I'm going to put the last quote at the beginning, and modify it a bit to make it a more level-headed, less how-dare-you-think-differently-from-me version of itself:Take a moment to put yourself in the position of someone who would have written something like that, which just looks at the facts at hand, without looking for something to fling at somebody or drool on. Does it really, actually fit together & make sense to you? I don't see how it possibly can.
You saw somebody making a comparison between candidates & their platforms, and responded to that by lamenting the fact that people don't compare candidates & platforms without (this nonsense of) comparing the candidates & platforms.
Can you explain how what you're responding to did not already meet the request you made in the first not-scratched-through part in the quote box? Can you explain how the two separate not-scratched-through parts of the quote can possibly, even hypothetically, be compatible with each other at all? Or will we just get another round of "HE NOT LIKE WHO GINGER LIKE! GGHHRAAAWRR GINGER SMAAASH (keyboard)!!!!!!!"
From the point-of-view of fans of his, as discussed in a thread about him, yes. That's how preferences work: alternatives to the preferred choice are... not the preferred choice. I'm saving money up for a Ford Ranger. I suppose I could get a Chevrolet Colorado instead, but I'd rather get a Ranger.
I'm quite certain that you've known this all along, because everybody does and it wouldn't be possible for a functioning human not to. Why pretend to only just now be discovering this? Could it have anything to do with having a preference of your own, which itself would be proof that you're already aware that preferences are prefences? (And not being particularly emotionally well-equipped to handle people having different preferences from yours)
Now would be a good time to point out the quote in which that is claimed. Failure to do so will equal admission that you made it up from nothing but your own paranoid imagination. (And while you're at it, now would also be a good time to back up the accusation of sexism that you built in to the first quote, and failure to do so will also equal admission of the equivalent behavior on that subject, too.)
Again, as you surely already know and there's no sense in pretending not to, that's just how political choices work, and also how "spectrums/spectra" work: politicians get compared with each other, and whoever/whatever is the farthest in one direction or another on a spectrum becomes a measuring point for others that/who aren't as far in that direction to be compared with. Whichever compact/midiszed pickup truck has the most towing capacity in that class, the rest all have less towing capacity than that.
