Post removed

[stonecutter357]

1. sorry your man lost last night.

[trillion]

2. Yeah, it's awful the honest guy not bought by the 1% lost.

It's absolutely tragic.

[stonecutter357]

3. South Carolina just did not like him.

[stonecutter357]

5. .

[stonecutter357]

7. you forgot lockheed martin.

[stonecutter357]

8. your op is a fail in the Hillary Clinton (Group).

[stonecutter357]

10. you could of had the time of your life in hillary clinton group.

[Fairgo]

12. Vote for Zelig!

Believe it or not, I do not struggle with her positions. Let us imagine one incarnation of HRC. Any one of them. Now imagine that she actually stuck with a rationale for her positions. Direct and constant connection between position, message, and deed. I would be fine with voting for such a person in a worst case situation because I would know the boundaries of her behaviour. I would know when I was getting screwed. I could debate her logic, be a party to efforts to change her mind, based on a superior argument, or maybe frank empirical data. And if her position changed, it would truly be an evolution. She would be, in this case, someone worth voting for, someone better than the alternative.

However, what she presents is the absence of an actual position. She seems to be whatever she needs to be to get elected. Imagine this for a moment. Imagine what this means. The only goal is power. She is a political Zelig morphing into whatever puts her at the bully pulpit. There is no there there upon which I can fix my trust. If the world truly goes to hell in the next few years, and by the way, there is a very good chance we will see oceans of dead fish, the end of potable water, Dust Bowl II, and the waves of starving people crashing all borders in the coming decade...how will she lead us? Where will she lead us? All I can conjure is, "the most expedient and personally rewarding path". I'm not sure that would be better than the alternative, all things considered.

[Fairgo]

14. Thanks!

You made my G'day!