3 ms·

I would argue that this is the fault of the 2-party system rather than of said 63M people. The choice was between Clinton and Trump, there was not really a sane

I would argue that this is the fault of the 2-party system rather than of said 63M people. The choice was between Clinton and Trump, there was not really a sane option. Maybe if Sanders was a candidate..

zimpenfish 6y ago
> The choice was between Clinton and Trump, there was not really a sane option. Yeah, that's not true. If you believe the last 4 years would have been the same or worse under Clinton, I don't know what to tell you - you're suffering from Clinton Derangement Syndrome and are utterly disconnected from reality.
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  Am I though? It was her husband that bombed Serbia (as far as I know trump did not start any full scale war unlike the previous 3 presidents - see libya, iraq, afghanistan, yugoslavia, etc), her husband that did the whole encryption export bullshit (and she was in the gov in both cases), she herself supported the TPP. Maybe with her there would be slightly less concentration camps at the border with mexico and net neutrality would remain a thing but I can't really think of many more things that she would do better. Regardless, it is not whether about "the last 4 years would have been the same or worse under Clinton" but rather whether "the last 4 years would have been significantly better with clinton". If I was given the option between horse poop and elephant poop I would choose neither. EDIT: Maybe she would have defended syria during the Turkish invasion but I seriously doubt it.
  - zimpenfish 6y ago
    > rather whether "the last 4 years would have been significantly better with clinton". The fact that you can question whether almost literally anyone else as President would be "significantly better" than the trash fire that is the current US situation is astonishing. > If I was given the option between horse poop and elephant poop I would choose neither. The thing is, in politics, you don't get to "choose neither" because you get one or the other and that choice, regardless of how pure and glowy you feel inside about your moral high ground, has direct and lasting consequences for everyone in the country (and, to some extent, outside it too.)
    - dependenttypes 6y ago
      > than the trash fire that is the current US situation Everyone that I know has been saying that for their own country for ages, I personally believe that the US is doing much better when compared with certain European nations (such as Britain for example). As I mentioned before comparatively with the past presidents Trump (at least in my limited european view) has done less evil (I mentioned it before, cancelled TPP and did not declare any war). If you disagree I would be glad if you could explain how Clinton specifically would do better. > you don't get to "choose neither" I do, I get to vote for a 3rd party that will at least vote for sane choices in the parlement. > regardless of how pure and glowy you feel inside about your moral high ground I do not appreciate your tone (including from the previous post: "you're suffering from Clinton Derangement Syndrome and are utterly disconnected from reality"). Surely we can acknowledge our differences in opinion and have a civilized debate without this. > has direct and lasting consequences for everyone in the country And so would voting for your preferred candidate. There would be no point on voting if it made absolutely no difference.
      - zimpenfish 6y ago
        > If you disagree I would be glad if you could explain how Clinton specifically would do better. It's impossible to argue a counterfactual but: she wouldn't have bungled her way into letting 160,000+ people die from COVID-19; I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have colluded with the Russians; Wouldn't have seen the illegal occupancy of government positions by unconfirmed nominees; Wouldn't have the Emoluments Clause in shreds; Doesn't have a charity that's been found to be little more than a funnel to their own pockets; Almost certainly wouldn't have started a catastrophically stupid trade war with China; Wouldn't have alienated Europe (except for the right wing countries); Wouldn't have pulled out of WHO, etc. I mean, I could go on for hours listing the things that any rational person would have avoided doing if they were elected. > Surely we can acknowledge our differences in opinion and have a civilized debate without this. No, not really, if you honestly believe that Clinton is even within orders of magnitude as horrific as Trump.
        dependenttypes 6y ago

zimpenfish 6y ago

> The choice was between Clinton and Trump, there was not really a sane option. Yeah, that's not true. If you believe the last 4 years would have been the same or worse under Clinton, I don't know what to tell you - you're suffering from Clinton Derangement Syndrome and are utterly disconnected from reality.

dependenttypes 6y ago
Am I though? It was her husband that bombed Serbia (as far as I know trump did not start any full scale war unlike the previous 3 presidents - see libya, iraq, afghanistan, yugoslavia, etc), her husband that did the whole encryption export bullshit (and she was in the gov in both cases), she herself supported the TPP. Maybe with her there would be slightly less concentration camps at the border with mexico and net neutrality would remain a thing but I can't really think of many more things that she would do better. Regardless, it is not whether about "the last 4 years would have been the same or worse under Clinton" but rather whether "the last 4 years would have been significantly better with clinton". If I was given the option between horse poop and elephant poop I would choose neither. EDIT: Maybe she would have defended syria during the Turkish invasion but I seriously doubt it.
- zimpenfish 6y ago
  > rather whether "the last 4 years would have been significantly better with clinton". The fact that you can question whether almost literally anyone else as President would be "significantly better" than the trash fire that is the current US situation is astonishing. > If I was given the option between horse poop and elephant poop I would choose neither. The thing is, in politics, you don't get to "choose neither" because you get one or the other and that choice, regardless of how pure and glowy you feel inside about your moral high ground, has direct and lasting consequences for everyone in the country (and, to some extent, outside it too.)
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    > than the trash fire that is the current US situation Everyone that I know has been saying that for their own country for ages, I personally believe that the US is doing much better when compared with certain European nations (such as Britain for example). As I mentioned before comparatively with the past presidents Trump (at least in my limited european view) has done less evil (I mentioned it before, cancelled TPP and did not declare any war). If you disagree I would be glad if you could explain how Clinton specifically would do better. > you don't get to "choose neither" I do, I get to vote for a 3rd party that will at least vote for sane choices in the parlement. > regardless of how pure and glowy you feel inside about your moral high ground I do not appreciate your tone (including from the previous post: "you're suffering from Clinton Derangement Syndrome and are utterly disconnected from reality"). Surely we can acknowledge our differences in opinion and have a civilized debate without this. > has direct and lasting consequences for everyone in the country And so would voting for your preferred candidate. There would be no point on voting if it made absolutely no difference.
    - zimpenfish 6y ago
      > If you disagree I would be glad if you could explain how Clinton specifically would do better. It's impossible to argue a counterfactual but: she wouldn't have bungled her way into letting 160,000+ people die from COVID-19; I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have colluded with the Russians; Wouldn't have seen the illegal occupancy of government positions by unconfirmed nominees; Wouldn't have the Emoluments Clause in shreds; Doesn't have a charity that's been found to be little more than a funnel to their own pockets; Almost certainly wouldn't have started a catastrophically stupid trade war with China; Wouldn't have alienated Europe (except for the right wing countries); Wouldn't have pulled out of WHO, etc. I mean, I could go on for hours listing the things that any rational person would have avoided doing if they were elected. > Surely we can acknowledge our differences in opinion and have a civilized debate without this. No, not really, if you honestly believe that Clinton is even within orders of magnitude as horrific as Trump.
      - dependenttypes 6y ago