Wow, this is an excellent study in the danger of making assumptions about other people’s character when you don’t really know them.
For each point in this article, the assumption is made that someone who does not support HRC does not really care about the subject when it could as easily be argued that it is exactly the opposite. HRC is a middle of the road establishment candidate. No one disputes that. Therefore, with regard to the poor, the environment, LGBT issues, race issues, foreign policy, war policy, etc., I can almost 100% guarantee you that under HRC there will be no significant change in U.S. policy. HRC made it pretty clear early in the primary process that we should not expect very much to change. Only later did she begin to parrot Sanders’ positions to sway primary voters to her side. So I would argue that support for HRC indicates that you do not care about the poor, the environment, black lives, muslim lives, Syrian lives, etc.
As for Ms. Stone’s statement that she knows that I am selfish (1) and attention seeking (5), I guess I’ll just say that “you don’t know me” and I’m not the one posting an article casting those who want real change in each of these areas as selfish and attention seeking. So, seems like it might be a case of “what you say is what you are”, i.e., psychological projection.
I don’t advertise who I will vote for. I respect the positions of those who have chosen to vote for someone else, without calling them names.
And finally, I am pretty sure that I really *do* care about each of the issues mentioned and many others, and for that reason I cannot continue to support status quo candidates. At the end of four more years of “incremental” change, the environment will still be deteriorating, the middle class will be worse off, the rich will be richer, the poor will be poorer, we will still be at war in the middle east and we will still not be funding renewable energy. It is precisely because I do care that I do not support HRC.