If you look into it, most politicians (even ex presidents) really aren't too bright

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)"

Hey he very clearly has!

He has continuously stated that he will rip-off the Iran nuclear deal. He will stoke-up the Iran-Israel tension again

Here is a guy who blatantly think Israel should rein in the middle-east and they should get whatever they desire. Every one knows Israel wants destroy Iran because they believe if they don't Iran would destroy them first based on Ayatollah's words. Mean while countless Israeli-ultra-right-wing warmonging politicians have said much worse on Iran than what the late Ayatollah khomeini said on Israel.

He fails to see any positives in the deal, he seems to think America can treat every country like the USA are the Headmaster and other countries are school children : he doesn't understand the word COMPROMISE

And he continues to lie and/or exaggerate everything about what money exchanged hands during the deal

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

I feel your pain :(

I think the US two party system is the culprit here. Having had to pick between to very bad candidates, many then are forced to justify their choice

Here's a handy guide to picking the lesser of two evils

Here's a handy guide to picking the lesser of two evils

Again, I'm not a Trump supporter, but I'll be damned if that's not a bullshit list. Hillary's should much longer than 1 and some of Trump's list is crap he said, not stuff he did.

That's a handy guide to propaganda and FUBAR.

Here's a handy guide to picking the lesser of two evils

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)"

Hey he very clearly has!

He has continuously stated that he will rip-off the Iran nuclear deal. He will stoke-up the Iran-Israel tension again

Here is a guy who blatantly think Israel should rein in the middle-east and they should get whatever they desire. Every one knows Israel wants destroy Iran because they believe if they don't Iran would destroy them first based on Ayatollah's words. Mean while countless Israeli-ultra-right-wing warmonging politicians have said much worse on Iran than what the late Ayatollah khomeini said on Israel.

He fails to see any positives in the deal, he seems to think America can treat every country like the USA are the Headmaster and other countries are school children : he doesn't understand the word COMPROMISE

And he continues to lie and/or exaggerate everything about what money exchanged hands during the deal

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

I feel your pain :(

I think the US two party system is the culprit here. Having had to pick between to very bad candidates, many then are forced to justify their choice

I mean the problem isn't so much we only have two parties here but rather that we only have two big mainstream parties and that the other 3rd party candidates are basically hacks. But definitely if we had a decent third party candidate, this wouldn't be that terrible. The founding fathers never envisioned an era of divisiveness and partisanship to this extreme. The whole Constitution is built on the spirit of compromise where everyone gets a say, not my party over country. Moreover, hacks like Trump aren't what the Founding Fathers had in mind either.

Like there's no real way of denying what Trump has said or done, but yet somehow, this continues to go on. I keep hearing over and over again that Clinton is corrupt, therefore Trump, even though Trump's corruption has not only been proven, but it's been proven multiple times. Then there's the fact that none of his policies make any fucking sense whatsoever. Build a wall!? Deport every illegal!? Massive tax breaks on top of all that!? Add to the deficit!? Then finally we can move on to his racism, hate mongering, xenophobia, and sexism, generally unhinged and general asshole nature which he's multiple times proven as well by simply speaking. He's a walking piece of shit. Even his hair looks like a turd, I mean come on! What more signs do you need?

Here's a handy guide to picking the lesser of two evils

Again, I'm not a Trump supporter, but I'll be damned if that's not a bullshit list. Hillary's should much longer than 1 and some of Trump's list is crap he said, not stuff he did.

That's a handy guide to propaganda and FUBAR.

Mhmm, some of the Trump stuff is repeated, but I think it's not a literal list. I think it just serves to underscore the point of how fucked up a candidate Donald Trump is. As @ChaosEngine put it pretty appropriately, Hillary is a shady candidate and pretty standard fair in that sense. There's the emails thing, which I mean, the more I read about it, the more I'm getting exasperated with it. A lot of it really does boil down to "she shouldn't have done that, but there's nothing explicitly illegal here". Those leaked emails don't have anything that are like "OH MY GOD! HILLARY'S FEEDING NEWBORN CHILDREN TO WOLVES!" or something. I would say that most of us already knew some of these things pretty well. The Clinton Foundation was investigated and there isn't a ton there either. Now this new FBI thing is just beyond ridiculous. Not only does no one have any idea if those emails mean anything, those emails don't have to do with Hillary, but rather with her aide, Huma Abedeen.

The point being? Get over yourselves. Donald Trump is not even remotely qualified to lead a McDonald's, let alone the United States. The only reason he's managed to keep his business afloat is basically through open theft. Is Clinton shady? Yes. Is she in it for herself? Damned straight she is. Does she at least have a vague idea of what she's doing? Almost certainly. The point of a President is to have someone who leads and represents. How does this idiot make for a good representation of the US? He represents the worst parts of the US.

The only upside will be it'll be kind of funny to watch Trump get bitch slapped at global leaders summits when he tries to feel some foreign nation female leader up.

I think the US two party system is the culprit here.

It's not a two party system. There are more than two parties.

I can't take a HRC supporter seriously if they haven't spent much time giving Jill Stein thoughtful consideration (especially after Bernie Sanders "lost" the nomination).

Iran vs Israel; He [Trump] doesn't understand the word "compromise".

I'd say Iran and Israel are the ones that (politically) don't have the word 'compromise' in their vocabulary. I think both the U.S. and Russia are trying to 'win' over Iran. But that's another story. Right now, you have bigger concerns, like the nation's unemployment rate. Lay-offs, rising homelessness, people living in their cars, tent cities... that doesn't bother you?

A guy who will only accept the results of an election if he wins it isn't undermining democracy?

So when Al Gore raises the issue (in 2000), it's worthy of your attention, but when a Republican does so, it's just paranoia?

Hitler!

That to me is a sign you don't take politics seriously anyhow. Instead of popular conjecture, you should be reviewing policy and how that affects you and your future. Instead of only showing an interest in politics once every fours years, take an interest in it everyday.

I think its probably important that your colleagues actually respect you.

More like "social conformity". I have more respect for the individual that think for themselves rather than merely go along with what is popular. Have you heard of the Asch experiment?

Look at successful businesses today, rarely are they lead by paper thin spokes people...

Ah, an outsider.

I'll just leave your delightful faith in CEOs intact.

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

Highly disagree with Hillary being the one with more experience and knowledge. If she is elected, she will no longer have to pander to voters, and instead can concentrate fully on acting in the best interests of her major donors. Most HRC supporters are voting for her for superficial reasons. They really should get to know her first before deciding. #NeverTrump isn't exactly what I'd call research into reasons of why to vote for the opposing candidate.

Trump is a business man who wants to make America great again.

Indeed.

Unemployment above 2% is not great.

So yeah, making America "great" again is perfectly logical.

You can't expect people to take jobs that don't exist. And you can't "create" jobs without industry. When industry is leaving for the lowest bidder, it is the job of your representatives to protect its taxpayers (after all, what exactly are they getting paid for?).

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).

You are describing the job of the Pentagon/CIA (who brief the President with their analysis and advice). And frankly, most global strategic decisions are based on business (whether governments like to admit or not).

Trump & Women

So "innocent until proven guilty" applies to HRC but not DJT?

And of course we all know the universal truth that women never make false allegations. Women are simply incapable of lying out of spite or for financial gain. And if anyone says otherwise, well then clearly they are nothing more than misogynistic liars!

Sorry, don't know what happened there.

Trump is only for white Christian male Americans.

So you prefer to be blind to the fact that there are African-American Christians who support Trump, non-Christian African-Americans who support Trump, Mexican-Americans, women, even Muslim-Americans who support Trump who would admit it if they weren't so afraid of other Muslims. But since I suspect you get most of your information from TV then I can understand why you have a narrow view of just how much and how diverse support for D.J. Trump there really is.

Look, there really isn't a debate or a middle ground here.

There is for those who don't practice hysteria. A lot of pro-HRC anti-DJT supporters don't argue on issue, but instead resort to hysteria.

People are busy so they make up their mind on hearsay. When I watched the debates and then the reporting on the debates, it was as if news outlets were reporting on a different debate entirely. So it's no wonder that HRC supporters are pumped with negativity about DJT so much that they lose objectivity and respond with hysteria.

You'd be surprised how similar HRC (prior to 2008) is on policy compared to DJT with the exception of free-trade (a very big deal, if you properly understood it).

I'm not sure if you identify as a conservative or a Republican, but I'd think that Trump's $11 trillion addition to the debt would trump (excuse the pun) you saving $22k in taxes. Seeing as you'll be giving money back and further wrecking the economy in the mid to long run.

The debt to the Federal Reserve is illegitimate. The Federal Reserve Act usurped the exclusive right of Congress to print/coin money. In other words; You shouldn't be expected to pay taxes to cover a debt that does not deserve to exist in the first place. The Federal Reserve is a private entity. There is more debt than money. That shouldn't even be possible.

I should probably repeat that: There isn't enough U.S. dollars in existence to cover the Federal Reserve debt. It's bogus.

I think the US two party system is the culprit here.

It's not a two party system. There are more than two parties.

I can't take a HRC supporter seriously if they haven't spent much time giving Jill Stein thoughtful consideration (especially after Bernie Sanders "lost" the nomination).

Iran vs Israel; He [Trump] doesn't understand the word "compromise".

I'd say Iran and Israel are the ones that (politically) don't have the word 'compromise' in their vocabulary. I think both the U.S. and Russia are trying to 'win' over Iran. But that's another story. Right now, you have bigger concerns, like the nation's unemployment rate. Lay-offs, rising homelessness, people living in their cars, tent cities... that doesn't bother you?

A guy who will only accept the results of an election if he wins it isn't undermining democracy?

So when Al Gore raises the issue (in 2000), it's worthy of your attention, but when a Republican does so, it's just paranoia?

Hitler!

That to me is a sign you don't take politics seriously anyhow. Instead of popular conjecture, you should be reviewing policy and how that affects you and your future. Instead of only showing an interest in politics once every fours years, take an interest in it everyday.

I think its probably important that your colleagues actually respect you.

More like "social conformity". I have more respect for the individual that think for themselves rather than merely go along with what is popular. Have you heard of the Asch experiment?

Look at successful businesses today, rarely are they lead by paper thin spokes people...

Ah, an outsider.

I'll just leave your delightful faith in CEOs intact.

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

Highly disagree with Hillary being the one with more experience and knowledge. If she is elected, she will no longer have to pander to voters, and instead can concentrate fully on acting in the best interests of her major donors. Most HRC supporters are voting for her for superficial reasons. They really should get to know her first before deciding. #NeverTrump isn't exactly what I'd call research into reasons of why to vote for the opposing candidate.

Trump is a business man who wants to make America great again.

Indeed.

Unemployment above 2% is not great.

So yeah, making America "great" again is perfectly logical.

You can't expect people to take jobs that don't exist. And you can't "create" jobs without industry. When industry is leaving for the lowest bidder, it is the job of your representatives to protect its taxpayers (after all, what exactly are they getting paid for?).

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).

You are describing the job of the Pentagon/CIA (who brief the President with their analysis and advice). And frankly, most global strategic decisions are based on business (whether governments like to admit or not).

Trump & Women

So "innocent until proven guilty" applies to HRC but not DJT?

And of course we all know the universal truth that women never make false allegations. Women are simply incapable of lying out of spite or for financial gain. And if anyone says otherwise, well then clearly they are nothing more than misogynistic liars!

Sorry, don't know what happened there.

Trump is only for white Christian male Americans.

So you prefer to be blind to the fact that there are African-American Christians who support Trump, non-Christian African-Americans who support Trump, Mexican-Americans, women, even Muslim-Americans who support Trump who would admit it if they weren't so afraid of other Muslims. But since I suspect you get most of your information from TV then I can understand why you have a narrow view of just how much and how diverse support for D.J. Trump there really is.

Look, there really isn't a debate or a middle ground here.

There is for those who don't practice hysteria. A lot of pro-HRC anti-DJT supporters don't argue on issue, but instead resort to hysteria.

People are busy so they make up their mind on hearsay. When I watched the debates and then the reporting on the debates, it was as if news outlets were reporting on a different debate entirely. So it's no wonder that HRC supporters are pumped with negativity about DJT so much that they lose objectivity and respond with hysteria.

You'd be surprised how similar HRC (prior to 2008) is on policy compared to DJT with the exception of free-trade (a very big deal, if you properly understood it).

I'm not sure if you identify as a conservative or a Republican, but I'd think that Trump's $11 trillion addition to the debt would trump (excuse the pun) you saving $22k in taxes. Seeing as you'll be giving money back and further wrecking the economy in the mid to long run.

The debt to the Federal Reserve is illegitimate. The Federal Reserve Act usurped the exclusive right of Congress to print/coin money. In other words; You shouldn't be expected to pay taxes to cover a debt that does not deserve to exist in the first place. The Federal Reserve is a private entity. There is more debt than money. That shouldn't even be possible.

I should probably repeat that: There isn't enough U.S. dollars in existence to cover the Federal Reserve debt. It's bogus.

I take it you think Trump's a good idea? It's a little tough to tell, and I don't like making judgements, but it certainly sounds like you do.

Sure there's minorities voting for Trump, in some minority of the total population of each demographic. Only 8% of African Americans support Trump. It's pretty low amongst Asian-Americans. Latinos I believe are actually bit more split, something like 70-30 or 60-40. Women it's around 60-40 again.

Narrow view of the world? Hardly. Such accusations don't really make much sense when Trump's actions speak louder than words. If you really believe that Trump is anything otherwise, then you are living in an alternate fantasy world.

Look, I'm just gonna reiterate, if you cannot understand just why Trump cannot be put in charge of the world's most powerful nation, given everything to date, then there's no point in debating, because this is just going to go down the usual paths of media spin and excuses. Are the Hitler comparisons relevant? For some reasons yes, and other reasons not, but both are demagogues, and both ran on platforms that are similar (anti immigrant rhetoric). An analogue in the US would be McCarthy, another asshole of his time.

The cognitive dissonance is staggering. Neither candidate is the spawn of Satan, much as their opposing trolls and partisans battle to paint it that way.

The angle that I think is kind of interesting is that we've got a lush up against a teetotaler.

Quote Iran vs Israel; He [Trump] doesn't understand the word "compromise". I'd say Iran and Israel are the ones that (politically) don't have the word 'compromise' in their vocabulary. I think both the U.S. and Russia are trying to 'win' over Iran. But that's another story. Right now, you have bigger concerns, like the nation's unemployment rate. Lay-offs, rising homelessness, people living in their cars, tent cities... that doesn't bother you?

Seems to me you just rush to your computer half awake, dabbled on the first few lines you read and started posting

Did you bother to check the context of that post before posting and asking if something doesn't bother me? Thats a homework for you to do, check the context of that post and who and what post I was responding to