Would Hillary have really been a 'lesser evil' compared to Trump?

Submitted by ziq in AskRaddle (edited )

Inspired by:

https://old.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/9t2erh/just_how_hard_are_you_going_to_vote_anyway/e8tjdcz/#e8tjdcz

USAmerican anarchists always go on about voting for the 'lesser evil' from a completely selfish perspective; how the ruler would treat US citizens. They always ignore that the ruler would kill thousands - millions of brown people on the other side of the world. Clinton's hands were already drenched in blood when she ran, how exactly is she a lesser evil?

12

You must log in or register to comment.

NeoliberalismKills wrote

I don't think Clinton would've opened child concentration camps (though I could be wrong). I think leftists tend to underappreciate that the micro differences are real people's lives and real suffering (because they understand that for the rest of the world it doesn't matter). Would Clinton have made a difference for anywhere else besides those on American soil? Not a one.

6

AgitatedStatesOfAmazement wrote (edited )

IIRC those camps have been around since at least Bush and were kept going under Obama

To add:

I do agree though as someone who hopes not to be murdered by a nazi in the next couple years that the left's "voting can never abolish the state and therefore is 100% pointless" mindset annoys the shit out of me. It's not like once voter turnout gets low enough, the state goes "welp, looks like y'all are pretty dissatisfied with this whole ordeal, I guess we'll try socialism now?"

They're correct that imperialism will continue to thrive under a liberal regime just as it does under the current protofascist one, but liberals might at least throw the tens of millions of undocumented, muslim, trans, and otherwise at-risk people living in the US some basic legal protections instead of burning them at the stake to make a point. Allowing fascists to keep winning elections breeds prole infighting.

9

existential1 wrote

Yep. She is not even guaranteed to have been better to the migrants coming considering she was the Secretary of State when the most recent coup in Honduras took place and refused to call it a coup to prevent US "aid" (military support) to the regime that took over. Then that regime continued the previous persecution from the war years with US support.

So... not even brown people on the other side. Brown people right here in the Americas.

5

rot wrote

I wouldn't be that optimistic. Maybe less of a "alt-right" movement? A softer, more feminine boot?

4

SNABSjwkajs wrote

Is a hitman in a tuxedo who kills you with a golden pistol better than the the man who just hits you with a lead pipe?

4

ziq OP wrote

This is exactly what the democrat vs republican debate boils down to.

1

Tequila_Wolf wrote

I don't know; I don't think there's any way to measure.

3

[deleted] wrote

2

Ant wrote

Congo, My Precious might help you with that

things are disgusting and terrible in the US, but they could get vastly worse

5

[deleted] wrote

2

Ant wrote

I see

It seemed to me like you were talking generally when you said "I can't imagine anything worse than what we have now."

which was probably not very charitable an interpretation

I blame the internet

1

[deleted] wrote

2

rot wrote

Gonna have dissagree on point 2. Muslims are the neolibs chosen target

2

ziq OP wrote

you're forgetting that Obama deported more people than any president in history.

2

F_x wrote

I agree with you but even if no one voted, they would still try to keep their power, still exploit other countries so voting to try to protect the people in your country is better than letting them hurt everyone. But again I still have no idea what I agree with so my position has always been to blank vote.

2

rot wrote

When I say vote I mean local or when it really matters. If it were bernie vs trump or something then who's prez matters to our ability to organize. It's all situational.

1