[Denver]

they will both be terrible and trump will use it as a excuse to abuse more women

[the truth]

I really really really do believe she is evil
Trump is the wolf , he is what he is
shes the wolf in sheeps clothing
the biggest disaster of all here is the fact his idiotic personal behaviour over the yrs is going to allow her to take over the superpower
as for those who think im sexist on here...firstly Im not. secondly Im delighted teresa may is in charge and I thought thatcher on issues like europe was great...I just take every individual on merit....clinton is dreadful her record in government is appalling, shes been there for many years and created absolute chaos. No wonder shes avoiding the policies and issues of substance to talk and kiss and tell gossip.

[Northern Monkey]

Both awful however i think Trump would be less lethal.Hilary will kill alot of people imo.There is a higher chance of her dragging us into a very dangerous conflict.Specially if she goes through with her insane plans in Syria.She's crazy.She was against gay marriage until she did a miraculous u-turn when she saw the Whitehouse in sight and her "we came,we saw,we killed him" quote whilst laughing shows her lack of empathy for human life.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Withano

Your brags are irrelevant, this is more about you ignoring all other reasons for a 70% approval rating because you think you can explain it in 2 words. Use your exemplary education to think about it critcally and realise its a bit of a jump.

There REALLY is no need for this Withano. It is one of the traits on TIBB which really pisses me off;

Someone denigrates one's intellect and knowledge, or questions one's qualifications to express a certain viewpoint - either directly or by allusion - and when they receive a response which states the qualifications, or which details just why one is intelligent and knowledgeable, they are then met with yet more insult, and accusations of boasting and having huge egos.

It has happened to me numerous times, but what other way is there of responding than to list the qualities and qualifications which rebut the original slights?

[Crimson Dynamo]

the irony in this thread

a trump hater who hates trump for the way he behaves insulting members right and left for disagreeing with her

brilliant

[Withano]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

There REALLY is no need for this Withano. It is one of the traits on TIBB which really pisses me off;

Someone denigrates one's intellect and knowledge, or questions one's qualifications to express a certain viewpoint - either directly or by allusion - and when they receive a response which states the qualifications, or which details just why one is intelligent and knowledgeable, they are then met with yet more insult, and accusations of boasting and having huge egos.

It has happened to me numerous times, but what other way is there of responding than to list the qualities and qualifications which rebut the original slights?

Reread it, cos I done the opposite.

[Ammi]

...(looking at them both at face value without them actually doing the job obviously...)....I would say no, neither of them could be 'great'..I think this is more about least damaging with such candidates...with the rise of Trumpism, it seems to be largely to do with 'change' brought on and felt because of frustrations/fears/general unsettlement felt by people...Trump is seen as the person who will bring about change../the breaking off from 'establishment' and the breaking free....but how is taking people back decades in his stance on females and how he regards them, 'change'...how is closing a country down with walls, 'change'...building walls and moats around castles is a bit old hat and back in the day....change means progression and he represents the very opposite to progression but rather, representing regression...is that the 'new world'..?...I don't think that Hilary can be great because she's the very opposite and the establishment that a change is needed from...I personally feel that she's too self serving in her own career to bring about anything 'great'...but I do think she'll be less damaging so may be an ok President until the USA actually have real candidates for for purpose etc...and drive and ambition can achieve as well in progression because 'serving the people', serves her own purpose as well...

[Maru]

Why did OP open a thread, only to disregard the straight answers and then proceed to insult members who answer in ways he doesn't agree with? I see that it's an attempt to challenge those posters, but they gave sufficient enough replies to explain their own POV/position(s)... why make petty remarks?

To answer the actual question, Trump will be the worst... my thoughts all over the forum, so no point to bringing it up

Clinton has the possibility to to be an average president and if she can stop her polarizing secret habits, a slight potential to be a great one...

I was encouraged to vote for her when I read about comments she made in leaked audio about considering herself center-left/center-right... still, she's far too secretive with her actual political leanings for me to feel confident enough she fits the definition of center anything... I think she is actually fairly center after reading/watching things on her backstory, but some of her security decisions don't support that and her inability to be honest to voter's on the campaign trail about her most staunchest leanings make it difficult for me to confirm whether or not I could justify voting for her (so I will be writing in)

Anyway, it is my mild hope based on that she may be turn out to be an OK president... but at the same time, I'm not going to hold my breath that it will end the political stagnation so easily. That will be a tough task to tackle for most anyone who would win.

Still, her ability to be professional and treat issues and voters sensitively may win her a good legacy, but she needs to stop that behind the scenes ****. It'll be a non-starter in this day and age of transparency and constant digital leaks.

I do agree a great deal with kirk/bitontheslides posts, though I have to take a little bit of umbrage with the statement about Clinton's 70% approval rating... a vast majority of people here have stated that having mistresses on the side as not politically relevant. Americans in general don't really care all that much if a political has a mistress on the side, as that's largely considered a personal matter not even worth the media sensation that comes from it. The witch-hunt was primarily Republican driven only as a means to balance out/mitigate Clinton's ridiculous popularity... many many many people still nostalgically refer back to his president as a golden age for American political process and a better quality of life. I remember that vividly because I'm a generation that benefited the most from that time period, when our national self-esteem was at it's highest and our path towards progress was the most clear. Then came 911, that all changed and since then everyday I'm reminded that things are different now.

As for familiarity, I don't think that to do as much with it as much as people can only draw their opinions from recent experiences... things have changed so dramatically for the world in the past 10, 20, 50, hell 100 years... that our idea and perceptions would make/break a presidency has had to constantly adjust to accommodate what we've learned as nation. If there's one thing you can say about Americans, we value our opinions and are very proud of our personal perceptions irregardless of our walk of life. If we sense even a hint of some manipulation/deception in a candidate, it makes us question/lower our hopes for their ability to be great in their position, because the last thing an American wants to be made a fool of on is their strong opinion... we are a very proud people in that manner, for better or worse

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I have probably voted in more elections than any other member of this forum, thank you.

Your phrases; 'ability to forecast' and 'thinking it through' are a little vague, but let us examine what you may mean by them, shall we:

By 'ability to forecast', do you mean, 'Making a calculated guess based upon....

a) Political track records of the Presidential Candidates?

Trump has none, and Clinton's is less than inspirational.

Or perhaps you mean;

b) The political statements and promises issuing forth from both Candidates mouths whilst on the Campaign trail?

Trump is a PROVEN liar and Clinton is a PROVEN liar.

Or perhaps you mean;

c) The 'Believability' and 'Credibility' factors?

Trump is a PROVEN liar and Clinton is a PROVEN liar.

Oh... I see, NOW all we are left with are our own personal prejudices. Who we LIKE as a PERSON and who we DON'T like as a person.

Get voting.

BTW, excellent rebuttal kirk

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Maru

Why did OP open a thread, only to disregard the straight answers and then proceed to insult members who answer in ways he doesn't agree with? I see that it's an attempt to challenge those posters, but they gave sufficient enough replies to explain their own POV/position(s)... why make petty remarks?

To answer the actual question, Trump will be the worst... my thoughts all over the forum, so no point to bringing it up

Clinton has the possibility to to be an average president and if she can stop her polarizing secret habits, a slight potential to be a great one...

I was encouraged to vote for her when I read about comments she made in leaked audio about considering herself center-left/center-right... still, she's far too secretive with her actual political leanings for me to feel confident enough she fits the definition of center anything... I think she is actually fairly center after reading/watching things on her backstory, but some of her security decisions don't support that and her inability to be honest to voter's on the campaign trail about her most staunchest leanings make it difficult for me to confirm whether or not I could justify voting for her (so I will be writing in)

Anyway, it is my mild hope based on that she may be turn out to be an OK president... but at the same time, I'm not going to hold my breath that it will end the political stagnation so easily. That will be a tough task to tackle for most anyone who would win.

Still, her ability to be professional and treat issues and voters sensitively may win her a good legacy, but she needs to stop that behind the scenes ****. It'll be a non-starter in this day and age of transparency and constant digital leaks.

I do agree a great deal with kirk/bitontheslides posts, though I have to take a little bit of umbrage with the statement about Clinton's 70% approval rating... a vast majority of people here have stated that having mistresses on the side as not politically relevant. Americans in general don't really care all that much if a political has a mistress on the side, as that's largely considered a personal matter not even worth the media sensation that comes from it. The witch-hunt was primarily Republican driven only as a means to balance out/mitigate Clinton's ridiculous popularity... many many many people still nostalgically refer back to his president as a golden age for American political process and a better quality of life. I remember that vividly because I'm a generation that benefited the most from that time period, when our national self-esteem was at it's highest and our path towards progress was the most clear. Then came 911, that all changed and have since then everyday I'm reminded that things are different now.

As for familiarity, I don't think that to do as much with it as much as people can only draw their opinions from recent experiences... things have changed so dramatically for the world in the past 10, 20, 50, hell 100 years... that our idea and perceptions would make/break a presidency has had to constantly adjust with it as well consider what we've learned as nation. If there's one thing you can say about Americans, we value our opinions and are very proud of our personal perceptions irregardless of our walk of life. If we sense even a hint of some manipulation/deception in a candidate, it makes us question/lower our hopes for their ability to be great in their position, because the last thing an American wants to be made a fool of on is their strong opinion... we are a very proud people in that manner, for better or worse



BTW, excellent rebuttal kirk

One post was completely off-topic, the other made the claim that its impossible to answer this question, which is obviously untrue cos everybody bar that guy managed to.
I was incredibly interested in all other responses in the thread and I didnt feel the need to praise them all in seperate posts because thats weird. I was also interested in the poll results which is the main reason I opened the thread.
Me replying to the off-topic or the inaccurate posts doesn't take away from that.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Withano

One post was completely off-topic, the other made the claim that its impossible to answer this question, which is obviously untrue cos everybody bar that guy managed to.
I was incredibly interested in all other responses in the thread and I didnt feel the need to praise them all in seperate posts because thats weird. I was also interested in the poll results which is the main reason I opened the thread.
Me replying to the off-topic or the inaccurate posts doesn't take away from that.

I understand that, but they explained their views quite clearly when you pressed them and why it effects the answer to your question. What's that saying exactly, you can choose to avoid making a decision or not, but either way you've made a decision...

I agree with kirk's response, it's very difficult to fully evaluate these candidates (especially Trump) because there is a lot of secrecy behind both their dealings and inner-working. I answered the thread as best as I could, but frankly a lot of Americans are at a loss which candidate to vote for this election.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Maru

I do agree a great deal with kirk/bitontheslides posts, though I have to take a little bit of umbrage with the statement about Clinton's 70% approval rating... a vast majority of people here have stated that having mistresses on the side as not politically relevant. Americans in general don't really care all that much if a political has a mistress on the side, as that's largely considered a personal matter not even worth the media sensation that comes from it. The witch-hunt was primarily Republican driven only as a means to balance out/mitigate Clinton's ridiculous popularity... many many many people still nostalgically refer back to his president as a golden age for American political process and a better quality of life. I remember that vividly because I'm a generation that benefited the most from that time period, when our national self-esteem was at it's highest and our path towards progress was the most clear. Then came 911, that all changed and since then everyday I'm reminded that things are different now.

I have to take a little bit of umbrage with you too Maru

You are perfectly correct about people not caring about an affair, but it was much more than an affair, it was a protracted deception of the American people that culminated in his lying under oath. Which backs up my point that people don't take to new, they prefer familiarity ... perfectly relevant to the question asked I might add

[EspeonBB]

Trump would be a huge disaster. I don't think he has any idea what he's doing

Clinton would just keep things the same, and although things need to change it'll do for now

[Maru]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

I have to take a little bit of umbrage with you too Maru

You are perfectly correct about people not caring about an affair, but it was much more than an affair, it was a protracted deception of the American people that culminated in his lying under oath. Which backs up my point that people don't take to new, they prefer familiarity ... perfectly relevant to the question asked I might add

Oh don't take me wrong, that's a perfectly valid position. However, the negative perception works both ways with the public. Clinton didn't want it getting it out, but Republicans obsession with it in lue of other more important issues that needed to get pushed through Congress at the time left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths.

Simplifying it to being just down to voting and approving of someone based on familiarity is negating a lot of the issues that were important in those times.

Keep in mind, the poll doesn't ask, do you approve strongly.. it's a yes/no question, so they could just be "fine" with him as president. Which is perfectly valid too, he represented the nation beautifully imo.

[Brother Leon]

Both spell trouble for the future.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Maru

Why did OP open a thread, only to disregard the straight answers and then proceed to insult members who answer in ways he doesn't agree with? I see that it's an attempt to challenge those posters, but they gave sufficient enough replies to explain their own POV/position(s)... why make petty remarks?

To answer the actual question, Trump will be the worst... my thoughts all over the forum, so no point to bringing it up

Clinton has the possibility to to be an average president and if she can stop her polarizing secret habits, a slight potential to be a great one...

I was encouraged to vote for her when I read about comments she made in leaked audio about considering herself center-left/center-right... still, she's far too secretive with her actual political leanings for me to feel confident enough she fits the definition of center anything... I think she is actually fairly center after reading/watching things on her backstory, but some of her security decisions don't support that and her inability to be honest to voter's on the campaign trail about her most staunchest leanings make it difficult for me to confirm whether or not I could justify voting for her (so I will be writing in)

Anyway, it is my mild hope based on that she may be turn out to be an OK president... but at the same time, I'm not going to hold my breath that it will end the political stagnation so easily. That will be a tough task to tackle for most anyone who would win.

Still, her ability to be professional and treat issues and voters sensitively may win her a good legacy, but she needs to stop that behind the scenes ****. It'll be a non-starter in this day and age of transparency and constant digital leaks.

I do agree a great deal with kirk/bitontheslides posts, though I have to take a little bit of umbrage with the statement about Clinton's 70% approval rating... a vast majority of people here have stated that having mistresses on the side as not politically relevant. Americans in general don't really care all that much if a political has a mistress on the side, as that's largely considered a personal matter not even worth the media sensation that comes from it. The witch-hunt was primarily Republican driven only as a means to balance out/mitigate Clinton's ridiculous popularity... many many many people still nostalgically refer back to his president as a golden age for American political process and a better quality of life. I remember that vividly because I'm a generation that benefited the most from that time period, when our national self-esteem was at it's highest and our path towards progress was the most clear. Then came 911, that all changed and since then everyday I'm reminded that things are different now.

As for familiarity, I don't think that to do as much with it as much as people can only draw their opinions from recent experiences... things have changed so dramatically for the world in the past 10, 20, 50, hell 100 years... that our idea and perceptions would make/break a presidency has had to constantly adjust to accommodate what we've learned as nation. If there's one thing you can say about Americans, we value our opinions and are very proud of our personal perceptions irregardless of our walk of life. If we sense even a hint of some manipulation/deception in a candidate, it makes us question/lower our hopes for their ability to be great in their position, because the last thing an American wants to be made a fool of on is their strong opinion... we are a very proud people in that manner, for better or worse



BTW, excellent rebuttal kirk

Another great post, and Thank You Maru for the compliment.

[kirklancaster]

I get the impression that some people think that if Trump does get elected, he will be in complete and splendid isolation and have total autonomy on all policy and decision making.

This is just not the case.

No matter how inexperienced Trump is - or how much of a xenophobe or sexist clown he may be as some allege - he will be advised by vastly more experienced and more moderate minds than his, and prevented from indulging himself and imposing any personal prejudices he may have into policies.

It is, of course, the same for Clinton.

[Tom4784]

I'd rather go with the more experienced devil that I already know than a raving racist sexual predator.

[rk3388]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Or either could be dreadful and be impeached within 2 years - NO ONE knows.

I disagree. With Trump's disastrous policies he is no way going to be one of the best presidents. Cutting taxes for the 1% by over half what they're paying, prioritizing more oil development over renewable energy sources, Not taking in Syrian refugees (He should look at how many Canada has brought in and how it has been a non-issue thus far) etc. etc. I could literally go on.

his presidency would be disastrous and I KNOW that.

[bots]

Originally Posted by rk3388

I disagree. With Trump's disastrous policies he is no way going to be one of the best presidents. Cutting taxes for the 1% by over half what they're paying, prioritizing more oil development over renewable energy sources, Not taking in Syrian refugees (He should look at how many Canada has brought in and how it has been a non-issue thus far) etc. etc. I could literally go on.

his presidency would be disastrous and I KNOW that.

and your reasons for saying that are remarkably focussing on policy .... which is fantastic, and has 100% validity given your own political leanings. Others are perfectly entitled to disagree, but It's so nice to see real policies being referenced.

[Kizzy]

Eminem thinks not..
It’s no secret: there are a huge number of pop-culture icons who really dislike Donald Trump and never want him to become President of the United States.

Robert De Niro recently unleashed a tirade of damning words against the Republican presidential candidate; the likes of Robert Downey Jr, Scarlett Johansson, and Mark Ruffalo appeared in Joss Whedon’s anti-Trump video; even Will.i.am released a song about his derogatory comments about women.


http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...=facebook-post

[Kizzy]

Or Michael Moore...

Somehow, Michael Moore - director of such controversial documentaries as Fahrenheit 9/11, Bowling for Columbine, and Sicko - managed to keep his latest project almost completely under wraps until the first screening.

Michael Moore in TrumpLand was unveiled to the public last night during a screening at New York City’s IFC Centre, kickstarting its week-long run at the Los Angeles' Laemmle Town Center 5 in Encino.

The 73-minute live performance film sees the Oscar-winning director speak about the two candidates on stage in Ohio, a county that has four times as many Trump supporters as Clinton.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...-a7368936.html

[Mokka]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Eminem thinks not..
It’s no secret: there are a huge number of pop-culture icons who really dislike Donald Trump and never want him to become President of the United States.

Robert De Niro recently unleashed a tirade of damning words against the Republican presidential candidate; the likes of Robert Downey Jr, Scarlett Johansson, and Mark Ruffalo appeared in Joss Whedon’s anti-Trump video; even Will.i.am released a song about his derogatory comments about women.


http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...=facebook-post

You can't make that one up.... mess

[the truth]

trump defeats her on nearly every issue