6 ms·

Everything has to be such a spectacle, so black-and-white and binary in the US. The forum discussions, here and elsewhere, give outside observers this impressi

by Radim 10y ago

Everything has to be such a spectacle, so black-and-white and binary in the US. The forum discussions, here and elsewhere, give outside observers this impression: |=============================X=| Candidate X: some minor flaws, but overall a great option |=X=============================| Candidate Y: the new Hitler, world falls apart if elected For reference, here is how many people in (not only) Europe view this "great American match": |============================X==| amazing candidate |================X==============| acceptable candidate |=======X=======================| Clinton & Trump: dishonest, obviously manipulative untrustworthy crooks within rounding error of each other Is the election system so broken that these two are the best USA can offer?

adjkant 10y ago
1. To answer your question, yes. 2. Putting Trump and Clinton on the same level simply isn't accurate. I would revise this: |============================X==| amazing candidate |================X==============| normally acceptable candidate |============X==================| Clinton |==X============================| Trump Clinton is certainly worse than most candidates historically, but her corruption and scandals are par for the course. It's the underbelly of politics that has always existed. Trump is a new level.
- chroem- 10y ago
  Clinton has been exposed in plain daylight as having done things that would have made Richard Nixon blush. It's so bad that her campaign has been forced to hire a crew of dedicated astroturfers to cover for her, and they have no scruples over doing this either. How does that make her better than Trump?
  - adjkant 10y ago
    Yes, she has. Hence why she is lower than the normally acceptable candidate. It doesn't make her equal to Trump, though. 1. Clinton has a platform that is static (even if it's crafted and not a personal belief). Trump's changes with his mood and is unclear on even the basic principles and topics he chooses to focus on. 2. Clinton has shown she can keep a level head, which is important when an outburst affects millions of people. Trump has not in the slightest. 3. Clinton has shown that she can hold a high position of power and not have the world blow up (quickly). 4. Clinton has shown an ability to be relatively truthful and consistent. When she lies, she carefully crafts them, even going so far as to avoid definition lying. We now have the email chains to back that up. Trump has trouble sticking to basic facts. Again, Clinton is objectively worse than the majority of candidates. I think at this point, if you gave the US the option to elect Romney in lieu of voting for Trump and Clinton, you would have major support on both sides. Heck, at this point, (Romney = Clinton - scandals) in terms of policy. None of this touches their specific policies or even personal biases such as Trump's sexism, racism, islamophobia and more. Sure, you can say that a candidate's personal beliefs shouldn't affect his policies, but we have seen by Trump's proposals that this does not hold. Trump has not shown the ability to separate his personality from his work - his business is entrenched in his personal workings, even so much in how it operates and his brand is crafted. If you disagree with that last paragraph, scratch it. The numbered points are plenty difference enough, and again, do not touch policy or personal beliefs of the candidates.
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    And this country voted for Richard Nixon twice. Once in a historic landslide. Do you feel that disqualifies Clinton from the presidency?
    - douche 10y ago
      One wonders what Nixon's legacy would have been if he just hadn't gotten caught. He wasn't a complete fuckup, and did actually accomplish some worthy things, but Watergate casts a shadow over it all. Meanwhile, look at his opponent in 1960. JFK is practically revered as a saint because he had his brains blown out on national television. We largely forget or excuse his intense sex addiction, or that he very nearly pushed the world over the edge of Armageddon, or that he was instrumental in escalating the Vietnam War. To the benefit of his legacy, at least, he was killed before his chickens came home to roost and became a martyr figure instead.
      - davidf18 10y ago
        Nixon proposed universal health care 45 years ago. Although some said he made anti-Semitic statements, he employed a Jewish Secretary of State, Kissinger who basically ran the international part of the presidency when Nixon was in the later states of the Watergate Investigation. Over the advice of Defense and other advisors, he insisted on fully rearming a desperate Israel with a very, very impressive airlift during the Yom Kippur War (1973) when Israel was surprise attacked by Egypt and Syria on Yom Kippur.
        Oletros 10y ago
        EPA was created by Nixon administration, isn't?
        davidf18 10y ago
        Yes, you are correct! Interestingly, although a Republican, his creation of EPA and his desire to create universal health care is something we today associate more with Democrats.
  - Tempest1981 10y ago
    gwb43.com has become a faint memory for many: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_contr... "RNC policy since 2004 has been to retain all emails of White House staff with RNC accounts, the staffers had the ability to delete the email, themselves."
morgante 10y ago
> For reference, here is how many people in (not only) Europe view this "great American match": I have a lot of European/non-American friends and not a single one of them thinks Trump and Clinton are "within rounding error of each other." It's fundamentally dishonest to compare a run-of-the-mill corrupt politician to someone who openly advocates nuclear proliferation.
- rconti 10y ago
  Furthermore, most of the "Clinton = corrupt" stuff has been played in the US far harder than elsewhere in the world. In my formative years, it seemed like I couldn't go a week without hearing a new "scandal" that the Republican party wanted to foist on the only President I really knew as a politically-conscious person. I'm not saying they were dishonest or wrong, I'm just saying it felt a bit too much like the boy who cried wolf. It's hard to even bother paying attention to yet another person trying to claim another Clinton "scandal". Especially when the people pushing it support, well.... Someone who literally parrots back every slight used against him to be used against his rival. I didn't realize "I'm rubber, you're glue" was a campaign strategy.
matt4077 10y ago
The Clinton-is-dishonest narrative is a completely American fiction, created four of five years ago in some strategy meeting and popularized by repetition. There's nothing there. Republicans spent thousands of hours in Benghazi and came up empty handed. Worst thing she apparently did was setting up a private mail server, as did her predecessors, Republicans included. Europeans see Trump as an actual danger to peace and stability. He's assembling an angry mob spewing hate against minorities, women, people who think. He's peddling in conspiracy theories undermining democracy. He's treating the carefully adjusted balance of power in eastern Europe. In short: Europeans know his type quite well. He's no Hitler, no. He's Putin, Erdogan, Orban.
- forgetsusername 10y ago
  You know you sound exactly like the parent comment was describing, right?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
int_19h 10y ago
The only place where I've seen this "both are equally bad" false equivalence is US. Most European media seems to like Clinton. Most definitely, she's preferred to Trump by a large margin. The only (part) European country that I can think of with a prominently different internal opinion is Russia. But they don't go for equivalence either, they just root for Trump.
yodsanklai 10y ago
> For reference, here is how many people in (not only) Europe view this "great American match" It's difficult to generalize over Europe. For instance, I live in France and have no idea about the opinions of let say Romanians or Swedes. But my feeling is the opposite. I suspect that Trump has more supporters in the US (even on HN) than in France. Here I don't see anybody enthusiastic about Clinton, but most people and media don't take Trump seriously (and that's an euphemism). However he has his supporters, essentially among right wing extremists (who tend to like Putin as well).

by Radim 10y ago

adjkant 10y ago

1. To answer your question, yes. 2. Putting Trump and Clinton on the same level simply isn't accurate. I would revise this: |============================X==| amazing candidate |================X==============| normally acceptable candidate |============X==================| Clinton |==X============================| Trump Clinton is certainly worse than most candidates historically, but her corruption and scandals are par for the course. It's the underbelly of politics that has always existed. Trump is a new level.

chroem- 10y ago
Clinton has been exposed in plain daylight as having done things that would have made Richard Nixon blush. It's so bad that her campaign has been forced to hire a crew of dedicated astroturfers to cover for her, and they have no scruples over doing this either. How does that make her better than Trump?
- adjkant 10y ago
  Yes, she has. Hence why she is lower than the normally acceptable candidate. It doesn't make her equal to Trump, though. 1. Clinton has a platform that is static (even if it's crafted and not a personal belief). Trump's changes with his mood and is unclear on even the basic principles and topics he chooses to focus on. 2. Clinton has shown she can keep a level head, which is important when an outburst affects millions of people. Trump has not in the slightest. 3. Clinton has shown that she can hold a high position of power and not have the world blow up (quickly). 4. Clinton has shown an ability to be relatively truthful and consistent. When she lies, she carefully crafts them, even going so far as to avoid definition lying. We now have the email chains to back that up. Trump has trouble sticking to basic facts. Again, Clinton is objectively worse than the majority of candidates. I think at this point, if you gave the US the option to elect Romney in lieu of voting for Trump and Clinton, you would have major support on both sides. Heck, at this point, (Romney = Clinton - scandals) in terms of policy. None of this touches their specific policies or even personal biases such as Trump's sexism, racism, islamophobia and more. Sure, you can say that a candidate's personal beliefs shouldn't affect his policies, but we have seen by Trump's proposals that this does not hold. Trump has not shown the ability to separate his personality from his work - his business is entrenched in his personal workings, even so much in how it operates and his brand is crafted. If you disagree with that last paragraph, scratch it. The numbered points are plenty difference enough, and again, do not touch policy or personal beliefs of the candidates.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  And this country voted for Richard Nixon twice. Once in a historic landslide. Do you feel that disqualifies Clinton from the presidency?
  - douche 10y ago
    One wonders what Nixon's legacy would have been if he just hadn't gotten caught. He wasn't a complete fuckup, and did actually accomplish some worthy things, but Watergate casts a shadow over it all. Meanwhile, look at his opponent in 1960. JFK is practically revered as a saint because he had his brains blown out on national television. We largely forget or excuse his intense sex addiction, or that he very nearly pushed the world over the edge of Armageddon, or that he was instrumental in escalating the Vietnam War. To the benefit of his legacy, at least, he was killed before his chickens came home to roost and became a martyr figure instead.
    - davidf18 10y ago
      Nixon proposed universal health care 45 years ago. Although some said he made anti-Semitic statements, he employed a Jewish Secretary of State, Kissinger who basically ran the international part of the presidency when Nixon was in the later states of the Watergate Investigation. Over the advice of Defense and other advisors, he insisted on fully rearming a desperate Israel with a very, very impressive airlift during the Yom Kippur War (1973) when Israel was surprise attacked by Egypt and Syria on Yom Kippur.
      - Oletros 10y ago
        EPA was created by Nixon administration, isn't?
        davidf18 10y ago
        Yes, you are correct! Interestingly, although a Republican, his creation of EPA and his desire to create universal health care is something we today associate more with Democrats.
- Tempest1981 10y ago
  gwb43.com has become a faint memory for many: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_contr... "RNC policy since 2004 has been to retain all emails of White House staff with RNC accounts, the staffers had the ability to delete the email, themselves."

morgante 10y ago

> For reference, here is how many people in (not only) Europe view this "great American match": I have a lot of European/non-American friends and not a single one of them thinks Trump and Clinton are "within rounding error of each other." It's fundamentally dishonest to compare a run-of-the-mill corrupt politician to someone who openly advocates nuclear proliferation.

rconti 10y ago
Furthermore, most of the "Clinton = corrupt" stuff has been played in the US far harder than elsewhere in the world. In my formative years, it seemed like I couldn't go a week without hearing a new "scandal" that the Republican party wanted to foist on the only President I really knew as a politically-conscious person. I'm not saying they were dishonest or wrong, I'm just saying it felt a bit too much like the boy who cried wolf. It's hard to even bother paying attention to yet another person trying to claim another Clinton "scandal". Especially when the people pushing it support, well.... Someone who literally parrots back every slight used against him to be used against his rival. I didn't realize "I'm rubber, you're glue" was a campaign strategy.

matt4077 10y ago

The Clinton-is-dishonest narrative is a completely American fiction, created four of five years ago in some strategy meeting and popularized by repetition. There's nothing there. Republicans spent thousands of hours in Benghazi and came up empty handed. Worst thing she apparently did was setting up a private mail server, as did her predecessors, Republicans included. Europeans see Trump as an actual danger to peace and stability. He's assembling an angry mob spewing hate against minorities, women, people who think. He's peddling in conspiracy theories undermining democracy. He's treating the carefully adjusted balance of power in eastern Europe. In short: Europeans know his type quite well. He's no Hitler, no. He's Putin, Erdogan, Orban.

forgetsusername 10y ago
You know you sound exactly like the parent comment was describing, right?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

int_19h 10y ago

The only place where I've seen this "both are equally bad" false equivalence is US. Most European media seems to like Clinton. Most definitely, she's preferred to Trump by a large margin. The only (part) European country that I can think of with a prominently different internal opinion is Russia. But they don't go for equivalence either, they just root for Trump.

yodsanklai 10y ago

> For reference, here is how many people in (not only) Europe view this "great American match" It's difficult to generalize over Europe. For instance, I live in France and have no idea about the opinions of let say Romanians or Swedes. But my feeling is the opposite. I suspect that Trump has more supporters in the US (even on HN) than in France. Here I don't see anybody enthusiastic about Clinton, but most people and media don't take Trump seriously (and that's an euphemism). However he has his supporters, essentially among right wing extremists (who tend to like Putin as well).