Trump Slams Allies in favor of Putin (again)...

[Dill]

(07-20-2018, 10:54 AM)Benton Wrote: That one generally is. HRC — even though she's had fewer illegitimate children, bankruptcies, Russian business deals, distances of sexual assault and paid off fewer porn stars — is irrelevant. Republicans had several candidates to chose. They picked Trump. Saying Trump was better because he was less flawed ignores the fact that there were 72 other Republican candidates for POTUS. Republicans picked Trump.

Saying after the fact that Trump was the only choice because of HRC's emails is like saying you have to rob a bank because starvation is horrible while walking by a half dozen help wanted signs.

LOL sounds like you criticize everything Trump does.

But seriously, you raise the issue of how and to what degree Hillary hate framed--and continues to frame-- voting alternatives for a segment of the voting public. Those "boring" candidates could not beat horrible Hillary because Republican voters would not vote for them.

If you compare Hillary's faux scandals--Whitewater, Vince Foster, Pizzagate--to Trump's real scandals, then they are indeed equally flawed candidates at the level of media imaging. How COULD you choose between them?  But factor in hatred of Washington and BIG GOVERNMENT, and Hillary's biggest plus, experience knowledge of government, becomes just another negative. 

Imaging and energy--Not much has changed if the occasional "hyperbole" of a Trump critic not responsible for national security drowns out the daily hyperbole of the Commander in Chief. An analytic framework which would allow people to scale and prioritize some "flaws" over others, especially in terms of their consequences for the public, is totally absent. Concern for factual record itself is absent.