people below 300 elo should quit chess.prove me wrong

What's "random" about an informed choice for users to be able to play bots that would do this? I think of all matches Vs bots very much as a video game. That's exactly what it is and I accept it that way.
Against other (roughly equally) low rated humans, I've had and seen crucial mouse slips happen that couldn't OTB. They could have ruined a couple of my games if I hadn't still won anyway - but they would definitely affect accuracy, blunders, etc.
Also, Chess.com's rating isn't FIDE / ELO / anything that carries serious weight and if you think otherwise you can refer yourself to Daniel Naroditsky's "unfiltered" interview with Dina Belenkaya on YT if you want to hear more (see chapter "do you take online rating seriously?"). 
Then there are all the other, even more crazy things that happen here, like people playing random moves - which is their right - but I'm not sure they're really people. Many players on here don't take chess seriously. Clubs and OTB tournaments are the right place for that.
In my experience of playing 200+ rated blitz players here over the past month or so (since switching from playing bots almost exclusively), I see life is very messy here and not something you can seriously justify to me in a way that I'd accept is checkmate.
Sandbagging... We see people on YouTube create accounts explicitly for the purpose of speedrunning to some arbitrary chess.com rating. IMs and GMs do it. They know what they're doing and so do those of us who watch. They're not going to see their accounts closed for abuse because double standards exist and these people "have the cards".
In low ratings games I see many games abandoned / resigned even after a handful of moves. For sure there are even low rating accounts being run by people who literally give out a dodgy phone number just after losing an important piece. The game still had a good 20+ moves left to play out and on post-analysis, that game remained pretty even.
If the community rules were applied more strictly I wouldn't bother to argue your point, but I've only been playing maybe a month or so and my experiences show me that there's all kinds of people here. My experience says your assertions are off.

the problem here as i see it, isn't the players under 300 but the idiots who are influencers and u tubers trying to get clicks to make money -- get a real job and leave chess.com players alone to do what they do without getting tangled up in speedrun types and people bent on upsetting the scoring system to advance their non chess agendas

In principle, the reason why streamers are allowed to do "speedruns", while the masses ae not, is because Chess.com officially approves the latter, and refunds any rating points lost. Naroditsky's speedruns, for instance, arguably have educational value. Now, it is true that this is an explicitly elitist policy, that allows for streamers like Hikaru, to humiliate random players for the sake of "content", but at the very least this system refunds rating points and gives players the opportunity to play famous streamers. On the other hand, the system that you're suggesting, viz., that anyone will be able to automatically sandbag their rating to 100, will result in the same problems, without any of the checks and balances. I don't know what the lower rated pool is like—it is certainly possible that there are hordes of 600 rated players beating up on people rated 300, to sate their own fragile egos. But your system would only make this a thousand times worse, as aspiring streamers and content creators "speedrun" through the lower rating levels. Your suggestion would only make sandbagging much easier, and much more prevalent on the site, which would decrease the user experience for everyone.

the problem here as i see it, isn't the players under 300 but the idiots who are influencers and u tubers trying to get clicks to make money -- get a real job and leave chess.com players alone to do what they do without getting tangled up in speedrun types and people bent on upsetting the scoring system to advance their non chess agendas

At least if they r smurfing they are beatable doesn't matter how badly you suck if they just throw away the position despite being stronger

Right, but these sorts of practices aren't limited to low-rated pawns trying to maintain or inflate their rating / ego / some alternate purpose for being on the site...
If you will start to look at the accounts of the "friends" of some of these and some of the matches being played, you'll find higher rated "node" accounts with thousands of similarly themed "friends". Some of these higher rated players either lose (gifting some large amount of rating) or are very quickly defeating the low rated account (in like 8 moves - or resigning).
If you're then still curious enough to investigate those accounts even further, you'll find at least two of these belong to talented players who help run local area chess clubs. 
As to the other arguments about whether this is a video game or the ratings are something to be taken more seriously... I'll just say that when I see an IRL OTB blitz / bullet chess match being played with speed of light hand speeds and accepted / fully implemented pre-moves - I'll still be open minded enough to challenge my views.

I don't see that speedruns by streamers are seeing anyone's ratings restored.
I get that you're trying to apply some sense of logic to back up your argument but I doubt you've spent the time to investigate. With these lower rating accounts - sandbagging is very much prevalent and ratings are easily manipulated. I've beaten people in a fair game and observed their subsequent games against what are obviously alt accounts. The alts make some moves and resign / lose by convenient checkmate - boosting the other account's rating back to where it was. These alts sometimes get closed for abuse if they're new, reported and don't have enough "real" games associated that would justify keeping them around, but they're very easily replaced with another 3 alts.

Could you give me some examples? I looked through your game history, and I didn't see any obvious examples of smurfing or cheating. The way you talk about it makes it seem like you're playing a smurf every other game, but if you only face one once every 20-30 games or so, then it's best just to ignore these losers, and to focus on enjoying chess instead. You won't be doing yourself any favors by fussing over the occasional smurf or cheater.

I have an Idea, why don't you prove yourself right, burden of proof is on you.

Whoever has higher elo is right

I have a higher elo than him, and you haven't given an opinion, so therefore I'm right

I have a higher elo than him, and you haven't given an opinion, so therefore I'm right

Ur math skills are exquisite

Litteral noobs lol

Whoever has higher elo is right

Elo doesnt matter