2 ms·

> 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 ha

> 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?

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?