I wasn't agreeing with the claims against Trump. I think they are wrong. I was commenting on the fact that you can find arguments for all those claims for Clinton. Which cancels out the argument - and requires each claim to be taken by itself without supporting evidence and reasoned arguments.

The libs got to use to not having to back up their claims through a confirmation bias from their echo chamber.

What I don't understand is that you're telling us how you feel bullied by the libs using generalities, and in doing that you're labeling me a "lib" and doing so in a way that comes across as talking down to me.

I'm not defending the behavior of Democratic Party supporters, but can you recognize the hypocrisy in your behavior just now?

Racist is an attribute of a group. Libs is the name of a group. I think its different.

I am not using libs as a derogatory term. Liberals vs conservatives. Left vs right. I think the division is pretty clear.

I absolutely don't mean to come across talking down to you :)

On the internet, without body language, it's hard to read tone of delivery. Thanks for the note back, and cool :-)

Except they're a classic smokescreen - every time one is refuted (and they all are, through expensive pointless investigation) another is invented to fill airtime.

This is where I disagree. There are so many analagous examples for Clinton its not funny.

This election I really saw the "liberal media" that everyone always talks about. Clinton had such a history that it made it clear as day. "Super predators", Jewish slurs, all the emails, Hillary's treatment of women after Bill's affairs, etc, etc.

Look at the NYTimes front pages during the election.

> "Well, you know the other person is just as bad as my choice, so that makes it OK"

That is perfectly logical in a 2 (effectively) candidate election

> justifying both candidates' character flaws

> so that makes it OK

How? This is your interpretation.

If you have a choice of two, you must pick one. You have to weight up the options. choosing one doesn't automatically mean endorsing it as the post possible choice, but just the better of the given options.

No, you don't. Most democratic voting systems allow abstention for precisely this reason. In the UK you're allowed to 'spoil' your ballot paper so that it's deemed invalid.

If done properly then abstention is a perfectly valid alternative to not voting at all, because your vote means it's more difficult for the parties to obtain a majority. If you don't vote then (ideally) you have no effect on the numbers. Whether this is how the US system works, I don't know, hence the ideally.