Huh? Wine tasting is subjective, ergo, all politicians are abysmal? That’s your argument to counter the claim that all candidates aren’t the same?[/quote]
The candidates are all bad in different ways. Tell me why one is worse than another, and provide data and I will consider it.
If you look up higher in the thread, you will see Brian’s view that the dems are better than Trump because, well, just because. Later he says that the candidates have similarities, like wines are similar because they are all made from grapes and have alcohol, but he believes that there are both candidates and wines that are just better than others and that “perceptive” people can see the distinction. My point is that (1) snobs incorrectly believe they can taste the difference between good wines and bad, and (2) snobs (like Brian) believe that their perceptiveness makes their chosen candidates superior – without need for more explanation. Sometimes there are good and bad candidates – unfortunately not this time – but there is no perceptive elite who can unerringly identify the good vs. the bad.
I don’t like Trump. I don’t like Hillary. I wish Bernie Sanders ideas were practical. I cried when Reagan was elected and it didn’t turn out to be all that bad. I thought Clinton was good (and under Clinton the economy was pretty good) but he brought the respect accorded to the office of the presidency to a new low with discussions of cigars and . . . such. People made fun of George W Bush’s intellect – but his grades were better than Kerry’s http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4684384. Somehow, however, Kerry felt that he was entitled to call Bush an idiot, and perceptive people like Brian took it as fact. For some reason many liberals smugly see themselves as the smart correct ones without feeling that they have to prove it. Two legs good, four legs bad . . .
My point is that there is not some perceptive elite who know who’s going to be good and no candidate is good “just because”.
