3 ms·
Perhaps. But chances are that these two will become their parties' candidates and then most Americans _will_ have to choose between them. The US has so many sm
by jazzyk 11y ago
Perhaps. But chances are that these two will become their parties' candidates and then most Americans _will_ have to choose between them.
The US has so many smart, hard working people, we deserve better.
- mikeash 11y agoI really, really doubt that we'll be forced to choose between Clinton and Trump. Clinton, yes, but the Republicans aren't that insane. In any case, saying that a broken system forces us to choose the lesser of two evils is quite different from saying that most Americans support one of these two candidates.
- __44x0 11y ago> yes, but the Republicans aren't that insane. I wouldn't put it past them to choose Trump, but either way, the other leading contenders like Ben Carson or Ted Cruz are even more whacked-out. And god forbid the Bush dynasty would continue... Of the Republican candidates, the only ones I find less crazy than Trump -- and to be clear, I more or less despise everyone I'm about to list -- are Carly Fiorina, Rand Paul, and perhaps Marco Rubio. Fiorina and Rubio because, maybe, they don't actually believe some of the panderous garbage that they say, and Paul because he occasionally expresses some anti-war sentiment (even if it's motivated by his desire to decrease federal spending).
- jazzyk 11y agoI totally understood the difference, I was trying to say that it doesn't really matter. We need to fix the broken system, but I am not aware of any candidates having any workable ideas...
- mikeash 11y agoIt matters in terms of what conclusions you can draw about the American people (the original comment up there was attempting to use widespread support for these candidates as evidence that Americans don't know what's good for them), and in terms of what's required to fix the problem. I agree that as far as the outcome goes it doesn't matter much.