30 Nov 2017 10:09 pm
No, it also makes a comparison to the people who held the office before him.Cannonpointer » 30 Nov 2017 9:39 pm » wrote:She was the democratic nominee - legitimately or not. She was the obvious and predictable alternative to tRump.Misty » 25 Oct 2017 4:32 pm » wrote:You two should get a room where you can jerk each other off while you chant, "Hillary! Hillary! Hillary!"
Obsessive freaks.
Any critique of tRump therefore automatically makes a comparison to his sole alternative relevant - QUITE relevant.
Sorry, I don't buy the premise that any critique of a POTUS is an implicit endorsement of their opponent.Cannonpointer » 30 Nov 2017 9:39 pm » wrote:tRump's defenders have precisely the right to hold her up in comparison that his critics have in scalding him like a dog. Indeed, and critique of tRump is an implicit endorsement of the only realistic alternative america had to his pResidency.
It's very possible to not like either one of the candidates who ran, and that seemed to be the case in the last election.
And like I said you can critique a POTUS based on a comparison with past presidents.