[runchberries]

That comment honestly makes me really sad. People would rather put a criminal in the white house and have her run free because she is the "lesser of two evils".

Regardless of whether or not she is guilty, that flow of logic is deplorable and anyone who follows it is only contributing to the the problem of crooked politics. God damn American politics is fucked up.

[rev_bird]

I should preface this with the declaration that I'm not trying to start a debate about which presidential candidate to vote for. People get really touchy about that -- I'm just talking about the logic that you are criticizing, because I don't think it's particularly sad.

I don't see why even your characterization of the situation is "deplorable." Let's accept that Clinton is a "criminal" -- that doesn't necessarily disqualify her for public office, so the question becomes whether it bothers voters enough to matter. Personally, I think Donald Trump would be the worst president in the history of the United States. I have lots of opinions about lots of politicians, but he's probably the only one that I'm genuinely scared of.

I'd prefer almost anybody over Trump -- that Clinton may have broken federal laws is just another bullet point in the pros/cons list. I'd have voted for Eugene Debs while he was literally in prison, and hundreds of thousands of people did.[1]

People bemoan the whole "lesser of two evils" thing, but I always wonder: What's the alternative? I'm not saying that I give up on improving the system, because there's a lot that could be improved. But "lesser of two evils" is just a negative way of saying "my preference."

Politicians have a zillion positions, you're never going to agree with one 100% -- and if you do, great, but that means there are literally millions of other people who don't. You pick the one who gets the government a step closer to what you want it to be.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...

[giardini]

"I'd prefer almost anybody over Trump -- that Clinton may have broken federal laws is just another bullet point"

Why? You want another lawyer as president?

Think of Trump as what he is: a businessman becoming intimately familiar with national politics for the first time. He's being brought up to speed on almost every social topic under the sun. He doesn't have the lifetime of bias that most politicians have (e.g., 20 years of working in the House, Senate, or some federal bureaucracy).

He will be asking questions: crazy questions, dumb questions, smart questions, questions everyman asks.

If you never shuffle the cards then you'll always be dealt from a stacked deck. Trump will shuffle the cards. So it's like randomization/Monte Carlo in machine learning.

We've had decades of lawyers and professional politicians; let's give a real person a chance to be president. Personally I would have preferred a more common man, but I doubt others would have that, because we are primates with social hierarchies.

Trump will be like FDR: desperate to get something done and willing to try whatever it takes to do it but constrained by the law. I like that - it's the "American way"!

But I honestly think Biden could do the same thing, for different reasons, if he would only step out and speak for himself.

[morgante]

> Drumpf will be like FDR: desperate to get something done and willing to try whatever it takes to do it but constrained by the law.

I'll avoid invoking Godwin's law, but that's a very dangerous thing to accept. I personally do not have any interest in voting for someone who does not believe in freedom of religion or speech. If elected, I genuinely fear for the continued legality of dissent.

His only saving grace is that he's probably going to be too ineffectual to get much done. That's what's terrifying about Clinton: she's overwhelmingly competent and completely amoral.

[giardini]

Something about Trump that is different: he changes his mind and, once he does, he doesn't waste time trying to justify his original stance! That alone sets him apart from most politicians. Now, just like FDR, he will be surrounded by lawyers and advisers who tell him "You can't do that!" and he'll argue with them and they'll (usually) come out on the right side of the law and when they don't the courts will correct them. Same as Obama.

"Clinton: she's overwhelmingly competent and completely amoral."

Well, the email investigation would tend NOT to paint her as "overwhelmingly competent" in technical, legal or political senses. Whitewater paints her as a competent and skilled lawyer and quite able to walk a fine line.

I agree she's "completely amoral".

I don't view "incompetent + amoral" as good qualities for a president.

[rev_bird]

I really don't think it will be productive to turn this into a discussion about Trump in particular, but I should clarify: I'm not opposed to Trump because he's not a lawyer, or because he's an "everyman." I am opposed to him because I disagree with the stances that he has taken. If another, more "traditional" politician acted the way Trump does, or endorsed the kind of actions Trump supports, I'd be (almost?) equally repulsed.

[knodi123]

> and anyone who follows it is only contributing to the the problem of crooked politics

You're suggesting that the best way to fix american politics is to let trump burn it down, and build a new nation from the ashes?

[cloverich]

Well, if the choice was 1) Put a Criminal in the US White House vs 2) Risk global nuclear war (an intentional exaggeration of Trump's foreign policy skills) -- for the sake of argument, would you still prefer #2? To be clear, I'd prefer neither -- I'm just not sure that's a choice.

[ryanmerket]

Vote Bernie?