5 ms·

> 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

> 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
  > she wouldn't have bungled her way into letting 160,000+ people die from COVID-19 She might have done somewhat better, sure, but the economy would suffer even more in return (which implies homelessness, debt, etc). It is not an easy choice to make regardless. > colluded with the Russians I do not find anything wrong with this. > Wouldn't have seen the illegal occupancy of government positions by unconfirmed nominees; Wouldn't have the Emoluments Clause in shreds I do not know anything about these so I will take your word. > Doesn't have a charity that's been found to be little more than a funnel to their own pockets This is not relevant to him being a president unless if he has been using public money to funnel money to himself by using it. > Almost certainly wouldn't have started a catastrophically stupid trade war with China Said trade war has been going on for a while (and was started by china), most HN commenters seem to take the US side in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24077339 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24077339 for example. In addition I was under the impression that the Democratic party has anti-china policies too. > Wouldn't have alienated Europe That again had happened before Trump came to power, although admittedly Trump worsened it. Still, I think that this is a minor issue. > Wouldn't have pulled out of WHO I do not find anything wrong with this either. WHO is quite responsible for the current state regarding covid and I am pretty sure that they continue their anti-mask propaganda. Honestly, all of these seem like minor things when considering what I mentioned before (which I would rather not keep repeating but here they are: the TPP and the various invasions that Clinton or her Husband started or assisted). At the same time I doubt that she would be able to resolve the NK situation. > No, not really, if you honestly believe that Clinton is even within orders of magnitude as horrific as Trump. I do not get it. You do not gain anything by insulting your debate "opponents", so why do this? In addition this is just an opinion, so what if I believe that? Even if I end up being proven wrong is it really that bad?

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
> she wouldn't have bungled her way into letting 160,000+ people die from COVID-19 She might have done somewhat better, sure, but the economy would suffer even more in return (which implies homelessness, debt, etc). It is not an easy choice to make regardless. > colluded with the Russians I do not find anything wrong with this. > Wouldn't have seen the illegal occupancy of government positions by unconfirmed nominees; Wouldn't have the Emoluments Clause in shreds I do not know anything about these so I will take your word. > Doesn't have a charity that's been found to be little more than a funnel to their own pockets This is not relevant to him being a president unless if he has been using public money to funnel money to himself by using it. > Almost certainly wouldn't have started a catastrophically stupid trade war with China Said trade war has been going on for a while (and was started by china), most HN commenters seem to take the US side in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24077339 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24077339 for example. In addition I was under the impression that the Democratic party has anti-china policies too. > Wouldn't have alienated Europe That again had happened before Trump came to power, although admittedly Trump worsened it. Still, I think that this is a minor issue. > Wouldn't have pulled out of WHO I do not find anything wrong with this either. WHO is quite responsible for the current state regarding covid and I am pretty sure that they continue their anti-mask propaganda. Honestly, all of these seem like minor things when considering what I mentioned before (which I would rather not keep repeating but here they are: the TPP and the various invasions that Clinton or her Husband started or assisted). At the same time I doubt that she would be able to resolve the NK situation. > No, not really, if you honestly believe that Clinton is even within orders of magnitude as horrific as Trump. I do not get it. You do not gain anything by insulting your debate "opponents", so why do this? In addition this is just an opinion, so what if I believe that? Even if I end up being proven wrong is it really that bad?