Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> There didn’t seem to be a particularly appealing set of options for the electorate.

I mean, there was one candidate who fawns over dictators, is a felon, always acts in his own personal interest, and had very public plans to try to dismantle democracy and seize ultimate power. Then there was another who would at worst continue the status quo and not try to overthrow the government.

It feels ridiculous to claim there was no appealing option. It’s like being given the option between losing both arms or being slapped in the face and shrugging that none of the options is appealing. At least try to pick the least unappealing.



> at worst continue the status quo

That’s what you have spelled out but failed to appreciate the significance of. For a chunk of the electorate the status quo wasn’t working for them. I see from all the down votes people seem blind to this.

The ‘status quo’ may have been fine for you hence why you think that was better to continue…


> For a chunk of the electorate the status quo wasn’t working for them.

No doubt. But voting for someone who openly makes the worst parts of the status quo worse isn’t a solution either. If the current situation isn’t working for you, choosing to make it more difficult on yourself is nonsensical.

> The ‘status quo’ may have been fine for you hence why you think that was better to continue

I’m not American. But please do elucidate me on which groups exactly were being handed a bad hand by the status quo and are now better off. I think the answer will be quite enlightening.




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: