4 ms·

I'm a little bit put off by the mentality of "both sides are bad" that a lot of people seem to have in both of these issues. Yeah, both sides have massive flaw

by capote 10y ago

I'm a little bit put off by the mentality of "both sides are bad" that a lot of people seem to have in both of these issues. Yeah, both sides have massive flaws, but isn't it stifling to keep insisting on this fact and to keep preaching it? Shouldn't we all just accept the lesser evil, by however small a margin it's less evil? As good a point as you may have, isn't it more important to avoid a Donald Trump presidency/a brexit/a ridiculous fear of immigrants and Islam than to say what is technically correct so loudly and prominently? I feel like if we wind up with the worse cases, people might regret having made both sides seem bad. Plus, less intelligent people might avoid voting altogether rather than voting for the lesser evil because they keep hearing intellectuals say how bad both sides are.

douche 10y ago
Assuming that you think Trump would somehow be a disastrous clown - or at least more of a disastrous clown than Hillary. Really, it's Giant Douche vs Turd Sandwich here, but from my perspective, Hilary has done nothing to inspire confidence, and a great deal to make me wary - Trump might be a jackass, but he is generally a shrewd operator, and really not liable to simple corruption.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- krapp 10y ago
  > but he is generally a shrewd operator, and really not liable to simple corruption. That would probably come as a surprise to the small army of people who have sued him over the years[0], or who have been sued by him for what seem to be vindictive or petty reasons[1]. You may prefer Trump, but the corrupting interests of business and politics very often intersect. I think it would be a mistake to assume he's neither corrupt nor corruptible. [0]http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/donald-trump-scandals/474726/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/donald-t... [1]http://fortune.com/2015/08/14/donald-trump-lawsuits/ http://fortune.com/2015/08/14/donald-trump-lawsuits/
- capote 10y ago
  My comment was mainly aimed at people who agree with me that Trump would be a disaster and Hillary would simply be the continuation of the not-so-great status quo. To those people, I plead to stop making the both-sides-are-evil argument. You seem to be a Trump supporter, so there you go, you're not on the both-sides-are-evil boat. I have no qualms with you other than the obvious political differences.
- ericd 10y ago
  I'm no fan of Hillary, but have you listened to what Trump has been saying? I highly recommend reading https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer . It was written in the aftermath of WW2 and tries to break down the factors that go into the formation of mass movements like Naziism and Communism. I wouldn't say we've reached the same levels by a ways, but the parallels between the situation then and now are chilling.
jessaustin 10y ago
Yeah, both sides have massive flaws, but isn't it stifling to keep insisting on this fact and to keep preaching it? Shouldn't we all just accept the lesser evil... Today's vote only has two possible outcomes, but please don't perpetuate the myth that Americans have only two choices in November. Both Gary Johnson and Jill Stein would serve the public better as president than either of the two corrupt charlatans that the two wings of the Status Quo Party will nominate. If we want to improve the nation, and we want to do it by voting, we will be fools if we continue to vote as we always have.
- capote 10y ago
  A myth? We literally only have two choices. There is not a single chance that someone else will be elected unless someone within either of the parties does something. What do you seriously suggest the people do to get another person besides these two? Whether you like it or not, the fact remains that those who vote for a third party have always been a tiny minority and have ultimately caused elections to be lost to people even they think is the worse evil. Unless of course you respond with what your plan of action is and how it will work.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    Some people have already done something, and both of the candidates I mentioned by name in the parent comment will be on the ballot in your state. Please vote for one of them! Don't vote for what you know to be "evil"; that wouldn't be rational. No one will stop you from voting rationally, except yourself, by listening to the "literally only two choices" bullshit that the media spoon-feeds you. This is probably too political for HN, so I'll stop now.
    - capote 10y ago
      I want to listen to you (I'd write in Bernie to be honest) but unfortunately it's not realistic. I've come to this conclusion by observation of reality, not from the media. I don't even consume much American media.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
mindslight 10y ago
> Shouldn't we all just accept the lesser evil, by however small a margin it's less evil? That margin is an epsilon, and its inverted for people with different pressing concerns than you. The Republican party is full of people will be voting for Trump, not because they really like him, but simply to keep Killary out. That is their lesser evil. This is the manufactured consent of US politics.

by capote 10y ago

douche 10y ago

Assuming that you think Trump would somehow be a disastrous clown - or at least more of a disastrous clown than Hillary. Really, it's Giant Douche vs Turd Sandwich here, but from my perspective, Hilary has done nothing to inspire confidence, and a great deal to make me wary - Trump might be a jackass, but he is generally a shrewd operator, and really not liable to simple corruption.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
krapp 10y ago
> but he is generally a shrewd operator, and really not liable to simple corruption. That would probably come as a surprise to the small army of people who have sued him over the years[0], or who have been sued by him for what seem to be vindictive or petty reasons[1]. You may prefer Trump, but the corrupting interests of business and politics very often intersect. I think it would be a mistake to assume he's neither corrupt nor corruptible. [0]http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/donald-trump-scandals/474726/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/donald-t... [1]http://fortune.com/2015/08/14/donald-trump-lawsuits/ http://fortune.com/2015/08/14/donald-trump-lawsuits/
capote 10y ago
My comment was mainly aimed at people who agree with me that Trump would be a disaster and Hillary would simply be the continuation of the not-so-great status quo. To those people, I plead to stop making the both-sides-are-evil argument. You seem to be a Trump supporter, so there you go, you're not on the both-sides-are-evil boat. I have no qualms with you other than the obvious political differences.
ericd 10y ago
I'm no fan of Hillary, but have you listened to what Trump has been saying? I highly recommend reading https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer . It was written in the aftermath of WW2 and tries to break down the factors that go into the formation of mass movements like Naziism and Communism. I wouldn't say we've reached the same levels by a ways, but the parallels between the situation then and now are chilling.

jessaustin 10y ago

Yeah, both sides have massive flaws, but isn't it stifling to keep insisting on this fact and to keep preaching it? Shouldn't we all just accept the lesser evil... Today's vote only has two possible outcomes, but please don't perpetuate the myth that Americans have only two choices in November. Both Gary Johnson and Jill Stein would serve the public better as president than either of the two corrupt charlatans that the two wings of the Status Quo Party will nominate. If we want to improve the nation, and we want to do it by voting, we will be fools if we continue to vote as we always have.

capote 10y ago
A myth? We literally only have two choices. There is not a single chance that someone else will be elected unless someone within either of the parties does something. What do you seriously suggest the people do to get another person besides these two? Whether you like it or not, the fact remains that those who vote for a third party have always been a tiny minority and have ultimately caused elections to be lost to people even they think is the worse evil. Unless of course you respond with what your plan of action is and how it will work.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- jessaustin 10y ago
  Some people have already done something, and both of the candidates I mentioned by name in the parent comment will be on the ballot in your state. Please vote for one of them! Don't vote for what you know to be "evil"; that wouldn't be rational. No one will stop you from voting rationally, except yourself, by listening to the "literally only two choices" bullshit that the media spoon-feeds you. This is probably too political for HN, so I'll stop now.
  - capote 10y ago
    I want to listen to you (I'd write in Bernie to be honest) but unfortunately it's not realistic. I've come to this conclusion by observation of reality, not from the media. I don't even consume much American media.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

mindslight 10y ago

> Shouldn't we all just accept the lesser evil, by however small a margin it's less evil? That margin is an epsilon, and its inverted for people with different pressing concerns than you. The Republican party is full of people will be voting for Trump, not because they really like him, but simply to keep Killary out. That is their lesser evil. This is the manufactured consent of US politics.