I suspect it would have been viewed as derogatory back then. These days, it probably depends on how "woke" someone is.
It is interesting how much variability there is in making choices like this. I could not bring myself to vote for Clinton in 2016, but I'd have little trouble voting for any of the current candidates in the general election this time.
Many people have been asking that question for some time, and I'm not sure we will ever know the answer. He's already said things that some found disqualifying, but there isn't much evidence that it affected his support among his base. I wonder if much of this circles back to the "lesser of two evils" notion. No matter what he does, he's still going to be perceived as better than the alternative. He's also done an impressive job of pre-emptively undermining the credibility of anyone who criticizes him.
Probably so. In a field with relatively few options and most not admitting more than a handful of students each year, doing so would be perceived as risky.
I admit being somewhat puzzled by Biden. Aside from his name recognition and association with Obama, I'm not sure what he has going for him. I hear what you are saying about the importance of winning in WI/PA/MI and about some of the others being too liberal for those states. That makes sense. But Klobuchar strikes me as a much better candidate than Biden and should have a similar regional appeal. Of course, her poll numbers make her look much less popular than Biden.
I think Sanders benefitted from his 2016 run. He's always been consistent, but I think he's been better this time around. He seems better informed, and his delivery has improved.
Talking about our choices pertains to the primary. I don't see any problem with trying to decide who we prefer and how we might rank the field of primary candidates. The general election will come later once we have a nominee. My guess is that there will be people who don't vote in the general if their preferred primary candidate does not win. Of course, there will be even more who don't bother to vote at all in either the primary or the general.
I was reminded elsewhere that there are "Christian atheists." Evidently, they admire Jesus and seek to be more like him while rejecting all the supernatural aspects of the bible. That may make them atheists, but I'm still not sure they should be called Christians.
Wouldn't the theists claim that their god(s) are not only detectable but that they regularly detect their presence? Isn't this what they mean when they talk about feeling the presence of their preferred god(s)? The strange thing is that they expect us to believe it because they feel it even when we don't.
That is a good one. There seems to be almost universal agreement, at least among rock drummers, that he was the greatest of all time.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Company