The big problem is not Trump. It is "Trumpism"

[Dill]

(05-07-2019, 01:15 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I think the issue is that there were 2 non-viable candidates. So how do you pick? Do you take the guy with no experience in government, a lot of bad experience in business, allegations of sexual assault, racism, sexism, general bigotry and hatred? Or do you take the woman with more controversies and investigations than we'd ever seen in a modern candidate (well, at the time) that was still given major consideration?

From either side's perspective, the other's candidate was the exact worst person for the job. And, for an awful lot of people, their own candidate was mostly just "better than that other piece of shit."

That's not how elections should be run. You should actually WANT your candidate to be president. It shouldn't really have much to do with making sure the other candidate definitely does not get into office (although the differences in those two statements is subtle).

I don't know what the DNC was thinking throwing their hopes on the back of Hillary. And now they're potentially doing the same thing with Biden.

If you are thinking about a steady, competent president, you take the woman with the experience who remains calm and focused during debate, not the misogynist grifter who ran business after business into the ground, frequently loses his temper in public, buys into conspiracy theories, laments we didn't "keep the oil," and didn't know what the nuclear triad is but wants nukes on the table.

You pick mentally stable candidate over the unstable.

That each side believed the other's candidate was the exact worst person for the job does not mean that each side's candidate was the exact worst person for the job.