-waving.
OK, so you don’t have an answer either, got it.
No, I just think you’re being disingenuous so I have no interest in whatever name by name critique you’re going to give for a list you already know 80%+ of the names for but are pretending doesn’t exist.
I don’t think a single person on your theoretical list is electable, if that’s what you mean. But I would need you to be specific about who you think might be a viable alternative in order to have any useful discussion about them. I have no need to be disingenuous. You need to actually support your point of view with more than vague suggestions and hand-waving.
deleted by creator