Hacker News Reader

Comment by d7oaks | Hacker News Reader

I disagree. I think Marco’s point, which I strongly agree with, is that donating to Trump goes beyond just supporting a political candidate that you don’t happen to agree with. The fact that Trump has some valid policy ideas is completely besides the point. Amongst other things he is inciting racial and ethnic hatred, undermining trust in American democracy, encouraging violence and legitimising sexual assault. When you donate to Trump you are supporting this behaviour just as much as his policy ideas. This is the problem and is what is completely immoral in my opinion.

I think I should also mention that I am not a US citizen and do not live in the US so I speak as an outsider here.

View on HN

So it's ok supporting Hillary even though she is largely responsible for huge parts of US foreign policy having sacrificed hundreds of thousands of innocent people as collateral damage for a bigger political goal.

Yet somehow the very words of Trump is immoral.

I guess I just don't get it.

She wasnt with Billy Bush while condemning people to die so it's not entertaining enough for people to care.

> So it's ok supporting Hillary even though she is largely responsible for huge parts of US foreign policy having sacrificed hundreds of thousands of innocent people as collateral damage for a bigger political goal.

I'm 99% certain that the Republican party is as deeply entrenched in the foreign policy directly responsible for the War on Terror, the War on Drugs (and all of the "lovely" people in Central/South America associated with that conflict), and many other conflicts related to the Cold War (Iran, the first Indochina War, Malayan emergency, Suez Crisis, Congo, Angola, Cuba, Nicaragua, Rhodesia, Mozambique, India-Pakistan, Libya, Cambodia, Chile, Israel and its neighbours, Afghanistan in the 70s, Grenada, Panama and many others).

Every conflict has two sides so let's not pretend that other actors aren't working the opposite side. But let's also not pretend that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats are somehow more responsible for the consequences of US foreign policy. Every Western nation and its government is actively involved in this policy to some degree.

Largely != solely. Did she actually do policy work as secretary of state? Did the work cause collateral damage at least in the thousands? Pretty sure the answer is yes.

Is this conspiracy theorizing or a serious statement? Either way it seems to seriously sacrifice your credibility and the spirit of the reality-based analysis your first comment invoked.

Let's take a reality-based approach to Libya, for example, often cited as Hillary's fault. In reality, it's hard to blame Hillary when the decision to engage in Libya was Obama's. In reality, it's hard to blame Obama when it was France and Great Britain that instigated the mission from the beginning and begged the US' help. In reality, it's hard to blame France and Great Britain when the simple, uncontroversial fact is that Gaddafi was a dictator/torturer/human-rights-abuser of epic proportions that had systematically destroyed political and civil institutions in his country guaranteeing a power vacuum when he was deposed. With this chain of responsibility in mind which likely equally applies to other foreign policy decisions, it's ridiculous to claim that Hillary is "largely responsible for sacrificing innocents". That's the kind of hyperbole that lacks any basis in reality.

I think this argument does more harm than good. Repeating "Trump is a bad man!" ad nauseam and shaming people for supporting him only makes them feel like outsiders, and outsiders double down.

The alternative is just as bad even if she's not as flagrant about being a criminal. Trust in "American Democracy" should be undermined because it's a garbage concept. It's all about whoever gets people like you to ignore their side's crimes and shout about how horrible the other side is.

The line of reasoning is that supporting a political candidate of a major political party in a political race for a political office is OK, fine, and normal in the general case. It's a key right that we need to maintain a free society. Supporting this particular candidate of this particular party in this particular race for this particular office is not, because it's different for a host of reasons.

I understand the logic. The thing is, every single office, race, candidate, and election is unique. There will always be some reason why this logic applies. Where do we draw the line? There are only two sane places that don't rest entirely on someone's personal mores - all or none. I'm inclined to lean towards people being "allowed" to make their own choices without being Othered for it.

That's what tolerance is - accepting people who make choices you personally loathe. Real tolerance is often a deeply uncomfortable thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com