Clinton's reckless incompetence regarding email servers may rival her voting to surrender the power to Bush to contrive his war as her worse mistake. I do not believe that she was deliberately foolish in either instance, and accept her having acknowledged both mistakes and state that she had learned from them. I do not believe that her opponent is honest enough to ever admit to his mistakes. let alone profit from the experience. I can't pretend that there is no difference.
So, how does it feel to be brainwashed, so easily? (click the below link ) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...leader-who-says-he-backs-Hillary-Clinton.html
Anyone who takes the wacky Quigg seriously when he says he has switched allegiance from Trump to Clinton because he is privy to her "secret agenda" and because he doesn't like the show business performer's wig might try to answer your question. Meanwhile, are actual neo-nazi and white supremacist organizations on record as endorsing Trump? Yes.
From an Italian perspective, I have to remind that even Berlusconi tried and persuade Bush Jr not to attack Iraq [in this he was probably, but he didn't declare this, thinking to the French solution]. As we know it was a useless effort. And Berlusconi, being Italian ... once the fought war was ended ... he sent the troops! To control the territory, I guess not expecting what we had to face: in the Shiite region, already in the early phases, the Shiite leaders organized a real guerrilla Army [supported by Iranian "friends"] and, with good peace of Berlusconi, we had to fight. The luck of Italians [and of British commanders, responsible for the Southern region] was that the Shiite reached a quite equilibrium with the occupying forces [and so the combats ended]. Now, recalls a part, I would say that Iraq has been the most grotesque military operation on large scale run by the "Free World".
It is so obvious what a disaster the fraudulently-contrived fiasco has been that Trump, in lying about having opposed it, has finally convinced the harder dead-enders who worship him to accept that reality.
I feel the two major parties have given the Jim Jones choice of Jonestown to the American People. Arsenic or cyanide. Unless one is brave enough to escape or at least try to escape the yoke of the two major parties choice, you'll end up dead as dead as can be. But very few people, a handful in the grand scheme of things are that brave. Most will vote for whom they consider the lesser of two evils fully knowing they are putting evil into the White House. Such is the all powerful hold our two major parties have over the American people.
Voting is always an exercise in pragmatism. Whether one regards one's choice as the lesser of two evils or the better of two less-than-ideal options is a matter of subjective perspective. Those who cannot distinguish can always refrain from voting or vote for someone who isn't a realistic option.
Trump and Clinton are straight out of fantasy land and are not real options. Unless one puts political party ten thousands miles above country. Vote for the lesser of two evils and suffer the consequences. We all will. Thanks a lot two major parties. You have just proven neither of you give a darn about this country.
I note your refusal to draw distinctions. Nevertheless, one of the two major party candidates will be elected to lead the nation. Wringing one's hands and declaring that neither is good enough does not result in neither being elected. One is a mainstream politician that espouses moderate policies that largely comport with her party's inclusive philosophy, and the other is a show business performer with no experience in governance whatsoever whose divisive, erratic, and impracticable wish list are, in some respects, antithetical to his Party's positions. Neither is ideal, but to express indifference as to which would better lead the nation exposes a disregard for the future of the nation.
For me, evil is evil whether it has an R or a D next to the name. Voting for either one if putting the R or the D way above nation. I'm not wringing my hands, I am fighting for a sane choice that would be good for the nation. Not between horrible and perhaps either less or more horrible. This nation deserves something better than horrible regardless of the degree. I am sorry you feel horrible and evil are acceptable. Then one wonders why government doesn't work, why political parties put their own agenda above the good of the country and its people. Why our elected officials are more loyal to party than nation. Why? Because we accept just like probably 90% of those who go to the polls in November will readily accept horrible to lead this nation. I refuse to choose between arsenic and cyanide. Between death by hanging or death by firing squad.
I voted Clinton 50+ but think she will win with less than 50% because of third party votes. I despise both of them but that's what the corrupt two party system has given us. The demographics favor the democrats but Clintons incompetence leaves the door open for a Trump upset.
Just for information, now [in late July, so a light year far from the elections] it seems that Trump is leading in the polls. http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/25/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-poll/index.html
When I vote, I do not sit in judgment and declare candidates as "evil." I assess the choice I am given, recognize the deficiencies of flawed human beings (as all politicians clearly are), and, given the choices, choose the one that I expect to do the better job. In this instance, superior consistency and stability with the greater competence afforded by experience allows me to arrive at a practical preference.
The best candidate for president regardless of political party in my opinion are: 1 Libertarian Johnson 2.Green Party Jill Stein 3. Constitutional Party Castle A lot of third parties have yet to nominate their candidate, my Reform Party is one of them. I would place each and every one of their nominees ahead of Trump and Clinton if one is looking to elect a president good for this country.
I can imagine many folks being better than Clinton or Trump, but the reality will be Clinton or Trump. Realistically, Clinton is a far sounder choice.
Wow! See! Look at that! That's so racist! Hillary, the democrats, you don't own blacks! You don't own women or other minorities. But you treat them like they are in your pocket. They will do what you want and you owe them nothing. Voting slavishly for democrats and staying on the plantation is what the democrats are counting on. I hope blacks and Hispanics wake up this election and tell the democrats that they don't own you. Oh, and the gender gap for Trump is down to 4%. For Crooked Hillary, it's 14 or 15% with men. I noticed that you didn't say that Trump has men and whites. Whites are 68% of the population.
I would say that this time US electors could also ponder about the "startup period" [in democracy we cannot say "they should", they might ...]. The confrontation between the two main candidates offers a level of comparison which is not that common to "enjoy". Usually candidates, once elected, have to disentangle themselves through the insidious startup period [a nightmare for all politicians elected to administrative or government offices]. Now we've got a candidate who could even lead the startup period, since Mrs Clinton, from a managerial perspective, is absolutely qualified to run an administration from the Oval Office. This said, it's all obvious that expertise doesn't mean leadership and it doesn't ensure that the elected President will endorse the most suitable policies for the countries. But ... these elections risk just to be this: a confrontation of not essential skills and qualities. Clinton's expertise VS Trump's charm; Clinton's slyness VS Trump's leadership skills ... as I have underlined since the beginning, these elections will be "personality guided" more than usual [even for US] and political considerations will be confined beyond the veil of the Great Match.
I guess I should go and hide. You used the racist word against me. The truth is the truth. According to the data on whites: "Now, according to the latest Post-ABC poll released last week: Donald Trump received 65 percent support among white registered voters without a four-year college degree, compared with 46 percent among white college graduates, a 19-point gap. If the margin holds, it would easily be the largest education gap among whites in presidential elections since 1980." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...he-white-vote-in-ways-weve-never-seen-before/ So, uneducated white guys are voting for Trump and less than half of the educated ones are. It's still a sad day when educated people vote for Democrats.
To each his own. If some of the very smaller third parties had the cash to spend like the Republicans and Democrats, it has been estimated Clinton will spend 2 billion this year trying to win the office of the Presidency, Trump considerately less. But that is only because many of the usual Republican mega money donors so far have refused to donate to his campaign. Still it is estimated he will spend between 1 to 1.5 billion. Compare that to Gary Johnson 2-3 million. Then throw all the media coverage with none going to other candidates, viola, a two party monopoly that will always be. Sometimes competence and who is good for the country should take over than just voting for someone who one thinks can win. That is unless rooting and voting for a winner is vastly more important than trying to get someone into that office who would be good for the country. Voting seems to have become more like rooting for one's favorite sports team than trying to put the best qualified and competent person into whatever office. My team, right or wrong, my team good or bad, my team or my party. Just what the founding fathers and framers feared would happen when political parties formed. They call political parties factions and feared once they came into being it would be political party over country every time. By nominating Trump and Clinton, both the Republican and Democratic party proved that. So you will very willing and with full knowledge for for a person you know will be bad for this country only because you know she has a chance to win. It is said we get the government we deserve. If we are willing to put bad people into office, we have no complaints on whatever type of government we get. We asked and deserve whatever comes down the pike.
The duopoly has engineered a self-perpetuating stranglehold on power that is far more insidious than voter suppression in manipulating the democratic process. Erecting formidable bureaucratic hurdles and a financing permissiveness that licenses a privileged elite to control politicians - who even issue their kindly old Geppettos invisibility cloaks whilst doing so - has resulted in a abysmal wealth gap and a widespread, justified cynacism in the populace. (I hesitate to say the "electorate" since many will refuse to bother voting.) Ironically, disenchantment with the GOP had reached critical mass, and resulted in the abandonment of its establishment politicians wholesale, and a crass demagogue with no experience in governance seizing the presidential nomination. Democrats, not as frustrated with the President as Republicans are with their leaders in Congress, doubled down on their 'business as usual' establishment option. I expect and hope that the populism that Sanders has tapped will endure and transform American politics after Clintonism and Trumpery have been consigned to the dust bin of history. Gary Johnson and Bill Weld being allowed a voice at the presidential and vice presidential debates could hasten the process. I'd like to see public polls regarding their inclusion. In the meantime, as for, "So you will very willing and with full knowledge for for a person you know will be bad for this country only because you know she has a chance to win," no one "knows" who will be "bad for this country" but many are more comfortable with the known than the unknown. .
Sure, because you know, white people are stupid and uneducated unlike their black counterparts who all are smart and have college educations.
It's just his demographics....the ONLY group Trump has done well with consistently... are white non-college educated males. He does bad or terrible with every other demo. Including college educated males, not to mention blacks, Latinos, and women (across the board). - - - Updated - - - Explain why blacks in a majority vote Democratic....without insulting them. Go!
