I hope this means you’re going to put mikecurtis on your ignore list, and not that you won’t be posting to this board. Reading a ThelmaLou post is often the high point of the time I spend here.
What an astoundingly stupid observation. Hillary Clinton was an imperfect, but basically normal, candidate running against an abysmally awful candidate (and awful person). Roy Moore was an abysmally awful candidate (and awful person) running against a completely fine candidate.
Did a nice long browse through the dictionary clear things up for you?
Voting for Clinton even if you don’t think she’s perfect is the same as voting for a pedophile that hates the constitution. Got it.
Awww…thank you. 
Never fear.
Except being a so-called ‘Liberal’ (which she isn’t) is, in your mind, worse than committing statutory rape and being a serial sexual predator. Nothing Clinton did, or allegedly did, is as bad as that.
Also, as pointed out earlier, we elect politicians whom we think will do the most good for the most people and the country. Loser Donnie and Moore are actively doing harm to the country. Maybe Clinton would have caused some harm, but not nearly as much as the Republicans.
Mernieth, taking the position that the candidate is fully and wholly responsible for gathering support from the populace, lacks a certain understanding of the more subtle aspects of participatory Democracy.
Only if he smashed his forehead repeatedly with it.
qft
I dunno… starve when your impoverished red state can’t get any more transfer payments from prosperous blue states?
This reveals a basic failure to understand the American Presidential election system in existence in November 2016: it was a binary choice between Trump getting the Presidency and Trump being shown the door. The responsibility of every US voter was to decide which of those outcomes was most desirable.
If you want to sit back on a throne and demand that candidates ‘earn your vote,’ the time to do that is in the primaries. It is NOT the time to do that when the choice is “Trump gains power” or “Trump does not gain power.”
The ‘sitting in regal pomp while candidates woo you’ vision of voting, is pure narcissism. It abrogates the responsibility every thinking person bears: to use their vote as an instrument to achieve the best outcome possible in the circumstances. In November 2016, the circumstances were “Trump versus not-Trump.”
Again: this is a self-centered, narcissistic view of what a US Presidential election entails in the early 21st century.
Vote to achieve an outcome. Don’t sit around expecting to be wooed, and pouting if the wooing isn’t to your liking.
Agreed. There is no perfect candidate. Ever.
I mean, I understand it, but I understand it like I understand why an immature child might break a favorite toy rather than be forced to share.
^ A disturbingly resonant analogy.
Don’t vote for a candidate as a reward for how they woo you. Vote for a candidate because you think they will be better in the job. It’s not personal. When you make it personal, you’re treating a vote like a Scooby Snack.
…possibly we could get back to the Trump administration?
But a JOB means there is WORK. Trump never did work, he always had people to do it for him.
Nice. The blue states pay into the system. The red states just suck it up like leeches.
These guys love to talk as if they are self sufficient “sons of pioneers” or “people of the land” types, and completely ignore the fact that their bullshit is subsidized by the blue states they hate so much. Also, much of the reason their infrastructure has gone to shit is because they don’t want to pay the city or county or state taxes that it takes to get things done - and because “big gubmint”.
How about this… NO subsidies for ANYONE. We’ve heard the talk, now let’s walk the walk.
I’m seriously considering starting a fundraiser: Thesauri for Scientists.
Did you know that the Thesaurus lives alongside Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden? It’s science!
Speak for yourself - you fucking moron.