The right candidate means the best, not the perfect candidate.

But outcome directly factors into whos the 'right' candidate for pragmatists.

If someone stands whose views directly oppose your own then you have no choice but to vote for someone else. What kind of dumb argument is this? Does the candidate you vote for winning have anything to do with whether you agree with their policies?

What kind of morally bankrupt piece of shit votes for someone just so they can say they voted for the winner?

Because some people vote for people they partially disagree with, proud to try to at least some of the changes they want for the country instead of voting for someone who more accurately reflected their views but had no chance to win.
I prefer calling "Hillary Clinton supporters" instead of "Morally bankrupt pieces of shit", but I suppose theres an argument to be made there
Would we pretend that if Hillary won, there wouldn't be people cheering the victory and its importance and proudly displaying their "Madam President" issue of Newsweek, even if they'd sooner have 4 more years of Obama?

It would definitely be worth celebrating that Trump lost and I got half of what I want even though Bernie also lost and I couldn't have more of it.

Well yea... because Obama wasn't an option and Hillary was the best choice available. Morally, fiscally, any way you can think of really. A female president is also a big deal - it being the first and all.

What's your argument here Goomball?

Not what I said, I never claimed people should vote for someone who can't win (unfortunately, this very issue is a massive weakness of our country's pseudo-democracy which a preference voting system or multiple elections would solve).

I said that a person should not be proud of voting for the candidate who did indeed win solely because they won, as opposed to voting for a better candidate who had a chance of winning but lost.

Huge difference. Basing the quality of one's vote entirely on whether that candidate won has nothing to do with pragmatism, that's just irrationality.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Mar 20 2017 08:18pm

what did you think hillary would do

Appoint a good supreme court nominee, that's a big one. Also attempt to expand Obamacare and maybe fix some of the issues.

Lots she wouldn't do though, but she'd be going in a better direction than the Republicans.

whats happening to this thread? why so lengthy discussions and no pictures?
let's rectify this: