Originality: 0.0, Poise: 0.3, Entertainment value: 0.1
You could really try a little harder.
But troll on Hewey McSockface, troll on.
I’m so glad someone has finally come along to remind us of what assholes we all are. I for one will clean up my act toute suite.
elucidator? No doubt weeping into his pillow this very moment.
Not all. One. And not even you.
I see. Any thoughts on the actual thread topic?
You could ask the same of him, couldn’t you?
To answer your question though, because he’s not Hillary. You could have put up any number of Democrats I could have voted for. Just not Clinton.
Which of those numbers of democrats would you have voted for?
Do any of those democrats currently support Hillary?
Why would you trust their judgement as president, but not trust their judgment on who they believe would be a good president?
We didn’t put up Hillary, she was determined to be the best candidate by millions of people who voted for her.
So “not being Hillary” is automatically qualifying to be president of the United States, regardless of the individual’s experience, temperament, and history? Do you argue that the primary process is by itself de facto sufficient vetting?
I thought you were talking about me and now I feel left out.
[Moderating]
Calling other posters “motherfuckers” is a violation of the Pit’s language rules. Please avoid doing this in the future.
No warning issued.
[/Moderating]
Surely you understand the difference between rating the substance of a claim and the evidence for a claim. Saying “this claim is backed by poor evidence” is not the same as saying “this politician is effective.” And it’s yet another matter to say “they said he passed no bills out of committee, but that’s not true.” That’s the point that you’re strategically and deliberately dodging.
Huh. I’ll be darned. The only other thread I’m apart of here is the “Trump as actual … president”.
Strikes me as funny.
I do appreciate the pass on a warning. Thanks
Dunno for the first two. The third is because it’s such bullshit - anyone from either party who supports or doesn’t support their parties eventual candidate is doing so to protect their own political ass.
I don’t mind watching that happen to the party - you bullshit us and you’ll pay the political price. The Bernie Sanders supporters today remind me of the TEA partiers a couple years ago - people who actually want to believe what their candidates say. Regardless.
Regarding “We didn’t put up Hillary”. Seriously?
It’s exactly because of “experience, temperament, and history” that I can’t vote for Hillary.
Why are so many Democrats saying they’re holding their nose voting this round?
Regardless, that doesn’t answer my question. That tells me you don’t like the Democratic candidate. I’m asking about the qualifications (or experience, temperament, and history, if you will) of the person you ARE voting for.
Perhaps you believe that a third party vote is a waste, and thus feel forced to pick one of the two current candidates? If so, what do you hope Trump will do in office besides “not be Clinton”? Why do you think he’ll do so? Is his opposition exaggerating his, ah, issues?
[QUOTE=HeweyLogan]
Why are so many Democrats saying they’re holding their nose voting this round?
[/quote]
“Holding your nose” because the only realistic and competent Presidential candidate in the race isn’t a perfect match with what you want in a President is not the same as saying you “can’t vote” for that candidate.
The former position is just idealism compromising with practical reality. The latter position is flat-out self-delusion.
Hillary Clinton is an experienced and able politician whose policies support a lot of the things I support, although I have serious disagreements with her in many policy areas and many criticisms of things she’s done in the past.
Hillary Clinton’s only major opponent, on the other hand, is an ignorant, shallow, mentally lazy, thin-skinned, egotistical reality-TV promoter with a shady business career, zero practical political experience, lousy impulse control, and an unending string of embarrassing public tantrums, tiffs and sulks to his discredit.
Whatever reasonable objections one may have to Hillary Clinton (besides all the unreasonable ones that most of her detractors seem to be fixated on), there is no getting around the fact that, realistically speaking, she is the only rational, competent adult who has a chance of winning this Presidential election.
If the Trumpublicans aren’t happy about that, it’s their own fault for not nominating a rational, competent adult to oppose her.
As someone said somewhere else on this board, why wasn’t this an issue when Obama ran for office? Why is it suddenly an issue now?
Because it’s point for your side, that’s why. And that that alone is a one of her selling points is kind of sad. She should have pages of accomplishments but she doesn’t. She has to resort to differences, not accomplishments, to try and sell her candidacy.
Voting third party is a waste of time this go-around. To me at least.
I don’t think he’ll accomplish much of anything in his terms in office, for whatever it’s worth. Or at least I don’t think it will be as devastating as the other side thinks it will be.
Again, a lot like Obama.
Well that certainly is a load off my mind! How about the rest of you guys, feel as reassured as I do? Greedy, amoral, stupid and extremely powerful, what could possibly go wrong?
IKR?
Clinton as president would suck.
Because many of them have literally spent their entire lives hearing nothing but Republican lies about her, and on some level have bought into the idea that she’s an awful person despite being unable to point to any actual evidence.
This. And yet he’s continuing to do decently if not well in the polls.