Quote (ThatAlex @ Sep 22 2016 08:26am)
Yep. And people cannot discuss the negatives of one without bringing up how the other is worse. That's lesser evil politics for you.
I think it would be healthier if we could assess each of the candidates without necessarily comparing them all the time. Myabe we could sometimes arrive at more objective and meaningful conclusions.
Right now, Americans politics exist within their own box of relative shitiness. Perhaps we need to start considering politics in a different way and try to escape our lesser-evil instincts, but I'm not exactly sure how because all I am used to doing is comparing.
Those stand alone comparisons are not possible when one candidate has a lack of policy and the other has a documented history of flip flopping on policy. Trump has changed his views to get in line with his voters, see maternity leave or anti-gun control. Hillary has been in office so long that the meta has changed which makes her formerly popular stances look bad, see tough on crime. And neither is putting forward policy that counters the other. Hillary lays out a plan on Syria, and Trump claims he has a secret plan then deflects to Obama's administration leaking non-critical info that one time. Trump puts forward a plan for border security and immigrant vetting (somewhat, at least end goals) and Hillary eludes to the status quo. There aren't that many areas where we can compare the ideas of one to the ideas of another, its all lack of policy versus policy or policy versus status quo. That said, it is the system that has allowed two candidates such as these to rise to power. Unless there's a credible third option with a chance ot win and not just spoil neither candidate needs to win an election in a global sense, they just need to win a foot race. When 2 people outrun 1 bear you don't necessarily need to be fast, but when a bunch of people encounter a school of sharks you need to be fast no matter what.
Quote (AiNedeSpelCzech @ Sep 22 2016 08:33am)
so what are you people dumb enough to believe without doing any work yourself, a NekoSama thread or an Examiner article? Just want to calibrate my response properly.
The question is moot, Neko posts are inherently badly sourced posts. Even on major breaking news he chooses the slandered sources versus the credible ones. There was plenty of good info on the HRC 9-11 collapse, and he still wen't straight to Breitbart to pull from.
This post was edited by thesnipa on Sep 22 2016 08:39am