There is a rather weird form of argument I often find used by Americans.
It goes like this: ” ‘A’ is bad and ‘B’ is hugely bad. This means that you should not have a preference between the two as they are both bad.”
This is like saying if I have a choice between a cold and meningitis, I should not chose the cold. If I have a choice between Stalin and Pence, I should not protest about the possibility of Stalin.
So it goes: Clinton was probably going to continue the Bush wars in the ‘Middle East’ – ok that’s bad.
Trump has threatened to use nukes in the Middle East, supports Russian tactics in the area, and wants to exterminate members of ISIS and their families, and of course continue the wars with massive increases in military spending. Trump also threatens US allies, to make it more likely the US will have to do this by itself. Hugely bad.
The argument is that you can’t possibly object to Trump as they are both equally bad.
Clinton supports Wall Street. bad
Trump supports Wall street and wants total deregulation to allow companies to rip people off without the remotest fear of being held responsible. Hugely bad.
But there is really no difference.
Clinton is said to be sympathetic to fossil fuel companies (despite Republicans previously arguing that she wasn’t) – ok bad.
Trump will support fossil fuel companies, force constructions of pipelines, allow fossil fuel companies to write his policies (not just on energy but apparently on foreign affairs), remove controls over pollution and environmental damage and so on. Hugely bad.
No difference, so can’t object to Trump.
Clinton supports a State.
Trump supports the State and massive police action, removal of important data from websites, large scale, deportations and threatens any independent comment and the judiciary. Appoints more people with vested interests to his Cabinet than anyone in living memory.
This is obviously the same thing.
Even if my facts are wrong, and I hope they are not, these strange argument patterns are what I experience almost daily.