(Constantly attack/over promise/be willing to under deliver).

Isn't this one of the biggest problems with democracy? Candidates say whatever they want and then deliver something else entirely.

We shouldnt be encouraging that behaviour by voting by people who do that as if to say "look how smart that guy his, he's so clever at tricking people".

We don't want a used car sales man.

Virtually every politician does that one, though. That's a core component of how to run for any office.

The public's goal is to try and parse out as much of the bullshit as possible.

(Constantly attack/over promise/be willing to under deliver).
 

 
Isn't this one of the biggest problems with democracy? Candidates say whatever they want and then deliver something else entirely.
We shouldnt be encouraging that behaviour by voting by people who do that as if to say "look how smart that guy his, he's so clever at tricking people".
 
We don't want a used car sales man.

Well, you can always swear loyality to the King of England again. :)

Note that I'm not joking... a king wouldn't be that bad. It would still suck, still be the same shit as democracy, only then you wouldn't have to feed 500 parlamentarians who do nothing at all. In summary, it would be cheaper.

It's not like the world we live in is that much different from the feudal world. You only think it is, you think you have freedom, and you think your opinion matters. In reality, there's people governing you as they please, they do just what they want, and your opinion or freedom is worth shit.

England currently has a Queen...

As terrible as Trump's treatment of women is, I personally am most worried over how much support someone who opening calls committing international war crimes is getting. That was scary enough to start with, but then those claims about him asking three times about why he couldn't use nukes?

I would much prefer a corrupt politician gaming the system for their own favour, like any other, over someone who fails to understand Nuclear Warfare and still wants to be the President of the USA and who thinks the war on terror can be won by applying more terrorism to it.

As terrible as Trump's treatment of women is, I personally am most worried over how much support someone who opening calls committing international war crimes is getting. That was scary enough to start with, but then those claims about him asking three times about why he couldn't use nukes?

More than someone who openly advocates attacking a Russian Ally/setting up a no-fly zone over Russian protected space?

Trump hasn't given any indication of being a war monger, Hillary has, from past experiences with her leadership, and her current trajectory "Fuck Russia, let's bomb their ally/set up a no-fly zone to show them only WE can bomb ISIS (and Russia's ally Assad)"

Trump has shown he's willing to talk about things he doesn't have a grasp of, but his actual argument when pressed is "I'll hire people who know what they're doing. I'm just a deal-making businessman". That's a completely valid argument for me. In fact, that's extremely preferable than having a president try to determine policy/reactions on their own. I'd MUCH rather have a cabinet of truly knowledgeable experts working on problems than 1 person we deemed to be the best at everything possible because they said so during a campaign.

The real question is why would you trust Hillary with the military when she's proven she LOVES the policy of "regime change"?

Trump has shown he's willing to talk about things he doesn't have a grasp of, but his actual argument when pressed is "I'll hire people who know what they're doing. I'm just a deal-making businessman". That's a completely valid argument for me.

That's not a valid argument. You're the President of the United States. Your job is to be knowledgeable (again, knowledgeable, not be an expert) on many things to be able to make correct decisions with the information given to you by experts. You don't get to fall back on "I'm just a businessman" so you can hide your ignorance and inability of making global and strategic decisions in the best interests of the US (and by extension our allies).

I have fewer problems with a resurgence of cold war bully tactics with Russia and the US staring at each other and seeing who flinches first, as they have been doing for decades, than I have with someone who would openly advocate for the direct targeted murder of women and children.

That's not a valid argument. You're the President of the United States. Your job is to be knowledgeable (again, knowledgeable, not be an expert) on many things to be able to make correct decisions with the information given to you by experts. You don't get to fall back on "I'm just a businessman" so you can hide your ignorance and inability of making global and strategic decisions in the best interests of the US (and by extension our allies).

It comes with prioritization. I don't think that knowledge is important for the presidency, really. If you look into it, most politicians (even ex presidents) really aren't too bright, they get elected by charisma/sound bytes alone, then rely on competent cabinet members to do all the hard work.

I wouldn't think Trump's presidency would be any different.

If you prioritize experience/knowledge than certainly Hillary is an obvious choice.

I have fewer problems with a resurgence of cold war bully tactics with Russia and the US staring at each other and seeing who flinches first, as they have been doing for decades, than I have with someone who would openly advocate for the direct targeted murder of women and children.

Fair enough. Personally I don't mind targetting friends/family who had knowledge of terrorists in advance and did nothing. But a lot of people feel like that's a moral boundry we shouldn't pass.

Does Hillary's assassinating world leaders cause any moral issues with you, or is it ok?

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/

Things like that scare me more than Trump pissing off some other countries.

It comes with prioritization. I don't think that knowledge is important for the presidency, really. If you look into it, most politicians (even ex presidents) really aren't too bright, they get elected by charisma/sound bytes alone, then rely on competent cabinet members to do all the hard work. I wouldn't think Trump's presidency would be any different. If you prioritize experience/knowledge than certainly Hillary is an obvious choice.

And all these dumb as rocks Presidents led us to prosperity and security? Made the right decisions? Dubya was certainly put into the "aren't too bright" category by many and look how that turned out. Having smart people around you does you no good if you can't make good or the right decisions.

That's not a valid argument. You're the President of the United States. Your job is to be knowledgeable (again, knowledgeable, not be an expert) on many things to be able to make correct decisions with the information given to you by experts. You don't get to fall back on "I'm just a businessman" so you can hide your ignorance and inability of making global and strategic decisions in the best interests of the US (and by extension our allies).

It comes with prioritization. I don't think that knowledge is important for the presidency, really. If you look into it, most politicians (even ex presidents) really aren't too bright, they get elected by charisma/sound bytes alone, then rely on competent cabinet members to do all the hard work.

I wouldn't think Trump's presidency would be any different.

So basically, anyone on this forum is qualified to be president? Some really thin arguments. Charisma isn't actually very useful once you are president - I think results do matter at that stage. I think its probably important that your colleagues actually respect you.

Also, look at successful businesses today, rarely are they lead by paper thin spokes people unless, of course, its something like real estate which any dumbo can do.

it's not concerning that he's sexually assaulted people

If the allegations are true, it's impeachment worthy. But they're just allegations.

it's not concerning that he's got a hard on for Russia

Clinton has a hard on for Germany, so what? The cold war's over. Trump's also never even spoken with Putin directly.

it's not concerning that the Russians favor the xenophobe

Russia favors the one who ISN'T saying we need to set up a no-fly zone over their ally? Really? Big surpise there. Maybe if Clinton wasn't a war monger Putin wouldn't have a preference.

it's not concerning that most people are convinced that his plan will destroy the US

What the voters believe matters. Which is it, do you want other nations to influence American politics, or just not Russia?

it's not concerning that he's threatened to not accept the results of the election or that he's encouraging insurrection

We have recounts for a reason. It's not undemocratic at all to suggest rejecting the results unless proven legitimate. Give 1 instance of him encouraging insurrection (Calling out corruption isn't insurrection).

it's not concerning that he's attacked so many people for disagreeing with him, it's not concerning that he believes the media should be limited

It's a strategic choice that appears to make him look like a dick, but it's certainly worked.

In essence it insulates him against attacks, which turned out to be necessasry, as the media's been attacking him 24/7. A politician who says "The media's great, but here's why all these allegations are wrong" is just going to get torn apart over time. Trump takes the easier to defend stance of "The media's corrupt, and a bunch of stupid idiot losers. They're mad because I'm winning". The media gave him a valid path to continue this by actually being proven to have corruption within.

It's not concerning that he's undermining the foundations of democracy? Oh wait no, that's big bad Hillary. Not the xenophobe. The poor xenophobe never can do anything wrong. Saint Trump right? Not the guy who's shown active tendencies towards being a dictator. It's not concerning at all.

What has Trump done to undermine democracy? What debates/forums has he rigged? How has he shown tendencies towards being a dictator when Hillary's the one whose tried to rig the election (Both the Primary and the general!), when Trump's respected (but insulted) the democratic process?

But you know why I'm voting for Hillary? Because I don't want to have to worry about being kicked out of the country by a fucking orangutan that hates anything that isn't white. The economy will not certainly tank. The US will at least have a chance under someone who knows what he/she's doing. This orangutan has no fucking clue at all.

But you know why I'm voting for Hillary? Because I don't want to have to worry about being kicked out of the country by a fucking orangutan that hates anything that isn't white. The economy will not certainly tank. The US will at least have a chance under someone who knows what he/she's doing. This orangutan has no fucking clue at all. You think it can't happen? My great grandparents said the same thing, and they ended up having to leave everything they ever had behind cause they got caught on the wrong side of a border some fucking idiot drew in British India. They had to run because they were the wrong faith (not Muslim in this case). It can and has happened. It happened there, it happened in Germany, and make no mistake, it can happen here if you give this steaming piece of shit a free pass. Trump is only for white Christian male Americans, and that's it. Make American great again? More like make white Christian male America great again.

You've been reading too much dailymail/huffington post/cnn.

When Trump opened a golf resort/club in Floriday, no resorts/golf clubs were accepting Jews/Blacks (Google Golf's racist history if you doubt it). Trump overpaid for the resort, and bought out the local council to get permission to remove those restrictions.

http://truthfeed.com/trump-insisted-on-including-jews-and-blacks-at-palm-beach-golf-course-in-1990s-when-others-didnt/10528/

He also won an Ellis Island award along with Mohammad Ali (A Muslim) and Rosa Parks

http://www.snopes.com/trump-received-ellis-island-award-in-1986/

Don't fall for media hyperbole, neither candidate's going to kick citizens out of the country/destroy it. Trump's running on populist goals to get elected, but he hasn't been shown to be corrupt yet. He's ran an extremely tactically/strategically sound campaign (Check out Scott Adams blog for a detailed analysis of the psychology behind Trump's decisions), and is just fighting a campaign with what's worked for him before (Constantly attack/over promise/be willing to under deliver).

Right a guy who will only accept the results of an election if he wins it isn't undermining democracy, my bad.

Look I'm more or less done throwing sources in people's faces, especially when they live in their own fantasy world about Trump. Because Trump isn't a xenophobe or anything wrong at all. He's just a misunderstood guy. The medias rigged against him, so is the election so why believe anything? Who cares about all of the things he's said. Who cares about all the things at his rallies. No I will not list all of what's come out of your saints own mouth, as I am simply done. If you seriously believe that a guy who is so unhinged that he will attack anything and anyone for insulting him, then there is no point. You know who else used tactics like Trump? Adolf Hitler. Attack the press as corrupt? Hitler. Rail against the establishment? Also Hitler.

What's the Point? You have an excuse for anything that Trump will say or do. You have an excuse for his supporters. Trump could shoot someone, rip up he's carcass, eat it, record it, and put it on YouTube and you'll still vote for him.

I'll leave this here

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html