OK, so can we then assume that you’ve been convinced that there are very good reasons to vote for Clinton (and not just against Trump)? Could we ask you to summarize those reasons based on your reading of all the points made in this thread?
If there were more old timers like me that had read Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail ’72 there may be more thought about what actually gets achieved, and when, by lesser evil voting.
[QUOTE=Hunter S. Thompson]
That’s the real issue this time,” he said. “Beating Nixon. It’s hard to even guess how much damage those bastards will do if they get in for another four years.”
The argument was familiar, I had even made it myself, here and there, but I was beginning to sense something very depressing about it. How many more of these goddamn elections are we going to have to write off as lame, but “regrettably necessary” holding actions? And how many more of these stinking double-downer sideshows will we have to go through before we can get ourselves straight enough to put together some kind of national election that will give me and the at least 20 million people I tend to agree with a chance to vote for something, instead of always being faced with that old familiar choice between the lesser of two evils?
Now with another one of these big bogus showdowns looming down on us, I can already pick up the stench of another bummer. I understand, along with a lot of other people, that the big thing this year is Beating Nixon. But that was also the big thing, as I recall, twelve years ago in 1960 – and as far as I can tell, we’ve gone from bad to worse to rotten since then, and the outlook is for more of the same.
[/QUOTE]
You claim to have no animus, yet you started a thread with ostensible purpose of hearing what good points there are in favor of Mrs. Clinton, yet in every post you denigrate her. Based on this, it seems reasonable to conclude that you are “just asking questions” rather than seeking actual information or discourse.
Ya got me.
That’s the human condition.
There is no bright shining noble Father who will give us all we want and protect us and inspire us.
There are only flawed fellow-humans who, to varying degrees, will act in ways that we reasonably believe will–on the margins, at least–benefit ourselves and the society as a whole. What adults do is look at each of the candidates and assess those factors, choosing the least-worst of them and voting them into office.
That’s the reality for those who have given up the delusions of adolescence. We don’t feel sorry for ourselves because we recognize that we do not live in a world of supernatural beings who exist only to stimulate or entertain or please us. We exist in a world of other people. And contrary to our teenaged fantasies, not a single one of us happens to be the center of the universe.
The dream of The Candidate We Vote FOR is, fundamentally, a narcissistic dream.
I’m sure you can back up that statement, so please go ahead.
That’s a very silly and paranoid conclusion.
Adaher made some very good points about her personal qualities in his thread, and Gigobuster noted two actual achievements. Other posts show she’s ridden quite a few coat-tails and been astute in backing the right bills.
Ahem, if you had bothered to check the link where those 2 achievements I quoted came from, you would had seen that those are only 2 of the 10 the cite points at.
I listed several very good reasons in post #4 to support Clinton, Quartz.
Actually I did read it, but you only noted two of them, so I repeated that. And, flu vaccine? How does that require a law? And seven were bipartisan, so would have passed anyway
You might think that.
Perhaps your OP should have been:
“Give me reasons to vote for Clinton, which I will ignore, or dismiss with no explanations given.”
Clinton, so the next election isn’t Trump v. The Humongous.
I assumed you were actually interested in discussion. If you weren’t, perhaps you could have made that clear and I wouldn’t have wasted my time trying to answer your questions.
What I think is that she could have cured polio and invented the internet, and it wouldn’t matter to you.
:rolleyes:
So many years here and you forget that there is a limit on how much we can quote from a cite? I actually do expect others to check at least a bit form the cited article, but that is just me. And clearly you did tell others that there were just two, that was not the case.
That is actually a demonstration of how she can work across the isle. And that is yet another reason why one should vote for Clinton.
Typical Democrat: Destroy American medical equipment manufacturers, and create a platform for easy access to porn.
I don’t feel any compulsion to respect that stricture, so I’m going to ignore it, and repeat what I wrote in the “Voters Born in the '90s need to get a Clue” thread:
Yeah it’s easy. Probably TOO easy. I suppose it might be good for the country if the GOP were to legitimately make it less easy, but I don’t really think that will ever happen again in my lifetime.
Memo to self: be more careful about posting when you should be in bed. I accidentally deleted a whole paragraph. Just because you say her policies are superior doesn’t mean that they actually are. You would have done better to point out that her policies are actually thought-out and she actually has policies rather than off-the-cuff positions.
I listed a bunch of her policies which I believe are superior. If you don’t like those policies then that wouldn’t work for you. Or maybe you like some and don’t like some. It’d be helpful if you actually provided some feedback – which positions that I listed do you disagree with, or dislike, or have some other problem with?
Or just carry on with the cryptic statements and non-responses, and maybe I’ll learn that it’s not worth putting effort into discussing things with you.