Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

At what point do you stop treating this as a horse race where you've $5 on the red horse, and start treating like the governing of the most powerful country in the world?

Oh... I'm sorry, you must be confused for someone who gives a gak.

As someone who's voted for the A'llepoing Stoner, I'm in a unique position to Calvin Ball this and not give a gak.

So while I can cheer on Trumpo for some of the good things he has done, the stuff that I don't like... well, I don't feel bad for being like:


'cuz I know the alternative would be just as bad or even worst.

Oh yeah it would be worse than the gak show that is going on now that is for sure . Keep on plugging that R propoganda there whembs it is very becoming

I don’t know if you all remember Jeffrey Epstein. He is a billionaire financier.

Trump and Epstein travelled in the same circles. In 2002 Trump was asked about Epstein by New York Magazine “I've known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life."

By 2015 Trump was distancing himself from Epstein as hard as he possibly could. He had an aide issue a statement saying that Epstein was a member of one of Trump’s clubs, but there was no business or personal relationship at all. It’s no mystery why Trump changed his story between 2002 and 2015 – in in 2008 Epstein was investigated by police and charged with performing sex acts with underage prostitutes, and also recording sex acts with underage prostitutes by other people in his house, for the purpose of blackmail.

Now, while there was a massive amount of evidence against Epstein, with many girls coming forward, including images taken on cameras Epstein set up in his house and multiple eye witnesses, the prosecution ruled the greater case as weak and only pushed for a single charge of soliciting a minor. A sweetheart deal was then offered, in which Epstein pled guilty for an agreed sentence of 18 months, of which he served 13.

That’s pretty damn outrageous, but I think everyone accepts that rich, politically connected people don’t face justice the way normal people do. Epstein had a team of the nations best and most ruthless lawyers, including Ken Starr. Yes, that Ken Starr. And of course, rich and powerful people have powerful connections with other rich and powerful people, which can go a long way.

This would be just another sad story of how rich people really can skate the law, but there’s a couple of twists in the tail. Thing is, the DA that offered that sweetheart deal in 2008 was Alexander Acosta. Acosta is Trump’s new nominee for Secretary of Labor.

That sounds like a hell of a story. It would be pretty easy to make all the links you need to tell a nice story about how Trump’s mate got let off by a DA, who Trump later rewards by bringing him in to the highest levels of power. But that story leaves out a whole bunch of stuff. Because while Acosta most definitely did offer up that sweetheart deal, he has since told a very strong story about the realities of prosecution and the tough choices that have to be made. Because Epstein’s pack of very skilled, very nasty lawyers (once again, Ken Starr) shamelessly attacked Epstein and everyone else involved in the prosecution. Just ran their names through the mud. And while this was going on Acosta was trying to manage major prosecutions of the Cali gang (which ended with convictions of two of the gang’s founders and $2.1 billion in asset seizures) and successfully prosecuted Swiss bank UBS, resulting in the first instance of a Swiss bank having to reveal secret accounts in the world. It’s easy to see how he prioritised, and did a bad deal to make sure the really big fish still got caught.

The connection to Trump is even more easily explained – they are billionaires. Rich and powerful people are always chumming up, that’s how business works. Talking up a personal connection can mean as little as having been seated at the same table at a charity event one time. It doesn’t mean you have the slightest idea that another rich and powerful person is actually a sexual deviant. When you find out, you back off as fast as you can, because of course you do.

So the evidence for conspiracy is actually threadbare, despite being able to form up a narrative

But of course, this doesn’t stop there. I don’t know if you remember but the conservative hacks made a crazy amount of noise about Jeffrey Epstein back during the election. Not because Trump had once said the two were friends. No, they don’t go after their own team, they go after the blue team. And so when they saw Bill Clinton had flown on Epstein’s plane they really went to town. They cranked out the stories, they called the plane Lolita Express, which is impressive in it’s kind of blunt insanity. They spoke endlessly about how Clinton was on the plane, and that orgies with underage kids were alleged on the plane, but never quite mentioning that the two things happened at totally different times. The same old hacks speculated, and then this nonsense got picked up by FOX News and The Daily Mail, which printed it all with just enough ‘claimed’ and ‘suggested’ weasel words added. There was even a book was written talking about a sex slave island that Epstein flew Clinton to, which just happened to come out a few days after the second debate between Hillary Clinton and Trump, which meant another round of stupid stories on FOX and The Daily Mail. And yes, this crap got posted here on dakka, along with every other fiction invented during the democratic nadir known as the 2016 US presidential election.

And that’s really the point of all this. Both Clinton (through her husband) and Trump had loose ties to the billionaire sex criminal. Because these are all rich and powerful people, they move in the same circles. When it was revealed the guy was a sex criminal, they both distanced themselves as fast as possible. But where this differs is that one side of politics used that connection as a springboard in to a whole new web of insane conspiracy nonsense, and the other side simply didn’t.

This is a clear case study in how the two sides of US politics are very different. It hasn’t always been this way, I doubt it will be this way much longer (hopefully because the right gets its gak together, more likely because the left will decide they too would rather win than be sensible and adopt the same tactics).

But right now the difference is what it is. And maybe people who read that ridiculous Clinton Epstein stuff and believed it might just be sparked in to being a little less gullible. Or maybe some other people who feel that need to defend the right all the time might just start to feel just a little embarrassed about who they’re trying to argue for.

 whembly wrote:
As someone who's voted for the A'llepoing Stoner, I'm in a unique position to Calvin Ball this and not give a gak.

Irrelevant, your vote wasn't the issue. Your attempt to discuss the Trump speech in terms of which voting groups it will work for or against was the issue here. What matters here is ignoring the actual importance of governing your fething country. You know, laying out policy objectives, arguing for those objectives and means with facts and reasoning. Stuff Trump hasn't done at all in the year he's been at the front of national politics.

Trump ignored that stuff, his voters ignored that stuff, and now the country is wandering forward wondering when Trump is going to even hint at what he actually wants to do. And giving a speech repeating all the gak from his campaign, plus some new bitterness, is not how a fething country gets run.

At some point you have to realise governance matters. The actual non-political, basic act of guiding a country forward. That there is more to this than cheering for a team, or worrying about the partisan issue of the day.

Trump: doing all the gak that people hated Clinton for and more; still not as bad as Clinton.

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

At what point do you stop treating this as a horse race where you've $5 on the red horse, and start treating like the governing of the most powerful country in the world?

Oh... I'm sorry, you must be confused for someone who gives a gak.

As someone who's voted for the A'llepoing Stoner, I'm in a unique position to Calvin Ball this and not give a gak.

So while I can cheer on Trumpo for some of the good things he has done, the stuff that I don't like... well, I don't feel bad for being like:


'cuz I know the alternative would be just as bad or even worst.

You are not in a unique position. You are just giving yourself excuses. By not voting for Trump, you have put yourself in the "unique" position of agreeing with the majority of voters.

You may not understand what unique means, so I am here to break it to you easy.

Welcome to America, you are not a special snowflake.

 d-usa wrote:
Trump: doing all the gak that people hated Clinton for and more; still not as bad as Clinton.

Well, at least he's not a woman, what with blood coming out of wherever.

And after a Kenyan ruined the country, somebody had to clean up the mess.

Who needs "facts"?

 sebster wrote:

At some point you have to realise governance matters. The actual non-political, basic act of guiding a country forward. That there is more to this than cheering for a team, or worrying about the partisan issue of the day.

But, Sebster, since the Republicans have always targeted the government being the issue and always trying to make governance look as it actually doesn't matter for their basing vote, why do you think it would matter to them? That's actually what they always were against, after all.

I was just thinking of something. I know it's costing A LOT of money to guard Trump's wife in NYC. However, what is the "normal" cost of guarding her had she decided to lounge around in the white house? Hypothetically, if the cost per day to guard her in the White House is 90% of that to guard her in NYC, it's really not that big of a deal?

 cuda1179 wrote:
I was just thinking of something. I know it's costing A LOT of money to guard Trump's wife in NYC. However, what is the "normal" cost of guarding her had she decided to lounge around in the white house? Hypothetically, if the cost per day to guard her in the White House is 90% of that to guard her in NYC, it's really not that big of a deal?

No it costs a lot more since she isn't in the same house as the president where they already have protection for him. Unless you think owning two houses is cheaper than one

If the security infrastructure is the same for Melania Trump as for the POTUS and all the other top-level government people in the White House, I'd imagine it'd be much cheaper, simply because it's the same physical location with a lot of overlap.

 Ustrello wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I was just thinking of something. I know it's costing A LOT of money to guard Trump's wife in NYC. However, what is the "normal" cost of guarding her had she decided to lounge around in the white house? Hypothetically, if the cost per day to guard her in the White House is 90% of that to guard her in NYC, it's really not that big of a deal?

No it costs a lot more since she isn't in the same house as the president where they already have protection for him. Unless you think owning two houses is cheaper than one

Washington DC is also setup for a First Family and the protections required. Guarding a skyscraper in NYC that is public property is going to be a large additional expense.

 sebster wrote:


At some point you have to realise governance matters. The actual non-political, basic act of guiding a country forward. That there is more to this than cheering for a team, or worrying about the partisan issue of the day.

Here's the problem....the Republican Party has spent nearly the last decade actively stifling governance and the last 30 building a platform that fundamentally centered around the entire concept that anything even related to "government" is bad and awful. Actual governance is anathema to the fundamental platform the Republican party offered its voters, and "Government is the problem with everything" is the core concept they push to the electorate.

 sebster wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Maybe the book I picked up at Dachau was wrong, but it specified that the Nazi party ran on a socialist ticket. How'd they crack down on themselves?

At a town outside of Auschwitz as we left I purchased a serve of chips. I don't take those chips to be my complete guide to light snacks during the Holocaust because I understand geography alone doesn't actually make a thing have historical accuracy. Perhaps if you focused your reading more on quality than geography you would know that that through its formative years the Nazi party contained a lot of competing, and exclusive strains of though. One of the biggest causes of inter-party friction was between the anti-capitalist and anti-marxist elements. Both groups found common ground in believing that whether it was marxist or capitalists screwing things up, it was definitely an international jewish plot. Hitler led the anti-marxist element, and as he grew in power, he came increasingly in to conflict with the anti-capitalist, socialist element.

To resolve this conflict, Hitler had the leaders of the socialist wing of the party murdered. This is commonly known as the Night of Long Knives. It's more than a bit famous. The book you bought in Dachau might have even mentioned it.

It was purchased INSIDE the Dachau concentration camp memorial. I picked it up as we finished touring the facilities. Bear in mind that my argument wasn't that all Socialists were Nazis, but that the Nazis at least ran on a Socialist platform. With your description of the factions within the Nazi party, this becomes both correct and incorrect. lol Schrodinger's Nazis.

 Just Tony wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Maybe the book I picked up at Dachau was wrong, but it specified that the Nazi party ran on a socialist ticket. How'd they crack down on themselves?

At a town outside of Auschwitz as we left I purchased a serve of chips. I don't take those chips to be my complete guide to light snacks during the Holocaust because I understand geography alone doesn't actually make a thing have historical accuracy. Perhaps if you focused your reading more on quality than geography you would know that that through its formative years the Nazi party contained a lot of competing, and exclusive strains of though. One of the biggest causes of inter-party friction was between the anti-capitalist and anti-marxist elements. Both groups found common ground in believing that whether it was marxist or capitalists screwing things up, it was definitely an international jewish plot. Hitler led the anti-marxist element, and as he grew in power, he came increasingly in to conflict with the anti-capitalist, socialist element.

To resolve this conflict, Hitler had the leaders of the socialist wing of the party murdered. This is commonly known as the Night of Long Knives. It's more than a bit famous. The book you bought in Dachau might have even mentioned it.

It was purchased INSIDE the Dachau concentration camp memorial. I picked it up as we finished touring the facilities. Bear in mind that my argument wasn't that all Socialists were Nazis, but that the Nazis at least ran on a Socialist platform. With your description of the factions within the Nazi party, this becomes both correct and incorrect. lol Schrodinger's Nazis.

The Nazi's were not socialist in the traditional sense that most would recognize. They rejected entirely the fundamental notion of "class struggle". They nationalized no industry nor means of production, they interfered relatively little with the private sector in general (to the extent that it crippled their war economy and put them terminally behind by the time they finally did so), and pretty much all the German industrial and finance oligarch's ran with their platform and hand in hand with the Party. "National Socialism" was an attempt to redefine the term "socialism" to some extent, using the power of the state to push a racial ideology and strong nationalist unitary state structure rather than to fight the economic "class struggle" that socialist movements are built around.

Pretty much no political scientist would put "National Socialism", as a complete ideology, anywhere near the same space on the political spectrum as the more classic "Socialism" that might be recognized by the 19th century Internationals or Marxists.

Do any of you guys have an insight what was supposed to have happened in Sweden ?

 oldzoggy wrote:
Do any of you guys have an insight what was supposed to have happened in Sweden ?

As far as it appears...absolutely nothing happened in Sweden. Trump was just making stuff up.

 d-usa wrote:
Trump: doing all the gak that people hated Clinton for and more; still not as bad as Clinton.

wut.

As bad... if not worst. Not 'he did bad things like clinton, but it's not as bad'.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Trump: doing all the gak that people hated Clinton for and more; still not as bad as Clinton.

wut.

As bad... if not worst. Not 'he did bad things like clinton, but it's not as bad'.

Really, so I guess emails are the equivalent of upturning decades of diplomacy, sexually assaulting women, dubious ties to Russia. But at least he isn't a Clinton amirite?

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Trump: doing all the gak that people hated Clinton for and more; still not as bad as Clinton.

wut.

As bad... if not worst. Not 'he did bad things like clinton, but it's not as bad'.

Really, so I guess emails are the equivalent of upturning decades of diplomacy, sexually assaulting women, dubious ties to Russia. But at least he isn't a Clinton amirite?

You got it. <touches your nose>

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Trump: doing all the gak that people hated Clinton for and more; still not as bad as Clinton.

wut.

As bad... if not worst. Not 'he did bad things like clinton, but it's not as bad'.

Really, so I guess emails are the equivalent of upturning decades of diplomacy, sexually assaulting women, dubious ties to Russia. But at least he isn't a Clinton amirite?

You got it. <touches your nose>

Honestly everything you have said is what is wrong with todays GOP and why most americans see them as a joke

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Trump: doing all the gak that people hated Clinton for and more; still not as bad as Clinton.

wut.

As bad... if not worst. Not 'he did bad things like clinton, but it's not as bad'.

Really, so I guess emails are the equivalent of upturning decades of diplomacy, sexually assaulting women, dubious ties to Russia. But at least he isn't a Clinton amirite?

You got it. <touches your nose>

That's a rather...interesting moral standard there.

At this point I don't think Trump could do anything to overcome "but her emails!" no matter how heinous and destructive. And, at a point like that, if one steps back to look at the larger picture, one has to accept that the email issue, while not invalid originally, is not the core thing here, but a rail that inherent bias rides on that has been taken far beyond anything rational. There's a lot to hate Clinton on, but the emails thing is, in the grand scheme of things, a minor one that has been used as a beatstick far beyond the proportion of what it really represents.

We're all vulnerable to this, but lets be honest about it.

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Trump: doing all the gak that people hated Clinton for and more; still not as bad as Clinton.

wut.

As bad... if not worst. Not 'he did bad things like clinton, but it's not as bad'.

Really, so I guess emails are the equivalent of upturning decades of diplomacy, sexually assaulting women, dubious ties to Russia. But at least he isn't a Clinton amirite?

You got it. <touches your nose>

Honestly everything you have said is what is wrong with todays GOP and why most americans see them as a joke

Sure, 'tis why the GOP is a losing party eh??

How do you explain Democrats losing 900+ seats and feth ton of local elections?

It's all one big con eh?

Problem is that admitting that Trump and other Reublicans are doing the same thing that they spend years attacking Clinton over would also require admitting that the GOP are not doing anything about those same things. Which in turn would require them to admit that they have been played for the past 4+ years.

It's easier to pretend that Trump is different and not as bad than it is to admit that your worldview for the past 4+ was completely wrong.

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Trump: doing all the gak that people hated Clinton for and more; still not as bad as Clinton.

wut.

As bad... if not worst. Not 'he did bad things like clinton, but it's not as bad'.

Really, so I guess emails are the equivalent of upturning decades of diplomacy, sexually assaulting women, dubious ties to Russia. But at least he isn't a Clinton amirite?

You got it. <touches your nose>

Honestly everything you have said is what is wrong with todays GOP and why most americans see them as a joke

Sure, 'tis why the GOP is a losing party eh??

How do you explain Democrats losing 900+ seats and feth ton of local elections?

It's all one big con eh?

Besides the blatant gerrymandering by most red states and the fact more people voted democrat?

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Trump: doing all the gak that people hated Clinton for and more; still not as bad as Clinton.

wut.

As bad... if not worst. Not 'he did bad things like clinton, but it's not as bad'.

Really, so I guess emails are the equivalent of upturning decades of diplomacy, sexually assaulting women, dubious ties to Russia. But at least he isn't a Clinton amirite?

You got it. <touches your nose>

That's a rather...interesting moral standard there.

At this point I don't think Trump could do anything to overcome "but her emails!" no matter how heinous and destructive. And, at a point like that, if one steps back to look at the larger picture, one has to accept that the email issue, while not invalid originally, is not the core thing here, but a rail that inherent bias rides on that has been taken far beyond anything rational. There's a lot to hate Clinton on, but the emails thing is, in the grand scheme of things, a minor one that has been used as a beatstick far beyond the proportion of what it really represents.

We're all vulnerable to this, but lets be honest about it.

No.

Any non-politician or non-powerful people would get vastly different treatment than what Clinton and her cronies received.

She was about to be the most powerful person on the planet as President... and I be damned if acted like it's okay.

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Trump: doing all the gak that people hated Clinton for and more; still not as bad as Clinton.

wut.

As bad... if not worst. Not 'he did bad things like clinton, but it's not as bad'.

Really, so I guess emails are the equivalent of upturning decades of diplomacy, sexually assaulting women, dubious ties to Russia. But at least he isn't a Clinton amirite?

You got it. <touches your nose>

Honestly everything you have said is what is wrong with todays GOP and why most americans see them as a joke

Sure, 'tis why the GOP is a losing party eh??

How do you explain Democrats losing 900+ seats and feth ton of local elections?

It's all one big con eh?

There's a lot that has to do with districting and population distributions.

One will notice, in national popular vote counts on just about anything, the GOP isn't winning the majority of votes. When it comes to straight popularity contests, the GOP isn't winning, and hasn't been for many years, and they know that and play to the specifics of the election. There's a lot behind that due to the way elections are held and where and how votes are counted, the last presidential election being a stellar example.


Same way a GK army can be smashed and broken and nearly driven from the field after inflicting negligible casualties on an IG opponent but still "win" simply because of discrete unit count kills in a 40k game. By most standards of victory, the IG army would be the victors, but because 40k decides to just count kills by units regardless of their actual value with no weighting of any kind, small casualties have a dramatically outsized impact while losses of powerful and valuable units and have a muted impact on the end victory condition.

 whembly wrote:

No.

Any none-politician or none-powerful people would get vastly different treatment than what Clinton and her cronies received.

I don't disagree.

She was about to be the most powerful person on the planet as President... and I be damned if acted like it's okay.

Again, I don't necessarily disagree. I didn't vote for Clinton because I don't believe she would have been a good president for many reasons. My problem here is that you're overlooking, handwaving, or accepting far more numerous and arguably far more egregious instances of misbehavior, poor actions, and ineptness by her primary opponent and ultimate electoral victor just because he's got an R next to his name or just because his last name doesn't start with a C.

Hate Clinton by all means, but lets not equate the issues or pretend that Trump was a better choice or had fewer issues.

I wouldn't enjoy a swift kick in the balls either. In fact I'd really prefer not to ever have to deal with that. But when it comes down to it, I'm not going to pretend a swift kick in the balls is the same as sticking my hand in a meatgrinder, or, after getting the meatgrinder, be thankful that I avoided that swift kick in the balls because of the meatgrinder.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Trump: doing all the gak that people hated Clinton for and more; still not as bad as Clinton.

wut.

As bad... if not worst. Not 'he did bad things like clinton, but it's not as bad'.

Really, so I guess emails are the equivalent of upturning decades of diplomacy, sexually assaulting women, dubious ties to Russia. But at least he isn't a Clinton amirite?

You got it. <touches your nose>

Honestly everything you have said is what is wrong with todays GOP and why most americans see them as a joke

Sure, 'tis why the GOP is a losing party eh??

How do you explain Democrats losing 900+ seats and feth ton of local elections?

It's all one big con eh?

There's a lot that has to do with districting and population distributions.

It's more complicated than that... yes, it has it's impact, on both sides. It's used to strengthen the incumbent...

But simply saying 'but districting' and nothing else is really weak-sauced.

I mean, if redistricting is the primary reason why they control the US House... how does that explain the US Senate?

One will notice, in national popular vote counts on just about anything, the GOP isn't winning the majority of votes. When it comes to straight popularity contests, the GOP isn't winning, and hasn't been for many years, and they know that and play to the specifics of the election. There's a lot behind that due to the way elections are held and where and how votes are counted, the last presidential election being a stellar example.

That argument again... national popular vote is meaningless. You're trying to extrapolate National Popular vote under the current system, would be the same under a true NPV system... that's foolhardy man.

 whembly wrote:

It's more complicated than that... yes, it has it's impact, on both sides. It's used to strength the incumbent...

But simply saying 'but districting' and nothing else is really weak-sauced.

I mean, if redistricting is the primary reason why they control the US House... how does the explain the US Senate?

Hence why I said "a lot" rather than "all". I'm not going to make it out like the Republicans haven't had some resonation with some groups, as they absolutely have.

That said, the people that also are most firmly in the R's camp are also those that vote the most, old white people, which always helps. I'm not trying to use that fact as some sort of social justice point, but rather that voting patterns differ amongst the electorate.

The Democrats have a much larger and more inclusive base, but have trouble getting them to the polls, some for practical reasons and others because they're just hard to get to do anything. Working single minority mothers and activist college students are often absent at the polls (albeit for different reasons), while seemingly every old caucasian male votes. That's another strength of the Republican party, their base is smaller, they have self selected out of viability with many groups, but those groups don't necessarily vote enough to make their voices meaningful either. This is part of how the Democrats manage to routinely snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

That argument again... national popular vote is meaningless.

Right, but for the reasons I just explained above, because the system is not designed to incorporate that, and, going back to Ustrello's comment about how the GOP is not particularly popular at large, can be gamed and won in ways that don't require approval and backing of the American people at large. One doesn't necessarily need to be popular or widely accepted to win the presidency, one can gain the presidency with as little as a quarter of the popular vote. As such, electoral victories do not necessarily reflect popular acclaims or mandates as they are often portrayed given the US election systems.

The Republicans sure seem obsessed with declaring themselves the winners of the national popularity contest for it to be so meaningless. That good old "red tide."

The meaningless popular vote that Trump keeps taking about winning if you don't count all that fraud? The electoral college mandate that was so huge that almost all recent presidents beat it?

 whembly wrote:
'cuz I know the alternative would be just as bad or even worst.

I whole-heartedly disagree, and I can't imagine why you'd think this way. Unless maybe if you put a really disproportionate importance on stuff like abortion? (I'm not saying you do, I have no idea. It's just the only reason I can think of for thinking Hillary is as bad as Trump. But I can't think of everything.)