(December 15, 2016 at 7:00 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: But when the other option is Donald Trump, and his ties to the Billionaire class are pretty well documented (and bearing fruit before the man has even taken office), I don't see that argument holding water.
Which is precisely the kind of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place. Neither party has to put up anyone of worth when they know that people are more than willing to vote out of fear of the other guy. That's why we never see any real change. Why would the Democrats ever have to nominate anyone worthwhile when they know they can rig the primary and liberals will vote for whomever as long as they drum up enough fear for the Republican? In fact, given that Hillary overwhelmingly won the popular vote, I wouldn't be surprised if the only lesson the Dems take away from this is to be more strategic in their campaigning.
(December 15, 2016 at 7:00 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: Again, to me, the policies are more important than the candidate.
But you can never separate the two. The candidate dictates the policies. Because we all know from history that much of what is said during the campaign is lip-service and pandering. It's not about what they say they'll do during the campaign. It's about what you can reasonably trust them to do when they're in office. The fact is Hillary made herself very hard to trust.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell