Yes, there is actually. By their very definitions.
Not by people on the receiving end of that shit, it is not. That's privilege talking coming from you.
Why not just get rid of all these words that are subsets of discrimination and just call them all "bad stuff"?
an alleged rapist. And a few times over at that. Similar to what Bill Cosby is facing a pattern emerges. Yeah, maybe it's all not true. But given his personality it still doesn't encourage me to want him President.
I assume you're also not encouraged to vote for a woman who defends her husband who is also a multiply-alleged rapist?
I said she put the interests ahead of her own- not that she was stupid. Bernie couldn't beat her. He sure couldn't have beat trump.
Sure he could. Nobody likes Trump or Hillary. They are voting against the other party, not for their party. But people would actually vote for Bernie, as indicated by the polls.
3) Clinton's actions show she is willing to put the good of the party and the country ahead of her personal good.>
Then she should have told people to vote for Bernie, since he polled better against Trump.
By all means, make Trump the first into our Emperor by refusing to do what is necessary Pretty much your choice is Do for Hillary, or do TO America
Lose the war to win the battle, eh? Good plan.
You're read/heard how he underpays or fails to pay people and small contractors he's hired.
Here's another one: my PT and I were talking this morning, and he told me his father's an industrial contractor - paints bridges, drywall buildings, etc, and more than once, he's done a job for Trump, and then, when it was done, Trump comes in, says yeah, he's satisfied... but that he thinks he's already paid him enough, never mind the signed contract.
Tell me that's not criminal fraud?
He is a crook. And his wife doesn't wear a cloth coat....
First, he should sue Trump for his outstanding debts. Second, how does that saying go, fool me once...?
It's hard to know which is worse.
It really isn't. Just because they both fall into the category of "bad" does not make them equivalently bad.
I'd rather choose a President by random number generator than elect either of these choices. We'd have a better chance of picking a good candidate.
Sure, but that still doesn't make them equivalently bad.
You're right. Each of them is bad in their own special way.
I saw a comment the other day that said "Voting for Johnson was like drinking RC Cola. Yeah it's ok, but who are we kidding". I think the same sentiment applies for any 3rd party candidate.
I'd say it's more like if Coca Cola and Pepsi were putting arsenic in their products, but you still drank your Coke because you don't want Pepsi to sell more product.
But it's a black and white matter. Something you're wishing it weren't. If you vote for Clinton or Trump, you're making a simple choice - support one or the other. If you have the ability to vote, and choose to either vote for someone that cannot win or choose not to vote at all, then depending on your local demographics, you are still - through that choice - supporting either Trump or Clinton. That you're pretending otherwise means you really need to re-evaluate your own understanding of what's at stake.
It's people like you who allow the two parties to have their power. The only winning move is not to play their game. Think for yourself, and realize you are not their peon.
Algol-60 surely must be regarded as the most important programming language yet developed. -- T. Cheatham