5 ms·

That's not the point. Is it only left or right in America? Both candidates are rubbish and if you support Hillary you're no better than your average Trump's red

That's not the point. Is it only left or right in America? Both candidates are rubbish and if you support Hillary you're no better than your average Trump's redneck.

artursapek 10y ago
I'm seeing a lot of people deciding who to vote for by deciding which candidate they dislike less - not which they like more. Is that normal in US presidential elections? This is the first one I've followed.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  Sadly yes; it's unusual for an election to have a majority of people voting for rather than against someone for president, but it does sometimes happen.
  - tracker1 10y ago
    It hasn't always been this way.. Reagan, JFK, FDR and several others had some overwhelming popularity at their time. Today, I feel that another Eisenhower or Truman would be better for the country, but would be very happy to see another Reagan or JFK take office. Even Bill Clinton was pretty likable, even if I disagree with many of his political points of view. In the end, I've been voting Libertarian and/or "not the incumbent" for a few years now, and wish more people would do so.
- jshevek 10y ago
  I recently discussed this topic with some U.S. citizens in their sixties. It is their impression, and mine as well, that this is the worst election in our lifetimes in that way. Of course there are always some people that vote according to which candidate they dislike less, but this election does seem to be an extreme case.
- vectorjohn 10y ago
  How are those two different things? Seriously. I like Hillary more AND I dislike her less. How are those even two separate concepts?
  - kbenson 10y ago
    The implication is that they "like" neither. Technically, disliking one less means you like them more, but the wording is meant to convey the distaste in the available choices, as opposed to being excited for the new term.
vectorjohn 10y ago
So, wild exaggerated claims are made, they get trivially refuted as bs, and your comment is that's not the point? Really? Get some perspective. Neither candidate is flawless but let's not pretend they're equally so. One is a dangerous megalomaniac, and the other is pretty much a regular standard ass politician.
- angry-hacker 10y ago
  If you think Hillary is not dangerous you are either clueless about everyday politics or part of her campaign. But I guess who can use the toilet where is more important than spying on people, taking away their freedom, being habitual liar and hypocrite by taking money from the people who are supposed to be everything you believe in against. How is Trump any worse? He is just smart enough to think what he's saying, all in all they would make a great team with Hillary.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

That's not the point. Is it only left or right in America? Both candidates are rubbish and if you support Hillary you're no better than your average Trump's redneck.

artursapek 10y ago

I'm seeing a lot of people deciding who to vote for by deciding which candidate they dislike less - not which they like more. Is that normal in US presidential elections? This is the first one I've followed.

nitrogen 10y ago
Sadly yes; it's unusual for an election to have a majority of people voting for rather than against someone for president, but it does sometimes happen.
- tracker1 10y ago
  It hasn't always been this way.. Reagan, JFK, FDR and several others had some overwhelming popularity at their time. Today, I feel that another Eisenhower or Truman would be better for the country, but would be very happy to see another Reagan or JFK take office. Even Bill Clinton was pretty likable, even if I disagree with many of his political points of view. In the end, I've been voting Libertarian and/or "not the incumbent" for a few years now, and wish more people would do so.
jshevek 10y ago
I recently discussed this topic with some U.S. citizens in their sixties. It is their impression, and mine as well, that this is the worst election in our lifetimes in that way. Of course there are always some people that vote according to which candidate they dislike less, but this election does seem to be an extreme case.
vectorjohn 10y ago
How are those two different things? Seriously. I like Hillary more AND I dislike her less. How are those even two separate concepts?
- kbenson 10y ago
  The implication is that they "like" neither. Technically, disliking one less means you like them more, but the wording is meant to convey the distaste in the available choices, as opposed to being excited for the new term.

vectorjohn 10y ago

So, wild exaggerated claims are made, they get trivially refuted as bs, and your comment is that's not the point? Really? Get some perspective. Neither candidate is flawless but let's not pretend they're equally so. One is a dangerous megalomaniac, and the other is pretty much a regular standard ass politician.

angry-hacker 10y ago
If you think Hillary is not dangerous you are either clueless about everyday politics or part of her campaign. But I guess who can use the toilet where is more important than spying on people, taking away their freedom, being habitual liar and hypocrite by taking money from the people who are supposed to be everything you believe in against. How is Trump any worse? He is just smart enough to think what he's saying, all in all they would make a great team with Hillary.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]