Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
I know Trump hasn't held office and that Clinton has abused her chair's power more than a few times. From the way I look at it, you have two equally poor choices at candidates.
You... aren't looking at it correctly then. It's a fallacy to compare trump and clinton and call them equally poor. I have no idea at all about what you mean by abusing her chair's power considering most accusations don't involve misuse of power, but i'd be happy to know what you mean there.
But really, Trump hasn't just not held office- he has no plan or idea what to do if he did and in that event he'd have no support from anyone to pass things. Ignoring how abhorrent his platform and VP are as well as his flipflop on every issue constantly there's just no way to say they're "equally bad"
It's also hard to determine who's bad (Besides Michael) due to the fact Trump hasn't been in an electoral seat. Sure, some candidates can be detestable, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they'll be outright bad presidents and vice-versa. We've had Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy, Harry Truman and Franklin Delano Roosevelt for example.
Have you actually looked at what he wants to do? He has next to no concrete plans, and those he does he's fond of contradicting, but if you truly think that means nothing until he's in office- just look at his VP. Pence is... in no way someone you want in the oval office. Someone who caused an outbreak in his home state by systematically defunding every clinic offering easy tests and treatment then claiming he'd rather spend the money on funding gay conversion therapy (A barbaric practice considered analogous to torture, and generally abhorrent in every conceivable way- not to mention completely unrelated to the outbreak of disease he directly caused) tells you a lot about what a Trump presidency would be like, considering someone with no plan and no idea how to lead is going to lean heavily on their politician second hand.
On from that, a Trump president means a hyper conservative justice on the supreme court which puts a both a lot of recent social progress in jeopardy and has the risk of stifling it in future. With a man who's threatened to repeal the marriage equality decision on multiple occasions (And also said he won't just as many times) with a horrifically homophobic VP that's a real risk of damage.
So just because they have nice speeches or have held an office previously doesn't mean much. I try not to judge all before end all, but it gets more and more difficult as time wears on. And if I was really vindictive of you're comment, I'd vote the opposite just to quietly spite you, ohohohoho!
It DOES mean a lot though, when these speeches are full of policies, plans and general ideas for how to run a country- otherwise what are you voting on? If you're disregarding the policy plans and speeches telling you what these candidates are actually about and what they want to do, how is anyone supposed to make an informed vote about who should lead their country for the next four years?
I hope no one is saying clinton is perfect, but she's far from as bad as people claim and lightyears away from how awful Trump is.
I mean, if you believe that Clinton is corrupt then I don't think that anything anyone says is going to convince you otherwise, but look at how similar Trump's actions have been to the things that Clinton has been accused of.
She's been said to call victims of assault liars. Trump has done this, to his own victims.
She's been said to be involved in shady money deals through her foundation. Trump evaded paying taxes for 20 years.
She's been said to have been incompetent about the Benghazi attack. Trump has had multiple bankruptcies.
I know they aren't 1:1 comparisons, but when it comes to morals and competencies, if you believe Clinton is bad, you've got to see that Trump wouldn't be any better, and is arguably worse.
Well at this point Trump is basically flailing about calling the women accusing him "not my first choice". I'm more focused on whether the Democrats will regain the Senate so that any Supreme Court nominee will actually have a fair hearing with McConnell out as Majority Leader controlling the Senate schedule.
I'm more focused on whether the Democrats will regain the Senate so that any Supreme Court nominee will actually have a fair hearing with McConnell out as Majority Leader controlling the Senate schedule.
Didn't they say they'd have a hearing after the election regardless of who won? I mean, I know that's just talk, but if the Republicans retain the Senate it would look pretty bad if they went back on this after stalling for a year. I can't see them doing that without doing even more damage to their brand.
I mean, if you believe that Clinton is corrupt then I don't think that anything anyone says is going to convince you otherwise, but look at how similar Trump's actions have been to the things that Clinton has been accused of.
She's been said to call victims of assault liars. Trump has done this, to his own victims.
She's been said to be involved in shady money deals through her foundation. Trump evaded paying taxes for 20 years.
She's been said to have been incompetent about the Benghazi attack. Trump has had multiple bankruptcies.
I know they aren't 1:1 comparisons, but when it comes to morals and competencies, if you believe Clinton is bad, you've got to see that Trump wouldn't be any better, and is arguably worse.
I did read somewhere that most companies do avoid paying taxes (I don't know the difference between avoiding taxes and evading taxes, really. Needless to say the collective cache of global funds these companies hoard is estimated in the trillions). Some companies that we forked over money to (Bank Bailout) don't pay any taxes at all. Bank of America, Citi Bank, Exxon Mobile, Google, General Electric, FedEx, Microsoft, Verizon, Pfizzer, Walmart, Goldman Sachs, Chevron, Dow Chemical, Procter & Gamble, IBM, Facebook, JP Morgan & Chase, Disney World is trying to weasel out of gate and property taxes, Coca-Cola was caught hiding tax havens and subsidies, and a huge chunk of America's major companies don't pay taxes. The CTJ did a study here. What I'd like to know is why haven't you been mad at, like, every company ever for the past 'as long as you've been alive'? What frustrates me is that people are just now realizing companies dodge income taxes all the time. This isn't surprising, it's been happening for decades.
Spoiler:
I also want to share with you about Wilmington, Delaware. What did Delaware boys? Evidently she [Delaware] wore the same exact loophole that's been utilized by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, that's not mentioning the 280K other companies that use the same address to avoid taxes.
Let's not forget that Tyco International (Internationally based in Ireland to avoid taxes) donated money to her own campaign. If she was vehemently against these people as she stated she was (John Controls) she wouldn't have taken the money from Tyco, because the companies will be merging, effectively negating Tyco as a different corporate entity.
Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have utilized tax loop-holes. They placed their multi-million dollar home in a 'residence trust' i.e. they don't pay taxes on the home. So, going after Trump on his taxes completely ignores what Clinton has done to avoid taxes. Don't buy into it, both of them [candidates] have avoided paying taxes. Trump, however, is just straight up about it. So on avoiding taxes? I'd say Clinton is worse in that regard. She says she's against it, but does it herself. That's worse in my experience; I'd rather be killed loudly than softly so I know it's coming.
I still think they're both bad on par with each other. Clinton's remarks and dismissal of Benghazi alone is worth more in it's badness than slurs and remarks about a woman's cooch. I know for a fact that Clinton denied several requests for additional security. She continually denied these requests, and when they [consulate] were attacked, they did not have the man power or equipment to adequately repel the attackers.
The actions in Benghazi alone show how utterly deplorable she behaved while in a political chair. She denied security requests, of which there are speculated 600 requests (I'm not so sure about that number but it's been brought up). She was dismissive of claims of her incompetence.
With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they'd they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we'll figure out what was going on in the meantime.
If someone can possible show me the kind of data or facet that Donald Trump was somehow involved in gross negligence that resulted in the deaths of Americans off of American soil I might change my view on "Who's Bad" (-Michael). But up to this point, she knew there was a major lack of security and continually did nothing about it. I would think at the very least it would be classified as gross negligence or manslaughter. If you owned a construction site and refused hard hats for your workers, you'd be held liable. This didn't happen in this case, but it doesn't paint Clinton in a favorable light.
My opinion is just my own, but I think an act like this takes the whole cake and a slice of pie. Her "What difference does it make?" comment was completely asinine. Well it doesn't make a difference now, Mrs. Clinton, because they're dead and it was potentially preventable. Out of context alone it's bad, but in the whole context of her incompetence it's worse by far. She denied security requests hundreds of times, and now they're dead. Simple math. If you don't let firefighters have firetrucks things will be burnt. It's the only simile I could come up with, but it's pretty accurate. If you don't defend and arm soldiers properly, they die.
The reports on the Benghazi matter are sorely lacking and only one terrorist was 'brought to justice'. Maybe it's just me, but it bothers me greatly some people are willing to see past this heinous mistake. I'm willing to look past several of her other mistakes, but this one is a huge pink Donkey in a telephone booth.
You... aren't looking at it correctly then. It's a fallacy to compare trump and Clinton and call them equally poor. I have no idea at all about what you mean by abusing her chair's power considering most accusations don't involve misuse of power, but i'd be happy to know what you mean there.
But really, Trump hasn't just not held office- he has no plan or idea what to do if he did and in that event he'd have no support from anyone to pass things. Ignoring how abhorrent his platform and VP are as well as his flipflop on every issue constantly there's just no way to say they're "equally bad"
Have you actually looked at what he wants to do? He has next to no concrete plans, and those he does he's fond of contradicting, but if you truly think that means nothing until he's in office- just look at his VP. Pence is... in no way someone you want in the oval office. Someone who caused an outbreak in his home state by systematically pulling funding for every clinic offering easy tests and treatment then claiming he'd rather spend the money on funding gay conversion therapy (A barbaric practice considered analogous to torture, and generally abhorrent in every conceivable way- not to mention completely unrelated to the outbreak of disease he directly caused) tells you a lot about what a Trump presidency would be like, considering someone with no plan and no idea how to lead is going to lean heavily on their politician second hand.
On from that, a Trump president means a hyper conservative justice on the supreme court which puts a both a lot of recent social progress in jeopardy and has the risk of stifling it in future. With a man who's threatened to repeal the marriage equality decision on multiple occasions (And also said he won't just as many times) with a horrifically homophobic VP that's a real risk of damage.
It DOES mean a lot though, when these speeches are full of policies, plans and general ideas for how to run a country- otherwise what are you voting on? If you're disregarding the policy plans and speeches telling you what these candidates are actually about and what they want to do, how is anyone supposed to make an informed vote about who should lead their country for the next four years?
I hope no one is saying Clinton is perfect, but she's far from as bad as people claim and light years away from how awful Trump is. *snip-snick* (I'll just take my comments out of here for you)
On Mike Pence's signing of the religious freedom law:
Spoiler:
This law actually works both ways. It allows people to deny service to anyone. There have been cases where entire bakeries close their doors by simply refusing service. Rather than take their business elsewhere, they press the issue and take everything. I'm not saying I agree with this, but it's happened. Another thing people are not quick to point out is that bakeries owned by practitioners of the Islamic faith also deny service to the LGBTQRSTUV community in equal measure. It might be reprehensible but it does protect a wide group, and not just the Christians everyone so vehemently despise.
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" doesn't mean anything anymore. Instead of taking your money and going elsewhere because the owner is a dirtbag, going after everything the person owns is equally as spiteful. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with this law, just that it does what it says on the box. It protects many religious faiths from Jewish, to Islamic, Christianity, Hinduism, and even some Buddhists. I'm not saying homosexual people are wrong, but I do think it's wrong to demand respect regardless what another person's beliefs are. If the owner is being respectful, but declining in a way that doesn't devolve into "You're gay, weird and wrong, leave my store or I kill you" I feel that taking your business to another store and telling everyone about your experience rather than sue them for everything they own.
It's a mistake that they chose to make and you should go elsewhere, not turn into some money grubbing fund sucker. It's just as bad, if not worse, taking everything you can from them.
I respectfully agree to disagree saying that both candidates are bad. So, hypothetically, if the House and Senate become completely polarized from the commander in chief [Trump in this instance], then how so will he then implement all of his planned projects? Most things need a vote to get going (Except some executive orders) and if the House and Senate refuse to work with him, it'll be a four year stalemate, no?
Also, you brought up the Supreme Court. Why? In what way could he control the supreme court? You do know they serve until death, right? That's why they all look so old. Ohohohoho! One placement on the Supreme Court is not enough to sway the scale in his favor.
Also, I don't think you have to worry about anyone placing a successful repeal of Gay marriage. I think the people have spoken and it's ingrained enough that attempting to grab a majority vote is going to be an up Mt. Everest battle. So that's my thought on that.
Trump is Trump and Hillary is Hillary. Hillary has at least one gross negligence notch on her belt and Trump has an orange tan. So I think they're both equally as bad. Maybe not on the same scale, but they're bad. The only difference is Clinton made her Benghazi blunder as an elected official and no amount of hooting and hollering is going to change that fact. Trump may be a 'deplorables' but that's about all he is. He hasn't had any previous chances to push forward any political agenda like Clinton has, so duly elected official 'mistakes' are worth more bad pennies than shady business practices and crotch grabbing (-Michael). So let's just agree that I'd rather vote for my dog than any of the candidates, but the fact of the matter is that one of them is going to become the next Executive of the United States. All it then boils down to whom you think is the worst, and until the votes are in, we won't know for certain which is worse.
Gosh. This stuff isn't as fun. I think I'll leave the table for a week and come back then. It's depressing.
I mean, there might be people just now waking up to the way corporations are awful, but I can tell you that just in this forum we've had discussions that included talk about their shady dealings several times before. So just here I can say that we've got members who know what they do. We're just harping on Trump because not only does he do it, but he tries to normalize the practice by saying that it should be allowed. Again, not gonna try to convince people to change their mind on Clinton regarding tax loopholes, but I don't like that Trump is on the one hand saying "Yeah, I take advantage of this loophole the corrupt politicians gave me" and on the other saying "But we shouldn't be having taxes like this in the first place either." Like, the politicians he is criticizing are giving him what he wants and what he advocates for. It's like accepting stolen money and saying "But I didn't steal it."
But up to this point, she knew there was a major lack of security and continually did nothing about it. I would think at the very least it would be classified as gross negligence or manslaughter. If you owned a construction site and refused hard hats for your workers, you'd be held liable. This didn't happen in this case, but it doesn't paint Clinton in a favorable light.
On Mike Pence's signing of the religious freedom law:
This law actually works both ways. It allows people to deny service to anyone. There have been cases where entire bakeries close their doors by simply refusing service. Rather than take their business elsewhere, they press the issue and take everything. I'm not saying I agree with this, but it's happened. Another thing people are not quick to point out is that bakeries owned by practitioners of the Islamic faith also deny service to the LGBTQRSTUV community in equal measure. It might be reprehensible but it does protect a wide group, and not just the Christians everyone so vehemently despise.
This is basically untrue, I'm not aware of any "bakeries closing their doors" because they have to do their job and provide service to people. I've seen a restaurant that was so bombareded with negative feedback over their decision not to serve anyone non-christian or gay that they closed down, but that's honestly well deserved.
It does not go both ways though. You cannot equate descrimination against minorities to the ability to discriminate against anyone freely as that's meaningless- the bill was always targeted at LGBT people as it's primary purpose and as such achieved it's goal of legalising discrimination.
The issue is that it does not "protect" anyone and infact does the opposite. "You can go somewhere else" is a bs justification coming from a person who has not and likely will not face this kind of discrimination.
And even then, that bill is not the sole reprehensible thing pence has done, especially discrimination wise, and wasn't even an example i brought up.
I respectfully agree to disagree saying that both candidates are bad. So, hypothetically, if the House and Senate become completely polarized from the commander in chief [Trump in this instance], then how so will he then implement all of his planned projects? Most things need a vote to get going (Except some executive orders) and if the House and Senate refuse to work with him, it'll be a four year stalemate, no?
....Yes and no? No, Trump's moronic electorial platform won't gain much traction if he alienates the rrepublican party but that doesn't mean ALL his bills won't go through, and again, pence is his VP and someone who's a "real" politician capable of getting HIS things through.
Also, you'd have an idiot in charge of foreign diplomacy who has shown that he doesn't care about wildly insulting people and a western world that's condemned Trump pretty heavily from the sidelines. It'd be awful for foreign diplomacy.
Also, you brought up the Supreme Court. Why? In what way could he control the supreme court? You do know they serve until death, right? That's why they all look so old. Ohohohoho! One placement on the Supreme Court is not enough to sway the scale in his favor.
Also, I don't think you have to worry about anyone placing a successful repeal of Gay marriage. I think the people have spoken and it's ingrained enough that attempting to grab a majority vote is going to be an up Mt. Everest battle. So that's my thought on that.
Yes it is. With the supreme court on the verge of being majority progressive, the election of a hyper conservative to the bench has both the ability to undo so much social progress and the prerogative to stifle any of it for the rest of their lifetime. With "we can repeal gay marriage" part of the big conservative pushback that Donald Trump is riding on into populism it's certainly a real possibility that this could do a lot of damage.
Regardless of the likelihood of repealing things like marriage equality there's a very real and likely risk of eroding away at it through successive bills like Pence's that allow discrimination or create conditional equality, possibly even desegregating it into a second class situation.
Trump is Trump and Hillary is Hillary. Hillary has at least one gross negligence notch on her belt and Trump has an orange tan. So I think they're both equally as bad. Maybe not on the same scale, but they're bad. The only difference is Clinton made her Benghazi blunder as an elected official and no amount of hooting and hollering is going to change that fact. Trump may be a 'deplorables' but that's about all he is. He hasn't had any previous chances to push forward any political agenda like Clinton has, so duly elected official 'mistakes' are worth more bad pennies than shady business practices and crotch grabbing (-Michael). So let's just agree that I'd rather vote for my dog than any of the candidates, but the fact of the matter is that one of them is going to become the next Executive of the United States. All it then boils down to whom you think is the worst, and until the votes are in, we won't know for certain which is worse.
Again, you're creating a false equivalency. The idea that someone who's shown herself to be capable in office, has a coherent platform and agenda for their presidency and is able to conduct themselves officially is somehow just as bad a candidate as the person who is the exact opposite of all of those is just incomprehensible to me.
Trump has no plan, no experience, no idea what he's doing, no capacity to act diplomatically and brags about sexually assaulting women. He's currently in an ongoing court case about sexually assaulting a child. There's nothing redeeming about him or his vapid plans, it's all just... nothing?
Again, you're creating a false equivalence. The idea that someone who's shown herself to be capable in office, has a coherent platform and agenda for their presidency and is able to conduct themselves officially is somehow just as bad a candidate as the person who is the exact opposite of all of those is just incomprehensible to me.
Trump has no plan, no experience, no idea what he's doing, no capacity to act diplomatically and brags about sexually assaulting women. He's currently in an ongoing court case about sexually assaulting a child. There's nothing redeeming about him or his vapid plans, it's all just... nothing?
I don't believe I create a false comparison. The Benghazi case is so full of wholes it's rather embarrassing. The false reports that were created and blaming a Youtube video for the terror attack are entirely... I don't have a word for it. They placed blame on a Youtube video to shift the focus on what really happened. I think reading the final report will better explain why it's so outrageous. The Benghazi deal is still a fresh wound, despite being four years old.
I still would like someone to tell me, truthfully, that letting security requests go ignored and result in the potential failing of the safety of Americans is not as bad as what someone says. They were told time and again, why security was needed, why it was an issue, where it was required and so forth. I wouldn't call shrugging your shoulders and saying 'oh well' an adequate apology. This situation alone is so convoluted that trying to swim through it is like trying to see through mud.
Once again, a well read candidate does not always result in a better elected official. I believe I need to further cement my position by saying that I would rather see an Action Figure(or a Barbie doll, or any other inanimate object) elected. It's not really a spectrum on my part. There isn't 'this is somewhat bad, and this is not as bad'. You either cut it, or you don't. Neither candidate is desirable enough, and both are, in my opinion, not qualified. Trump's green, and Clinton is just, well, a Clinton.
We have two choices of either being burned alive or drowning in a pool of lye. Either way, it's painful and you die. I wish there was a third option for 'none of the above' but there's not, so we play with the cards dealt begrudgingly or not. I don't really enjoy being grilled too much on who's worse. All of them are bad, it's just who's bad and who's worse. None of them are favorable (Tim Kaine wants to deregulate HF), none of them are favored by me. They're bad. They're all bad. No degrees or spectrum of badness, just bad. I'll just leave it at that.
I don't believe I create a false comparison. The Benghazi case is so full of wholes it's rather embarrassing. The false reports that were created and blaming a Youtube video for the terror attack are entirely... I don't have a word for it. They placed blame on a Youtube video to shift the focus on what really happened. I think reading the final report will better explain why it's so outrageous. The Benghazi deal is still a fresh wound, despite being four years old.
I still would like someone to tell me, truthfully, that letting security requests go ignored and result in the potential failing of the safety of Americans is not as bad as what someone says. They were told time and again, why security was needed, why it was an issue, where it was required and so forth. I wouldn't call shrugging your shoulders and saying 'oh well' an adequate apology. This situation alone is so convoluted that trying to swim through it is like trying to see through mud.
Saying the situation is convulted and muddied but also that your sole perspective is correct and that it makes Clinton more unfit to lead a country than a man who sexually assaults people and has no idea what he's doing seems off to me.
Once again, a well read candidate does not always result in a better elected official. I believe I need to further cement my position by saying that I would rather see an Action Figure(or a Barbie doll, or any other inanimate object) elected. It's not really a spectrum on my part. There isn't 'this is somewhat bad, and this is not as bad'. You either cut it, or you don't. Neither candidate is desirable enough, and both are, in my opinion, not qualified. Trump's green, and Clinton is just, well, a Clinton.
Someone who's proven themselves as an elected official and has a clear plan trumps someone who has neither and is so convoluted in what he wants that it's impossible to tell. This is undeniable. "We haven't seen him in office" is no excuse when he, right now, has no policies that both are possible and haven't been contradicted by himself endlessly.
"We don't know until we get them" is utterly false and completely against the whole point of electing an official. If you're not willing to look at the plans from either candidate and the platform they're trying to be elected on to make your decision, how can you possibly elect someone. What merits do you instead deem more important than experience or an actual lain down plan that means someone without either is equal in this aspect to someone who does?
We have two choices of either being burned alive or drowning in a pool of lye. Either way, it's painful and you die. I wish there was a third option for 'none of the above' but there's not, so we play with the cards dealt begrudgingly or not. I don't really enjoy being grilled too much on who's worse. All of them are bad, it's just who's bad and who's worse. None of them are favorable (Tim Kaine wants to deregulate HF), none of them are favored by me. They're bad. They're all bad. No degrees or spectrum of badness, just bad. I'll just leave it at that.
You are correct that neither is a perfect choice, and in a normal election year a standard democrat or republican would win over both, but that is not the election year that is happening.
You cannot in good conscience however claim that "both are just as bad" there is literally no metric in which this is true.
Racism? Homophobia? Sexism? No plan on any aspect of presidency? Sexual assault? Economic abilities? Public speaking? Diplomacy? Respectfulness? Criminal history? Vice president pick? Experience leading? Likelihood to enact self serving legislature? Lying?
All of those things are merits on which Trump is worse than Hillary. There is no faucet of presidential duty in which Trump could conceivably be seen as equal to, or better than, Hillary.
Hillary is not a saint, she is not a particularly great candidate, but she is impossibly better than Trump in every way that matters, and probably every way that does on top of this.
Saying the situation is convulted and muddied but also that your sole perspective is correct and that it makes Clinton more unfit to lead a country than a man who sexually assaults people and has no idea what he's doing seems off to me.
Someone who's proven themselves as an elected official and has a clear plan trumps someone who has neither and is so convoluted in what he wants that it's impossible to tell. This is undeniable. "We haven't seen him in office" is no excuse when he, right now, has no policies that both are possible and haven't been contradicted by himself endlessly.
"We don't know until we get them" is utterly false and completely against the whole point of electing an official. If you're not willing to look at the plans from either candidate and the platform they're trying to be elected on to make your decision, how can you possibly elect someone. What merits do you instead deem more important than experience or an actual lain down plan that means someone without either is equal in this aspect to someone who does?
You are correct that neither is a perfect choice, and in a normal election year a standard democrat or republican would win over both, but that is not the election year that is happening.
You cannot in good conscience however claim that "both are just as bad" there is literally no metric in which this is true.
Racism? Homophobia? Sexism? No plan on any aspect of presidency? Sexual assault? Economic abilities? Public speaking? Diplomacy? Respectfulness? Criminal history? Vice president pick? Experience leading? Likelihood to enact self serving legislature? Lying?
All of those things are merits on which Trump is worse than Hillary. There is no faucet of presidential duty in which Trump could conceivably be seen as equal to, or better than, Hillary.
Hillary is not a saint, she is not a particularly great candidate, but she is impossibly better than Trump in every way that matters, and probably every way that does on top of this.
I don't understand. What is wrong in saying that they're both bad? I must be missing something here. I call getting killed due to negligence as bad. I call what Trump does bad. What more do you need? I'm not going to lean one way or the other. They're bad and I wouldn't have either of them over for tea. I can have, in good conscience, my opinion. They're bad. Either one has the potential to bring down despair down upon our ears. I also think that creating more loopholes for banks to slip through by deregulating them is a terrible idea. I'm not an expert on Trump, but I know Hillary.
I know what she has and hasn't done, so, believe me when I say it's best to just let me be on saying they're both equally as bad, because I really don't feel like digging out the snow shovel in the garage. Digging for more dirt on either side is a bad idea, because I assure you, no matter how terrible a person that Trump is, there will always be more skeletons in Clinton's closet when it comes to Political back dealings. It's the Colosseum effect. Everyone watches the gladiator's dirty tricks with awe (Trump), but everybody is reticent about the assassination up in the Parthenon. I think it's actually very lenient saying that both are bad when I'm only well known in one of the candidates.
Clinton is an official, i.e. a cop. Trump, up until recently, is just a civilian in this example. Clinton knows better, and she should be held to a higher standard, as well as every elected official (Every official should be for the people, not the other way around). I know people don't like Trump. I don't particularly like him either. But there is something to be said about turning a blind eye and constantly going on about a singular candidate and not the other.
I saw the 'Trump avoids taxes' argument brought up, which is an unfair and unfortunately, an uneducated view when in fact both candidates are equally guilty. Trump and Clinton are in the spotlight, Trump more so, I feel. People are quick to point out his prejudices but ignore Clinton's own prejudices. They like to bring up Trumps taxes, but ignore hers. Everyone was fast at pointing fingers at Trump for having a KKK member endorse him, but conveniently forgot to mention Clinton's mentor/friend is a member of the very same organization.
Both are terrible candidates, and I'd rather not argue over which is worse, or whose conscience is dirty or not. I'm not here to point fingers or sling mud, I'm just sharing my opinion and the information I have at my disposal. I'll say that focusing on just a singular person can cause you to be blindsided by the other. Clinton is in it with the banks, I've read articles and other sources stating that certain banks paid her to lobby for them. They are both the very bottom of the barrel from each of the parties. There are no winners in this election. I feel that trying to raise Clinton on some pedestal above Trump is doing a disservice to yourself. They're both terrible, terrible people, and I can't predict the future. Who knows? Maybe something incredibly damning will pop up within the next month that'll make up my mind, but until then I'm still in the precarious position of voting for two pissers that I don't like. I'd prefer if they both lost and someone else was elected, but that's not going to happen.
Like you said, Pence is against gays. Okay, I'm not sure about it because I'm not buried in any of the papers, but on the same flip Clinton is backed by several countries that would kill you as soon as look at you if you were gay. So she promises love and compassion to the gay community but accepts money from people that want to kill them [homosexuals].
TL;DR I know more about Clinton Politically than I do about Trump. Trump is bad from what I've heard, and Clinton is bad from what I've read. I don't like either and I won't champion either of them, I won't fight to lift either up because I know I'll lose on both bets.
From those polls, Dixie is relatively old (and yet also shows a close race, after adjusting for house effects), Emerson is older still (and also close), and Google, Ipsos and Cvoter aren't Texas-specific polls but rather estimates based on the Texas interviewees for a larger national poll- Ipsos and Cvoter each poll less than 600 people, making the result little better than an educated guess of where Texas is, whereas the Google one does have a decent sample but a poorer weighting and is therefore less trustworthy than a specific, tailored Texas-only poll.
But looking back, I'm seeing that the last five Texas-focused polls show a similarly close race- and a 5,000-sample poll from August-September gave a surreal "Clinton +3", so I'd say there is something serious going on.
Sadly, I didn't get to see the debate, but I hope I can find it online somewhere. When I have time, I might look into it some more, but as time wheres on and I hear more about the Democratic party's dirty laundry I become more cynical. Both sides are bad, but with the timeclock running on those e-mails and such, I think they need to get down to business quick before more is uncovered and there's enough sway to damn them through popular opinion.
I have an article in my local paper say that the voting officials (those that count votes, I suppose is more accurate) are offended at Trump saying that "The system is rigged". I'm not sure whether or not the system is rigged, but it sure is suspicious that Bernie Sanders was never going to get the ticket no matter what. It was one of those raw deals that he got stuck with, so forgive me if I think that rigging an election is fully within the toolbelts of some officials. Not that that means they always do such things, but we've seen something like it before with Al Gore so... I don't know. All we can do is watch I suppose.
![2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins]](https://s12.postimg.org/f0m5nym0t/0_QPGHJCY_g_Lo_IQ8s.jpg "2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins]")
![2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins]](https://i.imgur.com/8UAnhSv.png "2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins]")
![2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins]](https://i.imgur.com/YtxaNuQ.png "2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins]")
