kurtster wrote: 
Yep, that about sums it up. And I completely disagree. And not just because the critics and witch-hunters have misrepresented and completely overstated Clinton corruption.

Saying the status quo is not worth saving is basically saying that the founding fathers got it wrong. In particular, I believe that the US started strong and got stronger and the country is in much better shape and less corrupt than any time in its history.

I cannot see any good from trying to fight corruption by putting an even more corrupt individual in power. Obviously you do not think he is more corrupt and we won't get anywhere discussing that.

My philosophic position is that government should be a stabilizing influence - geopolitically, socially and economically. Changes should be considered and incremental. The government influences the country but cannot and should not completely control the social and economic direction. It can, however, help mitigate the economic cycle and, in particular resist the crashes caused by abuses of the free market. If you got rid of everyone in politics you would just create a power vacuum to be filled by the most brutal and self serving power-seekers. Revolutionary ideas have their place, but the implementation should be as orderly as possible. Trump doesn't have any revolutionary ideas and has no concept of how to implement the ideas he does have.

It is that simple. 

 kurtster wrote: 
If the overriding and sole desire was to put into office a person who is not (at least does not appear) to be) part of the corruption and is espousing ideas and policies that, if implemented, would knock down and rebuild the governmental foundations, then votes for Bernie Sanders would have been in order.     

 Steely_D wrote: 
Nicely said until ... it ain't about bringing back the Good Old Days™.  Its about stopping corruption more than anything else.  The corruption is so bad that it requires turning the fox loose in the hen house and culling the herd.  There is nothing the status quo is not worth saving.  It is that simple.

 bokey wrote: 
You shouldn't be too hard on Melania Trump. Plus, I don't think she's going to be the one running the White House if Trump wins.

 Kaw wrote: 
That makes no sense to me. First, the wording is awkward. Second, Trump voters are all over the spectrum, and include smart people. If you think about what's going on, there are people who believe that the game is rigged. How can you not think that when you see Bush - Clinton - Bush - Obama - Clinton?
So, their point is to bring in someone who's not playing the game. Unfortunately, that's Trump, who is playing his own game: probably not politics, but probably finance and self-promotion. It looks like he's accidentally been volunteered further up the ladder than he anticipated, but he doesn't know how to get out of it. (Maybe that's the point of his incendiary rhetoric? To not accidentally become responsible for running the nation?)

But his supporters include those who think that politicians aren't going to give them a fair shake. That includes all walks of life, including folks who are swayed by the speeches promising that they'll get their jobs back, their culture back, their nation back. Those people aren't necessarily stupid or uneducated (although the group certainly includes those who are) but they are looking for something that will bring them back to the Good Old Days™. 

 SeriousLee wrote: 
I used to cling on occasion myself but I sorta got tired of all the static. Now I just grit my teeth and speak with a lisper...

It's a strange situation. Trump and his voters got degraded to stupid uneducated bigoted idiots by the well educated, liberal minded and polite people because Trump is Trump. And now they will vote for someone that is absolutely not a good choice, but she is not Trump. And that's all that counts on this moment. From an European perspective I would suggest one extra year for Obama and one year for the republicans and democrats to get some decent people on the quest for president. Even Nixon looks good compared to Trump and Hillary.

 Steely_D wrote: 
Couldn't agree more. I stopped clinging 30 years ago, but that's another story.

 SeriousLee wrote: 
Only scary if you cling to some idea of who you should be.
The clinging is the thing that makes things difficult. 

 SeriousLee wrote: 
That is a good thing, that means you are really looking.

 sirdroseph wrote: 
That was my first thought. It can be scary to leave your eyes open when you turn your gaze to the mirror. That, i know.

 SeriousLee wrote: 
Indeed to that, but my point was that there are lot of people with open eyes but they looking at everyone but themselves and ultimately the answer has to come from within..

 bokey wrote: 
Good Lord no bokey, you should know be better than that!

 sirdroseph wrote: 
Indeed. Working together is the only way we can achieve true progression. And the man looking in the mirror needs to open his eyes for that to happen.

 sirdroseph wrote: 
By electing the lying,supportive wife of a misogynistic sexual predator?

Please read these articles, they are well written, important and both written by people who do not support Trump and have no illusions as to who he is (and neither do many people that do support Trump):

How Half Of America Lost Its F**king Mind

 

Dangerous idiots: how the liberal media elite failed working-class Americans

 

Oh and to avoid the inevitable condescending beration towards me I would like to make it perfectly clear that I would not vote for Trump with your vote.    Just take Micheal Jackson's advice and look at the proverbial "man in the mirror".   The only true social progression can take place from within our own hearts.

 marko86 wrote: 
At this point, Trump and Clinton supporters are absolutely convinced that their candidate is superior, committed to their needs and better for the country as a whole. I've stated repeatedly (and occasionally quite obnoxiously) that I believe Hillary has more experience, character and vision than Trump but I probably haven't budged kurtster's support for Trump one inch. 

Trump and Clinton's pasts may provide an indication of their fitness to lead but those pasts don't matter that much to the lives of voters today and over the next four years. I know it's ridiculous to ignore past mis/deeds and focus on the candidates' platforms  but consider these two points: 

1. We're not electing a dictator. A President brings in a whole new cabinet and appointed officials. S/he faces factions within his/her own party and a determined opposition, both of which will shape policy directions. A President's extreme positions tend to get moderated, watered down, compromised or just killed. Those are the checks and balances working in our government. 

Neither candidate is going to be able to keep all of their campaign promises. Neither candidate's administration is going to play out as advertised on the campaign trail. I don't have much faith that forces working on a President Trump would make him an effective or popular leader but they would help him avoid the biggest possible blunders and excesses. I think a reasonable opponent of Clinton would say the same thing about a Clinton administration. 

2. The agendas of either administration are going to affect you and me far, far more than Trump's treatment of people who don't look like him or Clinton's penchant for privacy/secrecy. Rather than getting all amped up about the personality of the candidate you oppose, why not look at the proposed policies of that candidate and those of your preferred candidate to assess their impact on the country and your life? 

Do the policies of the candidates make sense? Are they practical? How much will they cost? Which policies or programs will suffer or lose priority if a candidate has sufficient power to get things done? Who will benefit if a proposed policy goes into effect? 

Again, I'm biased (most of us are this point. Maybe Ken Bone's red sweater is crippling his ability to form an opinion). Most of the analyses that I've read of Trump's policies conclude that they will not be effective or politically viable. The analyses also conclude that some of Trump's policies will have an effect diametrically opposed to what he promises (the tax reform plan in particular comes to mind). Some analyses of Clinton's agenda criticize the unintended effects of her policies (for instance, her plan to reign in drug costs and make college education affordable). Reading policy analyses will not give you clear-cut answers that prove your candidate is The Savior. But you will get a better sense of what's coming down the pike that will affect your life. And that's a lot more important than all the scrutiny of the candidates' pasts. 

Frankly, this kind of attention to policy detail is boring compared to reading about the monster you must stop on election day. But if you're unhappy with the state and direction of the country, you'd better pay attention to what's being promised and what will actually get done.  

 kurtster wrote: 

Wow, talk about your straw man arguments! It would seem to me that trump is both Absolutely corrupt and absolutely misogynistic , considering all the evidence,(but only Sith's deal in absolutes)  I think this piece nicely sums up the double standard.

Bill Clinton cheats on his wife. Impeach him. Trump proudly brags about sexual assault (and has cheated on his wives). Elect him. Hillary oversaw the department of state while 4 people died in an embassy attack. Put her in jail. 2 Republicans were in office while over 200 people died in embassy attacks. No problem. Immigrants don't pay taxes. Round them up and kick them out. Trump doesn't pay taxes. He's a business genius. Hillary's foundation only spent 87% of their donations helping people. She's a crook. Trumps foundation paid off his debts, bought sculptures of him, and made political donations to avoid investigations while using less than 5% of funds for charity (and he got shut down by NY State). So savvy... Put him in the white house. Trump made 4 billion dollars in 40 years, when an index fund started at the same time with the same "small loans" he received would be worth $12 billion today... without a trail of bankruptcies, thousands of lawsuits and burned small business owners. He's a real business whiz. Hillary took a loss of $700k. She's a criminal. Trump is the first candidate in the modern era not to release his tax returns, and took a billion dollar loss in 1 year. Genius. Hillary takes responsibility for private email servers and apologizes. Not credible. Trump denies saying things (on the record) he actually said (on the record), he's just telling it like it is.

Your arguments are thin. Your ignorance of reality is shocking. Your double-standards are offensive, and your willingness to blindly support him and recycle the rhetoric is absurd. Your opinion is not fact. Your memes are not news articles. And your hypocrisy is not a platform.

Alex Schiller

Since it seems to be coming down to character more than anything else ...

Which is worse when it comes to governing ... being absolutely corrupt or possibly misogynistic ?