what i remember from the election was jill stein projecting the idea of being unsure which of the two is the lesser evil, which implied the suggestion that maybe it might be trump, but it was an attempt to put them on par with one another, and have voters question their calculus, rather any kind of endorsement of trump. phrased another way, it was a clear suggestion that hillary was at least as bad as trump.

her perspective has, i think, been demonstrated to be fairly reasonable by the unfolding of events in other places in the world, but i can understand how it may ring hollow for those almost solely focused on domestic american politics. arguing that trump may turn out to be a lesser evil in some ways is not an endorsement of him, but an indictment of clinton.

we're in quite a bit of trouble when foresight becomes conflated with treason.

http://www.newsweek.com/2017/09/08/jill-stein-interview-russia-trump-645722.html?utm_source=internal&utm_campaign=right&utm_medium=related2

jagmeet singh must cut his beard