“ I’m practicing caveat lector” — excellent. Good job admit that your statements are subjective.
“ There is NO rational, objective criteria under which Jill Stein was as qualified as ANY of the other noteworthy presidential candidates” — so you are not stating that she is qualified. That is far from “ laughably unqualified”.
You have some interesting opinions but to call the White House a “horror” only shows how misled you are from actual facts. Then again, “horror” is relative. Maybe you believe it is a “horror” that there are such things as ants and the use of the word has a different meaning to you than it would to many others.
“ The only “qualification” that mattered to you was “not Hillary Clinton.” That might be okay if reality supported that Hillary was as terrible as portrayed in both the MSM and highly biased opinion peddlers like The Young Turks” — facts show that the MSM and Turks portrayed Mr. Trump in more negatively than Sec. Clinton.
Of the four choices, I was given, Sec. Clinton was subjectively the worst qualified. Her political/government record was horrible for what this country needs. She would have been a continuation of decades of the same degradation of the country. Though there have been many good concepts that have happened, the implementation was horrendous normal Government.
“Politifact” — as a source, LOL. What they decided to choose as a fact to check was pure laughable and partisan. They expected/pulled-for Sec. Clinton to win (as did most media).
Not “arrogant”, confident is more appropriate.
FYI, the “journalists” are more like “opinionists”. You will find in most every journalist an opinion. Their level of knowledge is not relevant. Knowledge does not mean that they exclude their opinion. Besides, the levels differ among different journalists. Blanketing them as “all-knowing” only shows that what I have said is accurate.
If I have said anything that is not accurate, you certainly have not pointed any of it out.
I have pointed out your “staggeringly large false” and yes, it is worth correcting someone who is mistaken about their opinion. Though it appears you would rather be wrong than accurate, sad.