True, it also means to leave people to their opinion. The reduction to government is certainly short sighted at least.
People reiterating it to justify banning people have to live with the fact that they too might get excluded.
We have certainly dogmatic speech rules around racism and sexism while most people don't really perpetuate it, but can still be penalized if some schmuck thinks you have crossed a line of imagined decency.
Companies are really bad at policing speech, of course it would be restrictive. People demanding more of it should just be ignored because they haven't thought it through.
I would argue that this is the fault of the 2-party system rather than of said 63M people. The choice was between Clinton and Trump, there was not really a sane option. Maybe if Sanders was a candidate..
> The choice was between Clinton and Trump, there was not really a sane option.
Yeah, that's not true. If you believe the last 4 years would have been the same or worse under Clinton, I don't know what to tell you - you're suffering from Clinton Derangement Syndrome and are utterly disconnected from reality.
Am I though? It was her husband that bombed Serbia (as far as I know trump did not start any full scale war unlike the previous 3 presidents - see libya, iraq, afghanistan, yugoslavia, etc), her husband that did the whole encryption export bullshit (and she was in the gov in both cases), she herself supported the TPP. Maybe with her there would be slightly less concentration camps at the border with mexico and net neutrality would remain a thing but I can't really think of many more things that she would do better.
Regardless, it is not whether about "the last 4 years would have been the same or worse under Clinton" but rather whether "the last 4 years would have been significantly better with clinton". If I was given the option between horse poop and elephant poop I would choose neither.
EDIT: Maybe she would have defended syria during the Turkish invasion but I seriously doubt it.
> rather whether "the last 4 years would have been significantly better with clinton".
The fact that you can question whether almost literally anyone else as President would be "significantly better" than the trash fire that is the current US situation is astonishing.
> If I was given the option between horse poop and elephant poop I would choose neither.
The thing is, in politics, you don't get to "choose neither" because you get one or the other and that choice, regardless of how pure and glowy you feel inside about your moral high ground, has direct and lasting consequences for everyone in the country (and, to some extent, outside it too.)
>The fact that you can question whether almost literally anyone else as President would be "significantly better" than the trash fire that is the current US situation is astonishing.
Depends where you live I guess. I have quite a few friends in the Middle East or in Damascus who are happy to not have been bombed. There's absolutely no doubt that Hillary was much more of a war hawk than trump has been. I'd even say he has been the least hawkish president in the past 40 years.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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 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?
People reiterating it to justify banning people have to live with the fact that they too might get excluded.
We have certainly dogmatic speech rules around racism and sexism while most people don't really perpetuate it, but can still be penalized if some schmuck thinks you have crossed a line of imagined decency.
Companies are really bad at policing speech, of course it would be restrictive. People demanding more of it should just be ignored because they haven't thought it through.