Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
I am voting for Hillary because she is the best qualified choice of the 2 in a huge spectrum over Trump
If you care to delineate that huge spectrum, we could debate on it. Otherwise, we conveniently just have to take your word for it. And "qualified" has become a buzzword used to credit or discredit on the basis of personal opinion or group agenda. You might also want to delineate the meaning of "qualified."
you dont hire a plumber to wire your your house
yet some are willing to hire a foul mouth wrecking ball operator to FIX the Washington establishment... because he thinks The Potus can say your Fired !!
|
There you go with your metaphors again. The first is uninspiring and doesn't "qualify" as a true comparison to electing a President. The second is more passionate and picturesque. But having confidence in the veracity of such a metaphor (or composite of derogatory memes) depends on the confidence one can place on its author's ability to see things clearly and deeply.
My confidence in you being able to create metaphors that truly strike at the heart of an issue has been shaken by so many of your posts. Such as, recalling some off hand, your totally misunderstanding Milo Yannopoulos because you stopped very short of listening to his whole conversation . . . your insistence that a constitutionally guaranteed right against abridgment (the Second Amendment) should have far more restrictions than a constitutionally implied right that is not guaranteed against some restriction (voting) almost that it not be restricted at all . . . your total misunderstanding of Orwell's essay on Nationalism and Patriotism to the point that you didn't see that Nationalism as Orwell described it actually was an indictment of Hillary's Progressivism more than of Trump whom you thought it solely described . . . the total contradiction you unwittingly displayed in one post where you wanted us to listen to the women who were accusing Trump, but in the very same post, the women who were accusing Clinton were to be dismissed (not listened to?) . . . calling O'keefe a "fraud" because of his conviction for the misdemeanor of breaking into Landrieu's office (to which he admitted) when no fraud was committed, if anything it was an attempt to gather truth . . . blaming Trump's rhetoric for the violence and disorder at his rallies, but railing against exposing the plot by Clinton operatives to disrupt those rallies--you support the meme that Trump rhetoric instigates violence but dismiss the truth that much was caused by Clintonites . . . your inability to understand that "interpreting" the Constitution on personal desires for outcomes rather than adhering to constitutional text (the law) is actually rewriting, destroying, the Constitution, not supporting or defending it as is the oath of a Judge to so do, which also casts some subliminal, unconscious, or at best ignorant "fraud" on your own taking of the oath . . . your dismissing the evidence provided by WikiLeaks because of the way it was achieved--killing the messenger syndrome--might work in civil court on statutory grounds, but unconscionable in deciding "qualification" . . . and yet being all shocked by Trumps old disgusting, vulgar words to one person, but not by those who actually exposed and plastered those words in public sight so that all of us could be disgusted, including our sons and daughters to hear words that we would rather they didn't--the messenger is exonerated in that case) . . . your total inability to see comparison's between Hillary's enabling of Bill Cinton's sexual behaviors (which reputedly were more egregious and forced than Trump's) and Trump's behaviors, and the hypocrisy of Hillary being the champion of women's "rights" vs Trump's supposed misogyny . . . and a puzzling, if not stupefying, one, your claim that Trump's comment about voting even if terminally ill was "odd." And nothing more than that--just odd. And, as in the Yannopoulos and Orwell cases, you didn't read or know about the rest--Trump's comment that he was just kidding. And when that was pointed out, you continued to try to paint Trump's comment as some kind of undefinable oddity. You didn't even respond to my example of how it could be compassionate rather than odd. Afterwards, it brought to mind an incident I had some time ago.
While waiting in the checkout line of a grocery store, the woman in front of me and I struck up a conversation. She was there with her husband, who remained a bit glumly silent throughout it. I don't remember how it started. But as it turned out, she was terminally ill with cancer. She was still fairly young, maybe in her thirties and a lot of life that she could have looked forward to if she didn't have the cancer. It was very evident that she was afraid and separated from the life around her because of her illness.
I don't remember how it came to me to say to her that I was also terminal. Her eyes lit up, and for that brief time she shined out of her own emotionally outcast sorrow to, in an upbeat if not hopeful tone, ask me if I had cancer too. I said no, but that we are all terminal, eventually. She laughed and said I had made her day. Her husband was quiet, distant from our conversation, and they left, she with a smiling glance at me as they departed with a full basket of groceries.
I'll never forget that brief encounter. And I'll always remember how her connection with someone, and thereby with everyone, at least momentarily, not only gave her comfort, but enough meaning for the rest of the day, so that she could shop for groceries or do any of the other normal stuff to fill her brief remaining existence.
What is so odd about including a terminally ill person in the normal things that existence is made of? Should we put them aside, disconnected with life, insist that they should not trouble themselves with involvement in our daily living? For certain, we should love them and show them that love, perhaps even more than we would if they were not ill. But wouldn't it also be a comfort to them if they were encouraged to join the rest of us in doing what we normally do. Wouldn't it be a comfort to be a part of humanity rather than a pampered outcast, ultimately alone in knowing they will soon be dead?
Yeah, I have reason not to trust your metaphors.