Hacker News Reader

Comment by treehau5_ | Hacker News Reader

The silicon valley bleeding hearts don't like to hear the truth when it doesn't fit their narrative or look good through their valley, rose colored, horn rimmed glasses. Even Mountain View coordinated with her campaign. As much as a self serving narcissist Trump is, I find it equally appalling that she gets so much support. The entire Wallstreet transcript scandal once again got buried by Trump-mania. This will be the most openly corrupt candidate we have ever seen in the history of this country. Presidents have resigned for far less in the past. Democracy is a farce in this country.

View on HN

LOL, most openly corrupt president. Somebody clearly hasn't read much US history.

Andrew Jackson literally handed out political appointments to his supporters and relatives.

Hilary Clinton isn't even close to being the most corrupt. She probably wouldn't even be in the top ten.

>Hilary Clinton isn't even close to being the most corrupt. She probably wouldn't even be in the top ten.

Technically you are right, but this sounds pretty depressing.

At least she didn't make it to the top 10!

Well, there's only been 44 presidents. So top ten is the top 23%. I'd wager she's barely even in the top 50%. There was a shocking amount of corruption during the gilded age.

Also, she's really not that corrupt. So she takes campaign contributions from wall street financiers. So does every other political candidate. She's released all of her tax returns, so we knew what all her financial connections were, even before the emails were leaked.

Don't get me wrong. I don't like her, I don't like her Wall Street connections, and I don't like most of her politics. But I'm still going to vote for her. I at least recognize that she can be a competent president, which is more than I can say about any of the other candidates (and yes, that includes Gary Johnson and Jill Stein).

You just literally said "LUL but Andrew Jackson!" and it sums up basically every Hillary Supporter's defense. It's always "Yeah but _____" and that blank ranges from anything Bush, Colin Powell, Trump, and apparently Andrew Jackson related.

If you could step back and re-read that comment from an objective stance, you can see just how ridiculous it is. How Andrew Jackson has anything to do with anything a modern president would have to face is beyond me. The president today has many more obligations, decisions, power at the push of a button, etc.

Also the irony of your comment as you try to use a president from centuries ago as a reason why Clinton "ain't so bad" -- she too has literally sold a position of power with security clerance to her foundation donor, a man that had absolutely zero business having that sort of security clearance.

I hate to break it to ya my friend, not only is she in the top 10, she's the training model of how to do it. She makes Watergate not look so bad, afterall.

Its hard to tell if such sentiment comes from disappointed people on the far left, or pro Trump trolls concern trolling that Hitlery is the pro corporatist NEOLIB sell out.

"rose-colored horn-rimmed" glasses should give you a hint.

I was adamantly for Sanders, and Democrats in general until I learned that they play even dirtier thank Republicans. They kneecapped one of the most honest person I have ever seen run for president before his campaign even had a chance to get started.

Honestly, the threads underneath my original post give me more insight into how people can stomach voting for her, so it's eye opening at the very least.

"Aw comon! She's not that bad!" basically echos the sentiment my family has, as well, and it's why the status quo will never change.

Next time you convince yourself that Hillary is a great candidate, just know two things: 1. The only reason she even looks appealing as a candidate is because she is literally running against a walking dumpster fire. She is the second most disliked candidate in modern history, next to guess who? Donald Trump. Congrats.

2. Despite all of Trumps scandelous comments and bigotry, she still might actually lose. The polls don't mean anything this election, and 538 has even come out and said that, and even so, he's only down a couple points.

Truly remarkable candidate ya got there, DNC. It took underminding democracy, and the literal biggest turd nugget to run against her for to even have a shot.

> Democracy is a farce in this country.

Where did this claim come from? None of the (many) scandals in the election so far have involved fraudulent voting. Democracy in America is very far from a farce. Instead it's more that you don't like the choices the voters have made.

America's electoral college voting system is a joke though. Not to mention that voting isn't mandatory. Australia solved both of those problems with a preferential, mandatory voting system.

Why is it a joke? It's been around for a couple of hundred years so it can't be that terrible.

Also, it helps avoid the problem of settling close elections--we saw that in Florida in 2000. Without the electoral college the Florida mess would conceivably extend over all 50 states any time there is a close contest.

> It's been around for a couple of hundred years so it can't be that terrible.

Heh. If only everything that is old was good. The all-or-nothing electoral college system:

1. Removes power from all people, because they vote for electors not for the actual candidates.

2. Removes representation of people in both swing and predetermined states, because they don't get represented by their elector (all electors have to vote for the same party, not according to the fraction of their state that voted for party X). However, in a weird twist, not all states require that electors vote for the candidate the state told them to vote for -- meaning that they have insane amounts of power.

3. The way electors are assigned actually means that small states have more voting power than large states -- meaning that you can effectively become president if you can get the right 22% of the USA to vote for you.

Oh, and please note that the electoral college system came about because the founding fathers thought you (the commonman) was too dumb to understand how voting should work. So they gave the power of voting to electors.

Here's some videos on the topic:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90RajY2nrgk

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUS9mM8Xbbw

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

> Not to mention that voting isn't mandatory. Australia solved both of those problems with a preferential, mandatory voting system

How will that stop corruption? Presumably, when someone is being dragged to vote, he'll vote for "the more familiar name", in other words, the name most repeated on TV, in other words, the one who raised the most funds.

If anything, voting should be hard (but fair) so that only people that actually know something about the candidates (and political system) should be able to decided which one is better.

How to do that? No idea.

> How will that stop corruption? Presumably, when someone is being dragged to vote, he'll vote for "the more familiar name", in other words, the name most repeated on TV, in other words, the one who raised the most funds. If anything, voting should be hard (but fair) so that only people that actually know something about the candidates (and political system) should be able to decided which one is better.

You could also (rather than viewing it as an education issue, that "dumb people shouldn't be allowed to vote" [not a quote]) see it as a representation issue. If only the "people who know something" can vote, now you've over-represented a sample of your population.

The only way to be sure that elections have the maximum benefit for everyone is to ensure everyone votes. Allowing people to not vote is not a benefit -- even if you argue that they're votes are not helpful.

And ultimately, in Australia you are allowed (through a legal loophole) to submit invalid votes -- a vote that doesn't count toward any party. The only thing that is mandatory is that you show up. Everyone knows about invalid (donkey) votes, so if someone really wanted to abstain they have an avenue for it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com