Rather than the usual "who do you support", I would like to phrase the question as "who do you think would do the LEAST damage if elected?" The reason why I ask the question in this fashion is that you might be #nevertrump and will never vote for him but would still think that Clinton would be more damaging to the Republic than Trump.
I'll add my vote and my opinion later on in the thread (not that either matter, but just as a matter of good form for posting a poll).
If you can take time to add your rationale for your vote, I would appreciate it. Specifically, why do you think Trump would do less damage than Clinton or why Clinton would do less damage than Trump?
You will also note that I did not give an "other" or "none of the above" choice. The reason being that I am NOT asking who you would vote for, rather out of the two, which is less dangerous than the other.
As promised, my opinion on the matter:
I have no question that Her Thighness will do the wrong thing in 100% (100 out of 100) of the cases presented to her. She is undoubtedly one of the top 10 most dangerous politicians in the United States. I think she would be worse for the Republic than even Obama has been. She has, since the early 70s, been on a collision course with the Constitution and will have absolutely no qualms in exercising all possible power to achieve her ends. Dredge up all the stories from Arkansas, the Nixon impeachment hearings, and the horror stories from the White House (FBI files, etc.). She is a truly sociopathic, dangerous person. If elected President, she will do damage to the Republic that will make us wax rhapsodic for the good old days of the Obama Administration.
What has always been of concern to me about Trump is that he is a liberal: he wants to "fix it."
He will bring jobs back,
He will fix healthcare,
He will fix immigration,
He will...and I see no indication that
He will allow the Constitution to constrain him. That makes him an undesirable candidate as far as I am concerned. Sadly, Trump also has a serious case of diarrhea of the mouth and appears to have little or no self-control...and this can manifest itself into some serious ugliness, such as his outbursts regarding Judge Curiel (criticizing him multiple times on his ethnicity and doubling down on that criticism, rather than the justified criticism of him based upon memberships in various groups). I previously held the opinion that both he and the Hildabeast were NY liberals, but that he might, just might, do the right thing in a few cases (3 or 4 out of 100), which would, by default, make him a less undesirable candidate than Cankles. However, his lack of introspection in regard to the Curiel case, until he finally, under pressure, clarified, makes me question whether or not he has the wisdom to listen to people when he needs to do so (such as when committing US forces). If elected President, one of his out-of-control outbursts may cause the physical destruction of the Republic.
So we are in a situtation where we have two people who have a reasonable possibility of winning the Presidential election this November and both are relatively equally undesirable and unsuitable. Sure, there are those of us who could do a protest vote (Libertarian, Constitution, or write-in), but if we face facts, one of the two is going to be elected. I fear for the Republic like never before.
Poll
Topic: Poll: Who will do the least damage to the Republic? (Read 2610 times)
