[ SECRET POST #3034 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3034 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 096 secrets from Secret Submission Post #434.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 1 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Question for Americans

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think "having someone who agrees with my ideas even slightly" is a ridiculous purity test. I don't think "not voting for the worst foreign policy disaster in American history for the sake of political expediency" is an unpassable purity test. I don't think "being maybe even just a little bit less than completely on the side of Wall Street" is an unpassable purity test. Both of those things are pragmatic in the extreme and I understand why they're practical things to do. I also think both of those things are very bad policies.

You're eliding a bunch of shit here in a way that's, frankly, really fucking stupid. I want to elect competent professionals. But what they intend to do also matters. Yes, a lot of the left is frankly stupid as hell about this stuff, and does want to idealize politicians far more than they ought (see: the whole Obama administration). But there's nothing wrong, in principle, with disliking a politician because you think their policies are bad, for God's sake. It does no good for someone to be competent if they're competently doing things that are actively bad for the country.

I'm not an idiot. I understand that Clinton is probably the best option - that she's the Democratic candidate and reasonably competent and sane and that those are good qualities. I understand that in the reality of American politics at present, that's mostly the best we can hope for. I'd absolutely vote for her, if I lived in a state where my vote mattered. But I don't see any reason I should pretend to agree with her. I don't.

And I'd also say that the cult of seriousness is just as deluded in its own way as either the right or the left, even if most of its members are inside the Beltway, and that for better or worse, having a democracy does ultimately kind of mean that the policies the voting populace wants are at least somewhat relevant to politics.

Re: Question for Americans

[purpleseas]

Uh, I never said you couldn't disagree with her or any other candidate all you want and was speaking very generally about American attitudes toward politicians, but I hope you had fun writing all that. lol