Would you let this sway your vote for President?

[missy]

http://barkpost.com/good/presidential-candidates-animal-issues/

I have never been a single-issue voter. I like to think I am intelligent enough to look at the big picture and make my voting decision based on how a candidate stands on multiple issues. But I have to admit that animal welfare issues can weigh heavily on my choice of candidate.

We have come so far in the past few years: animal abuse is finally a felony in all fifty states, it is now a crime to even attend a dog or cock fighting event, many communities are passing laws to outlaw puppy mill dogs in pet stores, and even the White House has come out against breed discrimination. But we are far from where we need to be as a humane nation.

To help me make my voting decision in the upcoming presidential election, I went online to research the front-runner candidates. For some, those who have served in the US Senate or House, it was as easy as checking the ratings on the Humane Society Legislative Fund. Others required a little more digging.

I started by visiting each candidate’s website and reading through their issues page. Unfortunately, only one candidate mentioned animal issues: Bernie Sanders. Senator Sanders dedicated an entire page to his stance on animal welfare.

For the rest of the field, I had to drill down deeper. I did newspaper searches to see how candidates had voted or what bills they had signed, which affected animals. I read opinion pieces. I looked at state websites and tracked local bills.

Here, in a nutshell, is the information I was able to find on each of the top Presidential Candidates:



Donald Trump (GOP): Trump has never held public office. There is no record of him every doing anything in favor of or against animals. Although both of his sons are trophy hunters, he is on record as saying he doesn’t understand their activities and doesn’t support hunting. However, he tweeted some disparaging comments on the Ringling Brothers Circus decision to retire their elephants early: “Ringling Brothers is phasing out their elephants. I, for one, will never go again. They probably used the animal rights stuff to reduce costs.”

Marco Rubio (GOP): Senator Rubio has a dismal average Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF) rating of 12 (out of 100) for his voting record in the US Senate, although he did co-sponsor a bill to make “soring” a crime. Soring is a painful technique to make a gaited horse lift his feet as high as possible. It is a cruel and painful process. Senator Rubio’s campaign website does not address animals at all.

Ted Cruz (GOP): Senator Cruz’ HSLF rating is even lower. His average for the three years he has served in the Senate is a 4 (out of 100). The only piece of legislation that he supported that was in an animal’s best interest was a vote against allowing hunting in the National Parks. His campaign website does not address animals at all.



John Kasich (GOP): Governor Kaisch has a mixed record as far as animal welfare issues go. He signed into law a tough anti-puppy mill bill and a bill protecting pets in the event of domestic violence, but he did nothing to address factory farming, and some Ohio residents feel that he dragged his feet before signing the bill outlawing exotic animals (big cats). Although he does not address animal welfare issues on his campaign website, overall Governor Kasich has the best record of any GOP candidate.

Hillary Clinton (DEM): When Secretary Clinton was a US Senator, she had an excellent rating with the HSLF, even getting 100+ one year. Her average for her 4 years in the Senate is a 92. She voted for a positive outcome for animals almost every time. Since she left the Senate, she has little opportunity to influence animal legislation. Her campaign website does not address animal issues at all.



Bernie Sanders (DEM): Senator Sanders has the most extensive record of any of the candidates. I was able to obtain his HSLF rating for 11 years. His average rating is 97 out of 100, and there were multiple years he scored 100 and twice when he scored 100+. The only time I can find a vote that can be deemed not to be in an animal’s best interest, is a vote Senator Sanders made to support hunting in the National Parks. As I stated above, Senator Sanders has devoted an entire page on his website to his stand on animal welfare issues.

How a candidate stands on animal welfare issues cannot be the sole measure of who to vote for, but it does allow us a glimpse into what is personally important to each candidate. It is one piece in the puzzle of who should be the next Commander in Chief.

Some day in the future, a candidate might take the unlikely stance that animals should be granted sentient- being status (as opposed to property). The European Union took just that step this past year. Unfortunately, I think we are a few years away from anything that radical here in the US. I won’t be holding my breath.

I would vote for a candidate who would grant animals sentient-being status in a heartbeat.

I am not a one issue voter either but having said that this is definitely going to influence my thoughts on who to vote for and now I am leaning another way after reading this. Animal welfare is one of the issues I care the most about and we are so far behind when it comes to animal rights in this country and it is heartbreaking.

 

[momhappy]

No, I wouldn't vote for a candidate based on a single issue.
I am an animal lover, but I wouldn't choose my presidential candidate based solely upon animal-related issues.

 

[missy]

No, I wouldn't vote for a candidate based on a single issue.
I am an animal lover, but I wouldn't choose my presidential candidate based solely upon animal-related issues.

Yes but would it influence your vote? Meaning if you were for a particular candidate would you stop being pro that candidate if he/she had a dismal voting record for animals and their rights?

 

[FancyDiamond]

I would like to know how this animal lover candidate would lead us in terms of foreign policy, terrorism, economy, education, and etc., etc., and most importantly, effectively lead Congress and House to work together making our nation safe, prosperous, and competitive.

I am an animal lover, but that alone does not make me a president material.

 

[FancyDiamond]

No, I wouldn't vote for a candidate based on a single issue.
I am an animal lover, but I wouldn't choose my presidential candidate based solely upon animal-related issues.

Yes but would it influence your vote? Meaning if you were for a particular candidate would you stop being pro that candidate if he/she had a dismal voting record for animals and their rights?

No.

 

[missy]

I would like to know how this animal lover candidate would lead us in terms of foreign policy, terrorism, economy, education, and etc., etc., and most importantly, effectively lead Congress and House to work together making our nation safe, prosperous, and competitive.

I am an animal lover, but that alone does not make me a president material.

I agree. One issue cannot make someone presidential material but I want to know (if you don't mind sharing) if one issue could sway your vote. Meaning if you loved a candidate but he/she was against animal rights would that *prevent* you from voting for them? So while one issue (pro animal rights) would not cause you to VOTE for that person would ONE issue (against animal rights) cause you to NOT vote for them. Does my question make sense?

 

[missy]

No, I wouldn't vote for a candidate based on a single issue.
I am an animal lover, but I wouldn't choose my presidential candidate based solely upon animal-related issues.

Yes but would it influence your vote? Meaning if you were for a particular candidate would you stop being pro that candidate if he/she had a dismal voting record for animals and their rights?

No.

OK so a candidate having a dismal track record for animal rights would not affect you voting for them. Got it. Thanks for sharing.
I don't share your view as I think it is an important part of the equation and if you don't care about the rights of animals I am not sure what kind of person you are and how you could be a fair and good leader of this country but I respect your right to feel how you feel though I respectfully disagree.

There are of course many more important issues facing our country but why do we have to have such a poor track record for the rights of animals? What kind of country are we? This quote always gets me.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”

It is (IMO) so true and how can we be a truly great nation, truly civilized if we treat animals so poorly.

 

[packrat]

I think the candidates would need to be equal in everything else, for me, so that how they stood on animal rights became the hinging factor. I couldn't vote or not vote for someone just based on that.

 

[monarch64]

I have really strong opinions about the rights of ALL animals, not just cats and dogs, so if I were to let this particular issue sway me I would have to do a lot more research and check out candidates' voting history on all kinds of things such as how they vote on bills concerning the meat and dairy industry, etc.

That said, I feel it's important to vote first and foremost on human fiscal and social issues so that we the people have better lives (ideally, although I have low expectations that that is realistic) so that in turn we can focus on animal rights. Basically we humans need to get our shit together first so we can help those who do not have a voice.

 

[momhappy]

No, I wouldn't vote for a candidate based on a single issue.
I am an animal lover, but I wouldn't choose my presidential candidate based solely upon animal-related issues.

Yes but would it influence your vote? Meaning if you were for a particular candidate would you stop being pro that candidate if he/she had a dismal voting record for animals and their rights?

I suppose that it could have some influence on who gets my vote, but it wouldn't tip the scale one way or the other unless everything else was equal. In other words, if I felt that my choices were equivalent, then I suppose the animal rights issues might tip the scale in a candidate's favor. Having said that, I would agree that things like foreign policy, the economy, education, etc. hold more weight for me in terms of my candidate selection.
I sort of have to wonder if animal rights/animal welfare might be better addressed on state/local levels (as opposed to national ones - like a president)?
I am starting to feel more and more hopeless with this particular election and to be honest, I don't know that I will even be voting this time around. I would feel bad not voting (although I know that my vote really doesn't count), but I don't think that I can vote for what might be the lesser of two evils...

 

[House Cat]

I don't see how voting "against hunting" is in any animal's best interest. When people hunt, wild animal populations usually thrive. A lot hunters are wildlife activists, not trophy hunters, as the media portrays.

People who hunt for meat (most hunters, again) eat less mass produced meat. The mass produced meat industry is the most inhumane way to produce meat on this planet. When an animal is hunted, it leads a beautiful life in the wild and it has one bad moment in its life, maybe. It might not even have that, if the shot is perfect. A mass produced animal leads a life of suffering and its slaughter isn't much better.

If you really want to rate a politician's feeling about animals, look at how they voted for or against the food industry. How did they vote for mass produced poultry, cattle, pigs?

Pigs are one of the most intelligent creatures out there and the way they are treated is deplorable.

Remember, big food has many lobbyists. The meat in our supermarkets is far more immoral than the meat any honest hunter is bringing home.

For a lot of people who do not hunt, they have this idea that a beautiful deer will live to become an old man deer, with little grandchildren deer. This isn't true. Deer, when they get old, are eaten by predators. This is true for all animals in the wild. Hunting wild animals is not depriving them of their right to any kind of long life or emotional experience. We should stop projecting our human experiences onto these animals.

Hunting is highly regulated. When the populations of certain species are low, people are simply not allowed to hunt those species. There are game wardens patrolling the hunting areas constantly and you will be fined, have to appear in court, and possibly go to jail if you are caught poaching.

I really hate the trophy hunting that the media is glomming onto right now. I know a lot of people who have hunted in Africa and were only allowed to bring back the hide, the meat was donated to a nearby village. Nothing actually went to waste. How do we know these animals in these photos went to waste? You DO understand that you can't take the meat home, right? Some people actually like the idea of feeding a hungry village AND getting to hunt an exotic animal. I know so many hunters. To waste meat would be an absolute crime. Most hunt to stay away from immoral meat and to conserve nature. Trophy hunters are an old and dying breed that probably make up the tiniest percentage of hunters. They should never be the face of all hunters.

These political ploys are so funny to me. Yes, dogs and cats are very important to me, but so are cows, pigs, and chickens. I wish that I could buy meat without having to pay and gigantic price for humanely raised meat or without having to feel massive guilt for knowing that they lived a horrible life. I wish that I didn't have to feel fear that my meat might be infested with ecoli because the cows were fed corn when they should only eat grass.

If this were the one issue I were voting on, I would look at the big picture and food would be at the top of my list.

 

[partgypsy]

I don't see how voting "against hunting" is in any animal's best interest. When people hunt, wild animal populations usually thrive. A lot hunters are wildlife activists, not trophy hunters, as the media portrays.

People who hunt for meat (most hunters, again) eat less mass produced meat. The mass produced meat industry is the most inhumane way to produce meat on this planet. When an animal is hunted, it leads a beautiful life in the wild and it has one bad moment in its life, maybe. It might not even have that, if the shot is perfect. A mass produced animal leads a life of suffering and its slaughter isn't much better.

If you really want to rate a politician's feeling about animals, look at how they voted for or against the food industry. How did they vote for mass produced poultry, cattle, pigs?

Pigs are one of the most intelligent creatures out there and the way they are treated is deplorable.

Remember, big food has many lobbyists. The meat in our supermarkets is far more immoral than the meat any honest hunter is bringing home.

For a lot of people who do not hunt, they have this idea that a beautiful deer will live to become an old man deer, with little grandchildren deer. This isn't true. Deer, when they get old, are eaten by predators. This is true for all animals in the wild. Hunting wild animals is not depriving them of their right to any kind of long life or emotional experience. We should stop projecting our human experiences onto these animals.

Hunting is highly regulated. When the populations of certain species are low, people are simply not allowed to hunt those species. There are game wardens patrolling the hunting areas constantly and you will be fined, have to appear in court, and possibly go to jail if you are caught poaching.

I really hate the trophy hunting that the media is glomming onto right now. I know a lot of people who have hunted in Africa and were only allowed to bring back the hide, the meat was donated to a nearby village. Nothing actually went to waste. How do we know these animals in these photos went to waste? You DO understand that you can't take the meat home, right? Some people actually like the idea of feeding a hungry village AND getting to hunt an exotic animal. I know so many hunters. To waste meat would be an absolute crime. Most hunt to stay away from immoral meat and to conserve nature. Trophy hunters are an old and dying breed that probably make up the tiniest percentage of hunters. They should never be the face of all hunters.

These political ploys are so funny to me. Yes, dogs and cats are very important to me, but so are cows, pigs, and chickens. I wish that I could buy meat without having to pay and gigantic price for humanely raised meat or without having to feel massive guilt for knowing that they lived a horrible life. I wish that I didn't have to feel fear that my meat might be infested with ecoli because the cows were fed corn when they should only eat grass.

If this were the one issue I were voting on, I would look at the big picture and food would be at the top of my list.

Respectfully you need to do a little more research on trophy hunting. You argued that hunting helps the wild populations. That may be true in the US for deer (because we killed off the predators that balanced populations), but trophy hunting does the opposite; instead of culling the weak, old or unfit, it is the apex prime reproducing individuals of that population that are killed. For lions that usually means their offspring are killed by rival male lions. Trophy hunting in Africa kills endangered species who need less, not more pressure on their population! Lastly the profits from the hunting benefits only a few and pennies go to help the actual animal population. A lion carcass sitting in the sun for 2 days in not going to waste? Killing an elephant, cutting off the tusks and leaving the rest of the body? That is the definition of waste. If you ask the average African, they would rather the big game hunters stay in their own country than pay to kill their big five.

 

[the_mother_thing]

I think the candidates would need to be equal in everything else, for me, so that how they stood on animal rights became the hinging factor. I couldn't vote or not vote for someone just based on that.

Ditto. And I separate 'animal rights' as being more about pets; not hunting for food. So, all other things about two or more candidates being 100% equal (unlikely), knowing one candidate has a track record supporting or personal passion and/or compassion for animals (e.g., would push for stricter laws helping prevent animal abuses), that might be the thing that sways me personally to vote for them over another.

Since I will likely never see two or more candidates measure up as 100% equal with regard to their positions on things aligning to mine, I don't see the issue of animal rights being THE item to sway my voting decision one way or another ... odds are it's going to be more pressing, national matters (e.g., security, economy, etc.) where there would be enough difference for one in 'presidential matters' to garner my vote over another. And at that point, while I LOVE animals and always have, that would take a back burner to the best interests for our country ... because I'm voting for POTUS; not committee chair for an animal rights league.

I really see animal rights as being more of a personal passion or cause you either care about and/or support, or you don't. And by "don't", I mean you probably have other causes/interests/passions more important to you (not that you wish for kittens & puppies to be slaughtered). It may be that the non-animal rights favoring candidate opts instead to volunteer and support charities that help disabled children or veterans' causes ... so I wouldn't question what kind of person someone else was simply because our 'pet causes' differ (no pun intended).

 

[House Cat]

I don't see how voting "against hunting" is in any animal's best interest. When people hunt, wild animal populations usually thrive. A lot hunters are wildlife activists, not trophy hunters, as the media portrays.

People who hunt for meat (most hunters, again) eat less mass produced meat. The mass produced meat industry is the most inhumane way to produce meat on this planet. When an animal is hunted, it leads a beautiful life in the wild and it has one bad moment in its life, maybe. It might not even have that, if the shot is perfect. A mass produced animal leads a life of suffering and its slaughter isn't much better.

If you really want to rate a politician's feeling about animals, look at how they voted for or against the food industry. How did they vote for mass produced poultry, cattle, pigs?

Pigs are one of the most intelligent creatures out there and the way they are treated is deplorable.

Remember, big food has many lobbyists. The meat in our supermarkets is far more immoral than the meat any honest hunter is bringing home.

For a lot of people who do not hunt, they have this idea that a beautiful deer will live to become an old man deer, with little grandchildren deer. This isn't true. Deer, when they get old, are eaten by predators. This is true for all animals in the wild. Hunting wild animals is not depriving them of their right to any kind of long life or emotional experience. We should stop projecting our human experiences onto these animals.

Hunting is highly regulated. When the populations of certain species are low, people are simply not allowed to hunt those species. There are game wardens patrolling the hunting areas constantly and you will be fined, have to appear in court, and possibly go to jail if you are caught poaching.

I really hate the trophy hunting that the media is glomming onto right now. I know a lot of people who have hunted in Africa and were only allowed to bring back the hide, the meat was donated to a nearby village. Nothing actually went to waste. How do we know these animals in these photos went to waste? You DO understand that you can't take the meat home, right? Some people actually like the idea of feeding a hungry village AND getting to hunt an exotic animal. I know so many hunters. To waste meat would be an absolute crime. Most hunt to stay away from immoral meat and to conserve nature. Trophy hunters are an old and dying breed that probably make up the tiniest percentage of hunters. They should never be the face of all hunters.

These political ploys are so funny to me. Yes, dogs and cats are very important to me, but so are cows, pigs, and chickens. I wish that I could buy meat without having to pay and gigantic price for humanely raised meat or without having to feel massive guilt for knowing that they lived a horrible life. I wish that I didn't have to feel fear that my meat might be infested with ecoli because the cows were fed corn when they should only eat grass.

If this were the one issue I were voting on, I would look at the big picture and food would be at the top of my list.

Respectfully you need to do a little more research on trophy hunting. You argued that hunting helps the wild populations. That may be true in the US for deer (because we killed off the predators that balanced populations), but trophy hunting does the opposite; instead of culling the weak, old or unfit, it is the apex prime reproducing individuals of that population that are killed. For lions that usually means their offspring are killed by rival male lions. Trophy hunting in Africa kills endangered species who need less, not more pressure on their population! Lastly the profits from the hunting benefits only a few and pennies go to help the actual animal population. A lion carcass sitting in the sun for 2 days in not going to waste? Killing an elephant, cutting off the tusks and leaving the rest of the body? That is the definition of waste. If you ask the average African, they would rather the big game hunters stay in their own country than pay to kill their big five.

You are right. I melded the issues of hunting for food and trophy hunting.

Our politicians wouldn't be voting on the subject of trophy hunting in Africa. I am hoping that people aren't using African trophy type hunting as the face of all hunting.

Edit to add: the people I know that hunted in Africa didn't kill lions or elephants. They hunted the smaller, deer-type animals and actually did benefit smaller villages.

 

[kenny]

Of course everything is worthy of consideration when voting.
Some things more important to me than others.

Would a candidate's animal rights record sway my vote?
Only if I was deciding between two candidates between which I was equally split.
That would be rare.

 

[missy]

I have really strong opinions about the rights of ALL animals, not just cats and dogs, so if I were to let this particular issue sway me I would have to do a lot more research and check out candidates' voting history on all kinds of things such as how they vote on bills concerning the meat and dairy industry, etc.

That said, I feel it's important to vote first and foremost on human fiscal and social issues so that we the people have better lives (ideally, although I have low expectations that that is realistic) so that in turn we can focus on animal rights. Basically we humans need to get our shit together first so we can help those who do not have a voice.

Monnie, for the record I was talking about all animals. Not just cats and dogs.

Interesting reading everyone's replies. I wouldn't vote for a candidate *just* because he or she is pro animal rights however I would *not* vote for a candidate who was IMO anti-animal rights.

 

[amc80]

My initial thought was no, not at all.

But then I thought about it some more. The only way I could see it impacting anything would be if the person personally engaged in some sort of awful activity involving animals (IMHO, hunting is not an awful activity), which would speak to their character. BUT, if it was candidate one who did that thing but I agreed with 75% of their political views vs. candidate two who was a 25% match, I'm still going for the 25% match.

 

[monarch64]

I have really strong opinions about the rights of ALL animals, not just cats and dogs, so if I were to let this particular issue sway me I would have to do a lot more research and check out candidates' voting history on all kinds of things such as how they vote on bills concerning the meat and dairy industry, etc.

That said, I feel it's important to vote first and foremost on human fiscal and social issues so that we the people have better lives (ideally, although I have low expectations that that is realistic) so that in turn we can focus on animal rights. Basically we humans need to get our shit together first so we can help those who do not have a voice.

Monnie, for the record I was talking about all animals. Not just cats and dogs.

Gotcha, Missy. I replied this morning after only skimming the original post, sorry if I came across as "missy only cares about cats and dogs" or something. Ha!

I wish animal rights was a bigger deal in the U.S. I really do. It seems like our culture is such a "meat and potatos--that's American!" one that I don't know if we'll ever really move past that mentality. I'll tell ya what, I loathe getting into debates over hunting, the meat/dairy industries, etc. so I will avoid commenting on those here. But I will recommend a book that changed my entire mindset a few years ago: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. It really gets into explaining how we got here as humans thinking we are top of the food chain and other things that are not likely to change for thousands more years. Very interesting stuff on a philosophical rather than political level.

ETA: whoops I messed up that quote, sorry! Bolded what I was replying to Missy about.

 

[BeekeeperBetty]

Animal rights doesn't matter one whit to me when voting for president.

 

[kenny]

Animal rights doesn't matter one whit to me when voting for president.

I LOVE authentic people!

 

[Amber St. Clare]

oooooooohhhh, there Is so much I wanna say here, but I won't.

 

[monarch64]

Animal rights doesn't matter one whit to me when voting for president.

I LOVE authentic people!

Me, too!

But, BeekeeperBetty, your username suggests that you do care about pollinators, so I have a question! Do you factor in pollinators' rights when voting for Pres? I know that sounds facetious but I am 90% serious. And curious!!!

 

[missy]

Animal rights doesn't matter one whit to me when voting for president.

I LOVE authentic people!

Me, too!

But, BeekeeperBetty, your username suggests that you do care about pollinators, so I have a question! Do you factor in pollinators' rights when voting for Pres? I know that sounds facetious but I am 90% serious. And curious!!!

Me three re authentic people but I love people who are authentic and kind and caring. I question why someone wouldn't care a whit about animals and their suffering.

Betty, Would you vote for a President who is against gay rights? Just curious.
Also interested in the pollination question Monnie asked you.

And Monnie, thank you for the book recommendation. Going to check it out.

I have really strong opinions about the rights of ALL animals, not just cats and dogs, so if I were to let this particular issue sway me I would have to do a lot more research and check out candidates' voting history on all kinds of things such as how they vote on bills concerning the meat and dairy industry, etc.

That said, I feel it's important to vote first and foremost on human fiscal and social issues so that we the people have better lives (ideally, although I have low expectations that that is realistic) so that in turn we can focus on animal rights. Basically we humans need to get our shit together first so we can help those who do not have a voice.

Monnie, for the record I was talking about all animals. Not just cats and dogs.

Gotcha, Missy. I replied this morning after only skimming the original post, sorry if I came across as "missy only cares about cats and dogs" or something. Ha!

I wish animal rights was a bigger deal in the U.S. I really do. It seems like our culture is such a "meat and potatos--that's American!" one that I don't know if we'll ever really move past that mentality. I'll tell ya what, I loathe getting into debates over hunting, the meat/dairy industries, etc. so I will avoid commenting on those here. But I will recommend a book that changed my entire mindset a few years ago: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. It really gets into explaining how we got here as humans thinking we are top of the food chain and other things that are not likely to change for thousands more years. Very interesting stuff on a philosophical rather than political level.

 

[azstonie]

I started out voting one issue, my reproductive rights, from my very first vote so I'm absolutely comfortable being an animal rights one-issue voter. I live in the Phoenix area. We have had horrific animal abuse cases here and when our wacky sheriff, Joe Arpaio, threw the book at every single one, I threw my vote his way every.single.election his name was on the ballot.

 

[lulu]

The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated.

Mahatma Gandhi


I agree and it will absolutely affect my vote. I'm with Bernie.

 

[telephone89]

If I had 2 top candidates and I found out one of them had such a terrible rating (ala ted cruz), it might sway me to another favourite. But not a totally different person.

HOWEVER, What I find more valuable in this info, is people voting based on WHAT THIS PERSON HAS DONE. Rather than rely on their promises and propaganda, finding out what bills they've voted for/against, where they actually put their money (mouth?), etc.

 

[lulu]

To me, how a person believes animals should be treated is a fundamental part of their character. And I vote for character first.

 

[packrat]

I started out voting one issue, my reproductive rights, from my very first vote so I'm absolutely comfortable being an animal rights one-issue voter. I live in the Phoenix area. We have had horrific animal abuse cases here and when our wacky sheriff, Joe Arpaio, threw the book at every single one, I threw my vote his way every.single.election his name was on the ballot.

I dig him.

 

[stracci2000]

I'm liking Bernie more and more.

 

[Polished]

Lulu you write one brilliant post, then follow it up with another. If a person lacked the imagination to care about what effect performing unnatural circus poses might have on an elephant. If they were incapable of thinking through the type of life and conditions an elephant might have to endure, in order for humans to make a profit from it; what else would be ignorantly overlooked doesn't bear thinking about.