To the Trump voter,
I can’t express how much I don’t want to be here right now making a post on American politics. A strong belief I live my life by is to respect other’s views on things and not try to change them as long as it does not harm me. That last point is why I am posting this. If Trump is elected in November, it will hurt me directly along with millions of other Americans. I am not using “hurt” in a hyperbolic way–I’m not talking about taxes, or feelings, or opinions. I am saying that by placing a xenophobe into the highest elected office in the most powerful nation, Trump voters will be responsible for making me, an immigrant, scared of my future. But more than me, I feel scared for my Muslim friends, my Black friends, and my Hispanic friends. If you think I am being dramatic, just listen to the man yourself. Listen to what he has to say about people like us–people he think are outsiders. If you do not agree with his foreign or domestic policies but are voting because of other reasons, that is your choice. But do not do it with a clean conscious. A lot of innocent people will suffer when this man becomes president. Again, I do not mean this as a hyperbole. When Bush was president, the other side complained about the war and how many people suffered. When Obama was president, the other side complained about the economy and how many people suffered. All this partisanship makes us numb to emotional appeals. However, as bad as the Democrats think of Bush or the Republicans think of Obama, neither of these men have made it a campaign promise to directly disenfranchise a good portion of the population. No, we have wasted our words complaining about the Bogeyman we wanted to create and now that the real Bogeyman has come, we are speechless.
Trump is a bully. I know because I have been bullied so often in my life. The bullies never gets to me though. What always gets to me–what always tears me apart inside–are the bully’s followers. It’s not the mean things they say, it’s the laughter that echoes around you. Much of my life is dedicated to reading, video games, and computers. I am proud of that choice to this day. The bully is into flashy objects, pretty girls, and his own superiority. We come from different background and he loath people who are different. I love science, math, the bizarre, and the unknown. The bully is proud of his ignorance. He makes it a point that he hates science. That math is useless. That normal is good and you’re not normal. You’re an outsider and we don’t like you. I aspire to learn and create. The bully aspires to take and destroy. To this day, I wonder why so many people follow the bully. Why so many good and decent people believe what he peddles. Why it is “cool” to be anti-intellectual. Why he always gets what he wants. If you are a follower of my blog, regardless of race, gender, or ethnicity, I think you understand these feelings of frustration at someone who you know is evil but everyone else loves them. Someone who opposes everything you believe in and the world rewards him for it. Please do not let the bully win again.
But what about Clinton? Isn’t she evil too? Aren’t we having to choose between “giant douche” and “turd sandwich”? Let me first say that the only insult you can throw at me worse than calling me a Republican is calling me a Democrat. I completely agree that the American political system is a mess and the differences between the two parties is an illusion. I believe that campaigns are just the puppet-show designed to make the “Fourth Estate” money and the wizard behind the curtain is the American Corporation. That is my political view and is the reason why I usually completely ignore politics. However, it is again a mistake to take this election to be just like any other game of charade. Instead of “giant douche” and “turd sandwich” we have “turd sandwich” and “the possibility of thermo-nuclear war.” As bad as it is to eat a turd sandwich, I would rather do that then die in a megaton of radiation because a guy insulted the president on Twitter. We are taught by the media that false equivalence is the same as neutrality. It’s not. The criticisms against Trump is magnitudes worse than the criticisms against Clinton. However, we are led to believe that both candidates are “controversial” and therefore have a hard decision to make. Let’s actually consider all the main criticisms of Clinton in their worse incarnation and assume these criticisms are completely and absolutely true, then we have someone who:
- Messed up the security at Benghazi resulting in the loss of several American lives and then lied to cover it up.
- Took money from big bankers and corporations and the money influenced key policy decisions.
- Storied confidential emails on a non-secure personal server resulting in national secrets being leaked. Then lied to cover up the mistakes.
- Always lies and says exactly what people want to hear.
Okay, that’s pretty bad. But now let’s consider just four of over a dozen main criticisms of Trump
- Has zero experience or knowledge of international policies.
- Has zero experience of domestic policies and is proud of it. Does not understand how the economy works, making basic mistakes like assuming the country can be run like a company. Also cannot run a company successfully either.
- Openly incited a foreign power to hack the US and influence the election. Is a pathological liar since he would lie about small, insignificant things like being his own agent.
- Assuming he tells the truth, he
- Criticized a judge for his ability to rule fairly based on his race
- Made fun of a handicapped reporter
- Disrespects and criticizes war heros, war veterans, and their families
- Says he could get away with murder
That is just horrendous. So let’s take a score. On one hand, Clinton is accused of screwing up foreign policy. However, it cannot be argued that she has years of experience. If I tell you that you need surgery and can choose between a surgeon who’s graduated from medical school and operated for years but messed up once. Or have the surgery performed a businessman who has never done an operation before but claims that he’s applied band-aids to himself before so he basically has the experience. Who would you choose?
Now let’s say all the critics are right and Clinton makes decisions that benefit the rich more than the working class. At least she knows what she is doing even if you believe it is screwing us over. At least she knows basic things like “I shouldn’t destroy the economy because the rich will suffer as well as the poor.” If, on the other hand, we say “fuck the rich, let’s put a shit throwing monkey in charge of the economy,” then maybe, just maybe the poor will get a better deal. Or, more likely, the economy will be covered in shit. And I’m completely glossing over the fact that Trump doesn’t even know the Constitution well enough to differentiate between articles and amendments. The constitution that he would have to be executing.
What about Clinton’s emails? What’s “bad” about the whole email scandal is that it accuses Clinton of being either irresponsible or malicious. And some argue that the way it’s handled shows that the system is tipped in favor of insiders. Okay, valid point. But on the other hand would you say Trump is responsible and virtuous? That it is responsible to incite a foreign nation to hack our election? That the system is tipped against him, a rich real estate mogul whose parents are also rich real estate moguls? I have minimum respect for a man who has lost more money than I will ever make. It’s not just the pot calling the kettle black. It’s as if the kettle has one dark spot and the pot is covered in soot.
Finally we have the accusation that Clinton is a liar. Regardless of the validity of that claim, I would rather be deceived by a smooth talking con-artist than let an ugly monster do exactly what he says. Okay, you might argue, Trump doesn’t mean exactly what he says. The media spins his words to antagonize him. First of all, Trump does not have a sophisticated repertoire of complex double-meanings and tongue-in-cheek humor. He’s not fucking Nietzsche, who requires hours of close reading to parse a single sentence. Even if he is joking about matters like asking for the assassination his political opponent or about the menstrual cycles of a reporter, that sort of brash, fratty, humor should not represent the nation. Some people criticize Obama for being a “comedian in chief” and that Obama misspeaks and sometimes forgets to mention “God” in a speech and they take issue with how he presents our nation to the world. Well I, for one, would rather have a “comedian in chief” than a “clown in chief.” How can we be taken seriously at a nuclear talk when our leader makes a racist joke? How can we participate in trade deals when our leader would not know what a word means on the treaty? It is one thing for an “outsider” to take office. It is a completely different thing to pick someone off the streets and ask them to run the wealthiest country in the world. Being a “politician” is a dirty word these days, but to be a politician is to have skills of persuasion and diplomacy to convince other parties to act in America’s best interest. In meetings with other world leaders, if you make a comment without thinking or you say something out of anger, it may irreparably damage international relationships. Relationships that, like it or not, is the foundation of our economy as well as our security. Even if you were truly misunderstood, you do not get to hold a press conference clarifying what you meant and all is forgiven. You do not get to cry on Twitter about how the whole world is out to get you. There are certain procedures and protocols that require experience to master, and not following them might damage our reputation to the world–as it already has with this election cycle. It is the opposite of making America great. I would rather elect a skilled liar who can bluff America’s best interest in the international stage than someone who “tells it like it is” and throws a tantrum if the other party fails to be convinced.
If Trump is unelectable and Clinton is the “lesser of two evils,” why not vote for a third party? I have not researched enough into Jill Stein or Gary Johnson to form a proper opinion but I know that they are more likely to take votes away from Clinton than from Trump. In that respect, to stop Trump, it would be more advantageous to vote for Clinton than a third party. Famous computer scientist Scott Aaronson made a proposal for vote swapping third party votes in non-swing states for Clinton votes in swing states. That would help the third party get federal funds while still stopping a maniac from winning office. Lastly, if you decide to protest by not voting, then if Trump wins know that you will be part of the good [wo]men who do nothing.
This last part is for those of you who want to vote Trump just to mix things up. Maybe you believe Trump isn’t the best candidate but fuck it, you’re tired of the system or you’re tired of life and maybe if the world burns, there’ll at least be fireworks. Maybe you think America deserves to reap what it sows? As Stephen King puts it: “Conservatives who for 8 years sowed the dragon’s teeth of partisan politics are horrified to discover they have grown an actual dragon.” I understand this sentiment, I used to be a Nihilist too. If you truly believe this, why aren’t you out in the world setting everything on fire? Because as much as you believe in the Chaotic, part of you is anchored in the Lawful. And while the game may seem dull or even painful now, it is rather immature to flip the board and force everyone to start over. Especially if in doing so, you have to look in your friend’s eyes and tell her “your life is going to be more miserable because I want to watch the world burn.”
All this is to say that you should vote for Clinton. Aaronson claimed that he
unhesitatingly endorses Hillary Clinton for president—and indeed, would continue to endorse Hillary if her next policy position was “eliminate all quantum computing research, except for that aiming to prove NP⊆BQP using D-Wave machines.”
So in a similar fashion, I endorse Hillary Clinton for president. I personally don’t believe she is a liar (more than the healthy dose of lying we expect from politicians) or that she is incompetent or that she is in the pocket if big donors. However, even if she was, I still endorse her because fuck Donald Trump. Fuck him and all that he stands for. I will vote for Hilary Clinton even if her next policy was to “ban all console hacking except to provide support to backup loaders” and claim “the Vita has a 2GHz CPU.”
I hope you hated reading this as much as I hated writing this.
P.S: This is the first and only comment I will make on this subject. I will not reply to comments/criticisms here or any other public space except to correct factual mistakes. I will not argue with you about big stupid things like American politics. I will only argue about small stupid things like video game hacking.