Hacker Read

jyriand · 2016-11-09 08:05:58+00:00

Let's be honest, if you have to choose between two unacceptable candidates, it's not a choice at all.

indymike | karma 9692 | avg karma 3.23 · | 2021-06-21 01:11:45+00:00

When you have a choice between awful and terrible, you tend to one who is not the incumbent.

blockmarker | karma 291 | avg karma 4.77 · | 2020-05-07 21:38:07+00:00

Just because you don't like the candidate it doesn't mean that nobody else does.

mindslight | karma 12730 | avg karma 1.47 · | 2016-09-11 21:54:49

It's a bit incomplete to act incredulous about the existence of one specific candidate while ignoring how terrible the other mainstream option is as well.

While each of us will have our personal alarms set off harder for one or the other, please work to avoid transmuting this arbitrary difference into actual support for either of the bags of shit.

reply

robjan | karma 3415 | avg karma 2.55 · | 2019-09-12 04:08:27+00:00

You're right. Neither of them are good candidates.

siva7 | karma 3498 | avg karma 3.08 · | 2023-09-21 07:49:21

If you want to end up with no candidates, go on.

danjayh | karma 1237 | avg karma 3.35 · | 2016-09-11 23:39:08

Unsure which candidate you're talking about (both?)? They're both equally awful in different ways.

JAlexoid | karma 1809 | avg karma 1.1 · | 2019-10-22 19:10:58+00:00

Dude... In the two cases you list the least objectionable candidate won. What is your problem? Do you not understand how you rank your options?

rthomas6 | karma 3931 | avg karma 2.95 · | 2020-10-30 16:42:20+00:00

If a candidate is everyone's second choice, I don't think you can call them extreme or single issue.

josho | karma 4149 | avg karma 3.76 · | 2016-10-17 20:33:40

One can reasonably conclude that neither is suitable for the office.

Which is why I find the squabbling over the candidates so interesting. They are both _deplorable_.

reply

CaptSpify | karma 5342 | avg karma 2.15 · | 2016-09-26 20:00:38+00:00

Though I agree one is "comically unqualified", I also believe that neither majority candidate is an acceptable option.

Your view assumes that there are no 3rd party options, which actually takes some time to research.

reply

n-i-m-a | karma 70 | avg karma 6.36 · | 2024-05-13 09:13:10

What happens when neither candidate is your ideal candidate? In my country, it has been decades that people have had to choose between bad and worse. All handpicked by the "system" and not a single one being an ideal candidate for the "people".

Brian_K_White | karma 6250 | avg karma 1.82 · | 2021-12-09 20:38:18

All candidates are by definition, candidates. Someone who you might be willing but they aren't, is not in the set of candidates. IE they have no bearing on this at all.

__MatrixMan__ | karma 5321 | avg karma 2.13 · | 2023-01-25 11:43:10

Worth noting, yes. But it's also not unreasonable to prefer candidates that avoid such environments.

euphoria83 | karma 193 | avg karma 3.27 · | 2015-05-19 16:42:02

I couldn't understand the point of the article. No one will consciously pick a candidate they feel will perform badly.

chief2108 | karma 2 | avg karma 2.0 · | 2011-10-26 15:58:06+00:00

Given two candidates with similar skills, but one with obvious passion and the other not, I'd pick the passionate one every time.

karmajunkie | karma 2448 | avg karma 2.51 · | 2024-02-10 22:48:14

if that’s the only way you’re able to discern a good candidate from a bad one, that speaks far more loudly about you than any candidate.

lhnz | karma 5740 | avg karma 3.66 · | 2013-01-30 05:39:59

No two candidates are ever equivalent.

RandoHolmes | karma 250 | avg karma 0.95 · | 2020-08-30 18:07:20+00:00

How do you know they were bad candidates?

That's the entire point, you don't, you only think you do.

reply

duxup | karma 38842 | avg karma 3.68 · | 2022-01-21 21:04:51

Generally you wouldn’t want to speak poorly about a candidate’s choices to their face.