Please STOP TELLING ME I'll Vote for Hillary Clinton Because I'M A CHICK.

[Rilgin]

163. Except No Hillary Supporter actually mentions those positions

The primary season really started in earnest a few months ago and to date, I have not read a single (and I mean a single) post from a Hillary Supporter who sets out those positions.

Understand, a speech where one says "I want to be your champion" is not a position. Saying she is experienced (although what does experience mean) is not a position. Saying she is a liberal or a progressive is not a position without discussing what you mean.

Saying she polls better than the republicans is not a position. Saying what about the Supreme Court is not a position unless you know what her position is in appointing judges. Saying she supports women's rights or has been a fighter for civil rights is not a position. It is a claim. It is either supported or rejected as a true claim based on discussion of her past positions and acts. However, this is what HRC supporters desperately avoid.

With respect to almost all claims about HRC, there is no answer (total crickets) for the basis of any particular claim that is put forth by HRC supporters and its even worse when non-supporters actually bring up elements of her past or current affairs, acts, words, speeches to ask for clarification.

When non-supporters ask how do you reconcile a claim that she has always been a fighter for civil rights with her prior positions with respect to gay rights, there are total crickets because her previous actual positions are not compatible with someone who has always been a fighter for all civil rights. There are crickets when people ask about how it is compatible with fighting for women and children to support bomb and drone strikes or to vote against banning land mines. There are crickets when people try to discuss her actual positions (emphasis on the positions) on education and particularly public schools.

On a personal level, I believe, without actually knowing her positions, that HRC supports some portion of a civil right, feminist agenda. There are warts in this area (gay rights and the affect of war on women and children) however on the whole she seems good on social issues. In the economic sphere is where the real disconnect takes place. Her past actions and positions are all over the map and supporters desperately want to avoid this issue.

Am I being unkind. Not really. As I said, I have not seen ONE post where a HRC supporter actually set out the HRC positions that is the basis of their support.

So, I am requesting that you prove me wrong. In your post, you say people support Hillary because of her positions. Please be the one post in the last few months which actually sets out those positions and please do not just reiterate the claim that she will be a great president because she is experienced, a fighter, or any of the other non-positional reasons given every day in these posts.