Re:Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'
by LeifCarrotson on Monday October 17, 2016 @04:07PM
(#12729136)
> What's not acceptable is if a politician is a puppet for donors.
Absolutely! I agree wholeheartedly.
> The amount of money and network it takes to become president in the US is ridiculous, and basically necessitates being dirty and indebted.
I thought we just agreed that politicians should not be puppets? And now they must be dirty and indebted? The situation is definitely ridiculous!
> Also, Clinton is most likely no worse than most previous presidents. There's just considerably more information about her.
That is certainly a rational outlook on the matter. We are definitely in a period where we have more information available.
But something else has changed (some 60 years and just 10 presidents past) - politicians are now evaluated largely according to TV performance, and costs have spiralled out of control. Perhaps when it was much less costly to become president, you didn't need to be dirty and indebted?
> But if you have the choice between that and Trump, I cannot imagine how you could choose the latter.
Only this convoluted bit of logic could possibly suffice: I think Clinton would make an acceptable President, and would continue the status quo. There would be little reform-instead, things would just get a little bit worse. Trump would be awful. However, I think that I (and my son, who will not be 18 in this presidency) could probably survive with only moderate loss of personal resources. As a result of that... experiment, I expect that in coming years the DNC and the country in general would institute various reforms that would be good for the long-term health of the country.
Absolutely! I agree wholeheartedly.
> The amount of money and network it takes to become president in the US is ridiculous, and basically necessitates being dirty and indebted.
I thought we just agreed that politicians should not be puppets? And now they must be dirty and indebted? The situation is definitely ridiculous!
> Also, Clinton is most likely no worse than most previous presidents. There's just considerably more information about her.
That is certainly a rational outlook on the matter. We are definitely in a period where we have more information available.
But something else has changed (some 60 years and just 10 presidents past) - politicians are now evaluated largely according to TV performance, and costs have spiralled out of control. Perhaps when it was much less costly to become president, you didn't need to be dirty and indebted?
> But if you have the choice between that and Trump, I cannot imagine how you could choose the latter.
Only this convoluted bit of logic could possibly suffice: I think Clinton would make an acceptable President, and would continue the status quo. There would be little reform-instead, things would just get a little bit worse. Trump would be awful. However, I think that I (and my son, who will not be 18 in this presidency) could probably survive with only moderate loss of personal resources. As a result of that... experiment, I expect that in coming years the DNC and the country in general would institute various reforms that would be good for the long-term health of the country.