Can someone please clarify which Clinton is accused of rape?
Bill Clinton is the sexual predator and rapist. Hillary Clinton is the enormous hypocrite who has spent decades defending his actions and attacking the women he's abused.
I definitely won't vote for Bill Clinton, with all those rape accusers.
It's not about Bill. It's about Hillary's long-standing support for Bill's treatment of women. About her mocking of the women he's abused. About her willingness to throw women under the bus when they are inconvenient to her pursuit of political power. Bill and his predatory ways are only relevant because of Hillary's endorsement of that predation and abuse.
If someone is accused of rape, it should make them ineligible to be president, don't you agree?
No, because an accusation - as we've seen in high profile cases many times - can be completely false. But when the accusation is credible, and repeated for decades by women have contemporary witnesses who back up their claims (as Bill's victims or cast-off flings do), and Hillary carefully avoids her own finger-wagging standards long enough to send her hired fixers out to smear those women and destroy them... there's something to look at, vis-a-vis worthiness to hold office.
What whacky scenario do you see playing out where all the guns are taken from you?
You mean, like Australia? That sort of thing? Or Hillary Clinton's personal favorite back-channel methods: she wants to support punitive taxes on the purchase of ammunition, and make gun manufacturers vulnerable to lawsuits over deaths committed by criminals using their products. In other words, she wants to use executive power to strangle gun makers and owners through regulatory and financial attacks, and get that bit of misery in place while she seats Supreme Court justices that will, as she puts it, "reinterpret the constitution." She's on the record saying that she doesn't believe the 2nd Amendment protects the individual right to own guns. If she can stuff the court with activists who will follow her lead on that, that's exactly the approach to an Australia-style confiscation of privately owned guns.
I just drove through Michigan - from its touristy border with Canada, down through the rural spaces, through Ann Arbor and around Detroit and off into NY and PA, down through western MD and into the DC burbs. I saw less than 10 "Clinton" signs in front yards, and never one on display at a business. I saw hundreds and hundreds of Trump signs... and not on run down shacks and pickup trucks. I saw them prominently displayed in front of large businesses, busy restaurants, and homes of all sizes and values. In the DC area, I see almost none of the usual liberal sign-posting, except for local races and congressional seats, etc.
The Trump support (or Hillary revulsion, as much or more likely) was strikingly strong through a thousand miles of rural, suburban, and city driving. Doesn't mean that visible support for him, or silence for Hillary, will map to meaningful votes or electoral seats - but the notion, as constantly beaten on by the lefty media, that it's all simpleton rednecks supporting Trump because they all want to be Nazis and bring back the good old days of slave owning... it's complete BS.
So, you know that's not true. You're actively lying about that. The question is, who do you think you're fooling? Who is your audience for that particular lie?
He couldn't decide between getting an.org or a.com domain, so he took trumporg.com?
He is involved in several hundred business ventures and holdings. Collectively, those companies are and have for a long time been referred to as "The Trump Organization." And it's a business, so a.com domain of a shortened version of his company's familiar name makes sense. All of which you know, so the question is why you're pretending to be dumb so you can toss out some lame, faux-misinformed ridicule in hopes of scoring a couple of pointless points with low information readers.
Donald Trump is being given national security briefings, so who knows?
You sound like you do. What do you know?
And what do you know about how Hillary Clinton is currently handling her private email, right now? Because she's also a private citizen at the moment, and is ALSO receiving those briefings. And we see that her and her organization and her party's very cozy relationship with it are all leaking their emails like running water. So why aren't you dishing out some snark in that direction, where there's actual evidence of foreign parties poking around and coming up with thousands of emails that point out the Clinton machine's ongoing corruption?
Except the White House/State Department told her she could set up her own server.
No, they did not. You are lying, on behalf of the serially lying candidate you mysteriously want to support.
There isn't a single record of her asking State's security/IT people if she could use her own server. They are on record saying that if they had ever been asked, they would have emphatically refused to support such a foolish strategy. Her own staff at State and the IT people there went on record many times saying how much they thought she needed to avoid what she did, and there are memos from their management telling them to finally stop talking about it, because Clinton's inner circle was getting pissed about being nagged to operate securely using State-issued devices and accounts.
All of which is now public record. Which you know. So, why are you lying? What are you hoping to achieve?
If his team can't do the job now, why would we expect them to do any better if they get elected
Because "his team" isn't going to be the people running the elaborately secure IT infrastructure that protects internal/secure communications at the White House. Which you know. So what's your point, exactly, other than spreading FUD?
Which explains why you're refuting the points people are making instead of just slinging a little lazy ad hominem on behalf of Hillary Clinton, right? Oh, that's right, you're NOT saying anything constructive or specific, you're just whining in order to distract.
As if the Secretary of State even had access to the truly classified documents...
Yes, the SoS does have access to such. And is regularly briefed on stuff that's much, much more sensitive than merely "classified." The person holding that job is on the short list of people in line for the presidency if a small number of particularly bad things happen.
The documents Clinton had slopping around on her home computer included things that were considered so sensitive that the intel community insisted not on merely having the contents redacted, but on the documents not even being abstractly described (in terms of dates, to/from info, let alone the actual content).
Ah, I get it. You're an NRA fetishist with no statistics skills. Yeah, there seem to be a lot of those in the Hillary camp. It explains a lot of things.
But seriously, when all Trump can do is court the NRA vote, he's going to lose.
He may not win, but he'll be getting WAY more than the votes from the few million members of the NRA. Because there are many tens of millions of active voters who don't want to see her in office.
No, musings about possible VP running mates who might have been, in place of the oddly smarmy Kaine... that's not in the "more interesting" category. The endless parade of internal back-and-forths that reinforce our understanding of the insider-based, corrupt, incestuous affair that is the Hillary Industrial Crime Campaign Power Acquisition Complex... THAT is the "more interesting" aspect of what's being exposed over the last few weeks. Obviously her breathless supporters across most of the wider media outlets are pretending they haven't seen or heard of any of that, not even once, in the decades that she's been carrying on as she has. But some pointless conjecture about Gates or Cook (neither of whom would have touched the gig with a ten foot pole) is exactly the sort of distraction her camp is hoping people will bite into, so they're not spending time boning up on just how corrupt her operation is.
Yes, it IS a right, and I haven't suggested constraining it. I'm talking about how people should feel about it: that their participation in the process should only happen when they actually understand what's at stake and how it works.
How is describing the SEIU in those succinct, generally active terms an example of blatant trolling? That's the whole point. When people call things what they really are, you're describing that as a "right wing" comment. If neatly categorizing thuggish organizations with socialist leanings by using historical references that touch on other groups that stand for the same sorts of things and use the same sorts of tactics is "right wing," then any trend on/. towards that is a good thing, no matter how one mis-labels it.
SEIU members have been observed many times roughing up people with whom they disagree, and do so while appearing at events while under direction from their corrupt union leadership. The only trolling around the topic, here, would be seen in attempts to spin a description of that union in any other direction. It's politics are angrily lefty, and its tactics include threats and the actual use of violence in public to intimidate and silence opposition. What you're saying is that "approaching people" with an accurate, rhetorically useful, history-minded reference to such an organization is a sign of not caring what other people have to say. Why is telling the truth a sign of such? I'd argue that calling him a troll for being observant is the real example of being dismissive and hoping to silence somebody because you don't want to hear their observations.
Voting shouldn't be a privilege. It should be an earned option. Earned through an objective demonstration of an understanding of the constitution and the functioning structure of the government at each level (local, municipal, county, state, federal) where the would-be voter wants to play a role - through voting - in structuring everyone else's lives. Voting by low-information fools, across the political spectrum, has caused no end of mischief - especially when it comes to things like referendums, school boards, and other areas where uninformed feel-good votes can cause real damage. In the case of this year's presidential election, most of what I'm hearing from the rants on both sides are arguments over what they think about which of the two candidates will fix or hurt things that the president can't really do much to hurt or fix anyway, structurally.
Meanwhile, the ranters generally ignore what will be the single most important thing this time around, which is several years of filling SCOTUS seats. Clinton's own definition of how she sees that part of the job suggests that she is banking on votes from people who have no idea how the constitution works. She needs ignorance about that gravely vital area in order to get the power she wants. Trump is relying on ignorance about how likely a president is to be able to push back against global competition for things like manufacturing jobs... which is less a reliance on people uneducated about the structure of our government, and more about not understanding economics in a competitive global economy.
Your logic implies that if you're not in a swing state then voting is pointless, when it is still very vital.
Always vote. There's more on the plate than the president. But even then, when you know for a fact, as we do now that it's going to be one of two people: vote the one that's going to do the least real-world, right-now damage. Trump is an annoying person with a likely better outcome for court. Clinton is a slicker, but more sinister person, whose vision of the court is completely incompatible with the constitution's three co-equal branches framework.
No, that doesn't sound familiar. Because it's a thought experiment, not real life. We have real life Supreme Court justices to seat. Now. Here in the real world. One of the two candidates we all hate is going to name those judges. That's not a though experiment, it's reality. And it will impact every one of us, personally and professionally, for decades.
Nope, that will still produce nothing but noise. Because the "third parties" that are screaming about wanting more representation coalesce around people who pander to one-topic voters like stoners, homeopathy fans, irrational isolationists, and frustrated communists. Giving those platforms more horsepower, at the expense of the taxpayers, isn't constructive.
Pointing out that one of the two leading candidates will win, and what that means for the Supreme Court here in the real world where that's what is actually going to happen, is not an example of flaming you or anyone else. How is it a betrayal of my beliefs to choose the candidate that will do the least damage? My "belief" is that I'd like to see less damage, rather than more. Should I encourage the choice that will result in MORE damage, so that I can say I'm a purist? Are you even listening to yourself?
This would all go away if the third parties you're pitching for would put forth some non-absurd candidates that they know won't spend their time talking about weed, homeopathy, their lack of any familiarity with foreign heads of state, etc.
Is that some twisted way of trying to ignore the things that Hillary DID actually do to attack and smear the women her husband pursued and abused? The point isn't that Bill did those things (as opposed to talking about them). The point is that he did them - serially, for decades, while using his government power from Arkansas to DC to help him do so - and his wife, that champion of women and protector of all who accuse others of rape, lied for him, covered for him, and used your tax dollars to have her staff and operatives try to wreck those women's lives. Not because she was mad at them for being raped by her husband, but because their existence was indirectly damaging to her own political prospects, as they continue to be.
The problem is that it confirms the Sanders-types' understanding of her: she's a disingenuous person who patronizes and condescends to the general public with her phony grandma act while pandering to Wall Street and taking huge amounts of their money while being a completely different person and offering favors that are odds with her "It's OK, I'm just like Bernie" shtick.
She's been trying to play down the way that she and her husband have become very, very wealthy while not ever actually producing anything (they are in the business of selling influence, even while on the public payroll), and the leaked info surrounding her relationship with Wall Street just sheds some more light on that. It's not like her phoniness in that regard is a mystery to anyone that's been paying attention, but a lot of the Bernie types have NOT been paying suitable attention, and all they're hearing from her now is, "Hey! I'll ALSO give you free stuff!" and that's as far as they get in assessing her.
If you want to send a "fuck you" to the whole system, why the he'll are you voting for anyone running with an "R" or a "D" after their name?
Because saying "fuck you" by voting for the Libertarian or Green candidates is like saying "fuck you" while you're standing out in the middle of the woods with nobody listening. The vote is lost.
You have two real choices: vote for the Supreme Court nominees that Trump has already listed for you, or vote for the ones that Clinton will seat, about which we have no details, though she's signaling lots (she wants people with no federal judicial experience who "know what people are facing," etc). The difference is stark. She wants to make and execute her policies through court activism. There are bones to pick with Trump's list, but by and large, it reflects a group of choices that actually understand and embrace the three-way checks and balances that the constitution established. That issue, right there, is the ONLY thing that this election is really about.
He's a buffoonish bro in his public manner, and she's a sociopathic, corrupt liar that would already be indicted if not in jail, were she anyone with less of a political machine protecting her. So he's distasteful at best, and she's practically a James Bond villain. You want to shake up "the system?" Vote for the one that "the system" definitely hates, but who will at least seat some justices more inclined to preserve the three co-equal branches of government in the roles they're supposed to play. He will have an adversarial congress and a sober court to counter his policy learning curve phase. She will have an adversarial congress and a lapdog activist liberal court anxious to pursue her agenda from the bench.
The repercussions will last for decades - long after we care in the least about either of their personalities, or whether or not the third party candidates can think their way out of a wet paper bag. No, I won't give a vote to a guy who isn't just ignorant of foreign affairs, but is willfully so and considers it a badge of phony Libertarian honor. And I wont' give a vote to a professionally trained medical doctor whose actively anti-science positions show her to be simply irrational right out of the gate - on the very types of topics that she, unlike normal politicians, should be held to the highest standard.
Wow, you've really got your panties in a twist, don't you? I'm not "defending" anything. I'm explaining what simple words mean, as clearly expressed by the people who wrote them - and in case your agenda makes you feel that you have to pretend that's not the case so you can rant about other things, I also discussed the context in which those words were formed.
We're not in the middle of a constitutional convention where we need to draft new language for a new amendment... so your strange fetish for scolding me about how I'm not complaining or stamping my feet about how un-liberty-minded the Second Amendment is... really can't be anything other than a reflection of some misapprehension on your part about reality (to say nothing about totally missing the context of the actual conversation).
Slashdot Mirror
Can someone please clarify which Clinton is accused of rape?
Bill Clinton is the sexual predator and rapist. Hillary Clinton is the enormous hypocrite who has spent decades defending his actions and attacking the women he's abused.
I definitely won't vote for Bill Clinton, with all those rape accusers.
It's not about Bill. It's about Hillary's long-standing support for Bill's treatment of women. About her mocking of the women he's abused. About her willingness to throw women under the bus when they are inconvenient to her pursuit of political power. Bill and his predatory ways are only relevant because of Hillary's endorsement of that predation and abuse.
If someone is accused of rape, it should make them ineligible to be president, don't you agree?
No, because an accusation - as we've seen in high profile cases many times - can be completely false. But when the accusation is credible, and repeated for decades by women have contemporary witnesses who back up their claims (as Bill's victims or cast-off flings do), and Hillary carefully avoids her own finger-wagging standards long enough to send her hired fixers out to smear those women and destroy them ... there's something to look at, vis-a-vis worthiness to hold office.
What whacky scenario do you see playing out where all the guns are taken from you?
You mean, like Australia? That sort of thing? Or Hillary Clinton's personal favorite back-channel methods: she wants to support punitive taxes on the purchase of ammunition, and make gun manufacturers vulnerable to lawsuits over deaths committed by criminals using their products. In other words, she wants to use executive power to strangle gun makers and owners through regulatory and financial attacks, and get that bit of misery in place while she seats Supreme Court justices that will, as she puts it, "reinterpret the constitution." She's on the record saying that she doesn't believe the 2nd Amendment protects the individual right to own guns. If she can stuff the court with activists who will follow her lead on that, that's exactly the approach to an Australia-style confiscation of privately owned guns.
Yes indeed.
... and not on run down shacks and pickup trucks. I saw them prominently displayed in front of large businesses, busy restaurants, and homes of all sizes and values. In the DC area, I see almost none of the usual liberal sign-posting, except for local races and congressional seats, etc.
... it's complete BS.
I just drove through Michigan - from its touristy border with Canada, down through the rural spaces, through Ann Arbor and around Detroit and off into NY and PA, down through western MD and into the DC burbs. I saw less than 10 "Clinton" signs in front yards, and never one on display at a business. I saw hundreds and hundreds of Trump signs
The Trump support (or Hillary revulsion, as much or more likely) was strikingly strong through a thousand miles of rural, suburban, and city driving. Doesn't mean that visible support for him, or silence for Hillary, will map to meaningful votes or electoral seats - but the notion, as constantly beaten on by the lefty media, that it's all simpleton rednecks supporting Trump because they all want to be Nazis and bring back the good old days of slave owning
He wants to ban all Muslims from entering the US.
So, you know that's not true. You're actively lying about that. The question is, who do you think you're fooling? Who is your audience for that particular lie?
He couldn't decide between getting an .org or a .com domain, so he took trumporg.com?
He is involved in several hundred business ventures and holdings. Collectively, those companies are and have for a long time been referred to as "The Trump Organization." And it's a business, so a .com domain of a shortened version of his company's familiar name makes sense. All of which you know, so the question is why you're pretending to be dumb so you can toss out some lame, faux-misinformed ridicule in hopes of scoring a couple of pointless points with low information readers.
Donald Trump is being given national security briefings, so who knows?
You sound like you do. What do you know?
And what do you know about how Hillary Clinton is currently handling her private email, right now? Because she's also a private citizen at the moment, and is ALSO receiving those briefings. And we see that her and her organization and her party's very cozy relationship with it are all leaking their emails like running water. So why aren't you dishing out some snark in that direction, where there's actual evidence of foreign parties poking around and coming up with thousands of emails that point out the Clinton machine's ongoing corruption?
Except the White House/State Department told her she could set up her own server.
No, they did not. You are lying, on behalf of the serially lying candidate you mysteriously want to support.
There isn't a single record of her asking State's security/IT people if she could use her own server. They are on record saying that if they had ever been asked, they would have emphatically refused to support such a foolish strategy. Her own staff at State and the IT people there went on record many times saying how much they thought she needed to avoid what she did, and there are memos from their management telling them to finally stop talking about it, because Clinton's inner circle was getting pissed about being nagged to operate securely using State-issued devices and accounts.
All of which is now public record. Which you know. So, why are you lying? What are you hoping to achieve?
If his team can't do the job now, why would we expect them to do any better if they get elected
Because "his team" isn't going to be the people running the elaborately secure IT infrastructure that protects internal/secure communications at the White House. Which you know. So what's your point, exactly, other than spreading FUD?
This is the Trump Apologist thread.
Which explains why you're refuting the points people are making instead of just slinging a little lazy ad hominem on behalf of Hillary Clinton, right? Oh, that's right, you're NOT saying anything constructive or specific, you're just whining in order to distract.
As if the Secretary of State even had access to the truly classified documents...
Yes, the SoS does have access to such. And is regularly briefed on stuff that's much, much more sensitive than merely "classified." The person holding that job is on the short list of people in line for the presidency if a small number of particularly bad things happen.
The documents Clinton had slopping around on her home computer included things that were considered so sensitive that the intel community insisted not on merely having the contents redacted, but on the documents not even being abstractly described (in terms of dates, to/from info, let alone the actual content).
Ah, I get it. You're an NRA fetishist with no statistics skills. Yeah, there seem to be a lot of those in the Hillary camp. It explains a lot of things.
But seriously, when all Trump can do is court the NRA vote, he's going to lose.
He may not win, but he'll be getting WAY more than the votes from the few million members of the NRA. Because there are many tens of millions of active voters who don't want to see her in office.
No, musings about possible VP running mates who might have been, in place of the oddly smarmy Kaine ... that's not in the "more interesting" category. The endless parade of internal back-and-forths that reinforce our understanding of the insider-based, corrupt, incestuous affair that is the Hillary Industrial Crime Campaign Power Acquisition Complex ... THAT is the "more interesting" aspect of what's being exposed over the last few weeks. Obviously her breathless supporters across most of the wider media outlets are pretending they haven't seen or heard of any of that, not even once, in the decades that she's been carrying on as she has. But some pointless conjecture about Gates or Cook (neither of whom would have touched the gig with a ten foot pole) is exactly the sort of distraction her camp is hoping people will bite into, so they're not spending time boning up on just how corrupt her operation is.
Yes, it IS a right, and I haven't suggested constraining it. I'm talking about how people should feel about it: that their participation in the process should only happen when they actually understand what's at stake and how it works.
How is describing the SEIU in those succinct, generally active terms an example of blatant trolling? That's the whole point. When people call things what they really are, you're describing that as a "right wing" comment. If neatly categorizing thuggish organizations with socialist leanings by using historical references that touch on other groups that stand for the same sorts of things and use the same sorts of tactics is "right wing," then any trend on /. towards that is a good thing, no matter how one mis-labels it.
SEIU members have been observed many times roughing up people with whom they disagree, and do so while appearing at events while under direction from their corrupt union leadership. The only trolling around the topic, here, would be seen in attempts to spin a description of that union in any other direction. It's politics are angrily lefty, and its tactics include threats and the actual use of violence in public to intimidate and silence opposition. What you're saying is that "approaching people" with an accurate, rhetorically useful, history-minded reference to such an organization is a sign of not caring what other people have to say. Why is telling the truth a sign of such? I'd argue that calling him a troll for being observant is the real example of being dismissive and hoping to silence somebody because you don't want to hear their observations.
Voting shouldn't be a privilege. It should be an earned option. Earned through an objective demonstration of an understanding of the constitution and the functioning structure of the government at each level (local, municipal, county, state, federal) where the would-be voter wants to play a role - through voting - in structuring everyone else's lives. Voting by low-information fools, across the political spectrum, has caused no end of mischief - especially when it comes to things like referendums, school boards, and other areas where uninformed feel-good votes can cause real damage. In the case of this year's presidential election, most of what I'm hearing from the rants on both sides are arguments over what they think about which of the two candidates will fix or hurt things that the president can't really do much to hurt or fix anyway, structurally.
Meanwhile, the ranters generally ignore what will be the single most important thing this time around, which is several years of filling SCOTUS seats. Clinton's own definition of how she sees that part of the job suggests that she is banking on votes from people who have no idea how the constitution works. She needs ignorance about that gravely vital area in order to get the power she wants. Trump is relying on ignorance about how likely a president is to be able to push back against global competition for things like manufacturing jobs... which is less a reliance on people uneducated about the structure of our government, and more about not understanding economics in a competitive global economy.
Your logic implies that if you're not in a swing state then voting is pointless, when it is still very vital.
Always vote. There's more on the plate than the president. But even then, when you know for a fact, as we do now that it's going to be one of two people: vote the one that's going to do the least real-world, right-now damage. Trump is an annoying person with a likely better outcome for court. Clinton is a slicker, but more sinister person, whose vision of the court is completely incompatible with the constitution's three co-equal branches framework.
No, that doesn't sound familiar. Because it's a thought experiment, not real life. We have real life Supreme Court justices to seat. Now. Here in the real world. One of the two candidates we all hate is going to name those judges. That's not a though experiment, it's reality. And it will impact every one of us, personally and professionally, for decades.
Nope, that will still produce nothing but noise. Because the "third parties" that are screaming about wanting more representation coalesce around people who pander to one-topic voters like stoners, homeopathy fans, irrational isolationists, and frustrated communists. Giving those platforms more horsepower, at the expense of the taxpayers, isn't constructive.
Pointing out that one of the two leading candidates will win, and what that means for the Supreme Court here in the real world where that's what is actually going to happen, is not an example of flaming you or anyone else. How is it a betrayal of my beliefs to choose the candidate that will do the least damage? My "belief" is that I'd like to see less damage, rather than more. Should I encourage the choice that will result in MORE damage, so that I can say I'm a purist? Are you even listening to yourself?
This would all go away if the third parties you're pitching for would put forth some non-absurd candidates that they know won't spend their time talking about weed, homeopathy, their lack of any familiarity with foreign heads of state, etc.
Is that some twisted way of trying to ignore the things that Hillary DID actually do to attack and smear the women her husband pursued and abused? The point isn't that Bill did those things (as opposed to talking about them). The point is that he did them - serially, for decades, while using his government power from Arkansas to DC to help him do so - and his wife, that champion of women and protector of all who accuse others of rape, lied for him, covered for him, and used your tax dollars to have her staff and operatives try to wreck those women's lives. Not because she was mad at them for being raped by her husband, but because their existence was indirectly damaging to her own political prospects, as they continue to be.
The problem is that it confirms the Sanders-types' understanding of her: she's a disingenuous person who patronizes and condescends to the general public with her phony grandma act while pandering to Wall Street and taking huge amounts of their money while being a completely different person and offering favors that are odds with her "It's OK, I'm just like Bernie" shtick.
She's been trying to play down the way that she and her husband have become very, very wealthy while not ever actually producing anything (they are in the business of selling influence, even while on the public payroll), and the leaked info surrounding her relationship with Wall Street just sheds some more light on that. It's not like her phoniness in that regard is a mystery to anyone that's been paying attention, but a lot of the Bernie types have NOT been paying suitable attention, and all they're hearing from her now is, "Hey! I'll ALSO give you free stuff!" and that's as far as they get in assessing her.
If you want to send a "fuck you" to the whole system, why the he'll are you voting for anyone running with an "R" or a "D" after their name?
Because saying "fuck you" by voting for the Libertarian or Green candidates is like saying "fuck you" while you're standing out in the middle of the woods with nobody listening. The vote is lost.
You have two real choices: vote for the Supreme Court nominees that Trump has already listed for you, or vote for the ones that Clinton will seat, about which we have no details, though she's signaling lots (she wants people with no federal judicial experience who "know what people are facing," etc). The difference is stark. She wants to make and execute her policies through court activism. There are bones to pick with Trump's list, but by and large, it reflects a group of choices that actually understand and embrace the three-way checks and balances that the constitution established. That issue, right there, is the ONLY thing that this election is really about.
He's a buffoonish bro in his public manner, and she's a sociopathic, corrupt liar that would already be indicted if not in jail, were she anyone with less of a political machine protecting her. So he's distasteful at best, and she's practically a James Bond villain. You want to shake up "the system?" Vote for the one that "the system" definitely hates, but who will at least seat some justices more inclined to preserve the three co-equal branches of government in the roles they're supposed to play. He will have an adversarial congress and a sober court to counter his policy learning curve phase. She will have an adversarial congress and a lapdog activist liberal court anxious to pursue her agenda from the bench.
The repercussions will last for decades - long after we care in the least about either of their personalities, or whether or not the third party candidates can think their way out of a wet paper bag. No, I won't give a vote to a guy who isn't just ignorant of foreign affairs, but is willfully so and considers it a badge of phony Libertarian honor. And I wont' give a vote to a professionally trained medical doctor whose actively anti-science positions show her to be simply irrational right out of the gate - on the very types of topics that she, unlike normal politicians, should be held to the highest standard.
Wow, you've really got your panties in a twist, don't you? I'm not "defending" anything. I'm explaining what simple words mean, as clearly expressed by the people who wrote them - and in case your agenda makes you feel that you have to pretend that's not the case so you can rant about other things, I also discussed the context in which those words were formed.
... so your strange fetish for scolding me about how I'm not complaining or stamping my feet about how un-liberty-minded the Second Amendment is ... really can't be anything other than a reflection of some misapprehension on your part about reality (to say nothing about totally missing the context of the actual conversation).
We're not in the middle of a constitutional convention where we need to draft new language for a new amendment