POLL: Does Anyone Actually Like Hillary Clinton?

[Mac1958]

Once again, Trump supporters don't seem to understand that elections are about contrasts. Choices. A vs. B.

Hillary is a terrible candidate, but, all things considered, Trump is worse, at least in the opinion of many.

So, they'll sigh wistfully, shake their head, roll their eyes and vote for her.

That's how it works. Why this still hasn't sunk in is a mystery.
.

I wonder how one can come to the conclusion that Trump is worse than Hillary.

Well, they can. It's obviously apples and oranges.
.

I don´t think so. Lets sum up.

Trump:
Trump evades taxes (legal, questionable)
Trump talked dirty (legal, questionable)

Hillary:
Hillary created al-Qaeda and ISIS, hundreds of thousands are dead (illegal, highly criminal)
Hillary killed dozens of people in her environment (illegal, highly criminal)
Hillary sells state secrets (illegal, highly criminal)
Hillary protects rapists (illegal, highly criminal)

Are you claiming that is an objective and comprehensive analysis of the choice at hand?
.

Far from comprehensive but really enough to make a decision, don´t you think?

Well, if people are willing to make decisions based on analysis that is clearly not objective, I guess.
.

 

[Bleipriester]

I wonder how one can come to the conclusion that Trump is worse than Hillary.

Well, they can. It's obviously apples and oranges.
.

I don´t think so. Lets sum up.

Trump:
Trump evades taxes (legal, questionable)
Trump talked dirty (legal, questionable)

Hillary:
Hillary created al-Qaeda and ISIS, hundreds of thousands are dead (illegal, highly criminal)
Hillary killed dozens of people in her environment (illegal, highly criminal)
Hillary sells state secrets (illegal, highly criminal)
Hillary protects rapists (illegal, highly criminal)

Are you claiming that is an objective and comprehensive analysis of the choice at hand?
.

Far from comprehensive but really enough to make a decision, don´t you think?

Well, if people are willing to make decisions based on analysis that is clearly not objective, I guess.
.

It is objective but it doesn´t have to be. I can prove point 1 if you insist on evidence. Point 1 alone is more than enough. The other points cannot be proven due to cover-ups and missing law enforcement but they are obvious and have the same state like a proven issue.

 

[Pete7469]

I don't like Trump at all. He's a clown. Way too liberal, depending on which soundbytes you've heard, and just not someone I trust to reduce the interference of DC on daily life.

When it comes to hitlery, I detest everything she actually stands for. Not the fantasy wonder woman libturds believe she is, but what she actually is. Her character is utterly contemptible, her morality is as void as her ethics are despicable. Her record is nothing but scandal, corruption, sudden mysterious deaths (that's kinda fringe, but noteworthy) and back biting. Her acolytes can not point to a single positive impact this sociopath has had on the country. She is an ugly person on the inside, to the core.

On a positive note she is in diapers, has to be help just to move short distances and seems to be losing whatever glob of cancer constitutes her "mind". She may die soon or actually be impeached and indicted, and those would be causes to celebrate at least. So even if she wins, we'll probably still be looking at having to punt that goober Tim Kaine and hopefully republicrats won't get suckered into another cult of personality.

I'll still be voting for the clown though.

 

[Mac1958]

Well, they can. It's obviously apples and oranges.
.

I don´t think so. Lets sum up.

Trump:
Trump evades taxes (legal, questionable)
Trump talked dirty (legal, questionable)

Hillary:
Hillary created al-Qaeda and ISIS, hundreds of thousands are dead (illegal, highly criminal)
Hillary killed dozens of people in her environment (illegal, highly criminal)
Hillary sells state secrets (illegal, highly criminal)
Hillary protects rapists (illegal, highly criminal)

Are you claiming that is an objective and comprehensive analysis of the choice at hand?
.

Far from comprehensive but really enough to make a decision, don´t you think?

Well, if people are willing to make decisions based on analysis that is clearly not objective, I guess.
.

It is objective but it doesn´t have to be. I can prove point 1 if you insist on evidence. Point 1 alone is more than enough. The other points cannot be proven due to cover-ups and missing law enforcement but they are obvious and have the same state like a proven issue.

The fact remains that people are looking at both candidates and deciding they're rather see Clinton in there.

For those who are voting for her because they think Trump is worse, it's most likely because they have observed his behaviors, listened to his words, and decided that he lacks the personality, the temperament and the intellectual elasticity for the position -- even though he is running against a badly, deeply flawed candidate. That is how much they are repulsed by him.

If that still doesn't make sense, I gave it my best shot.
.

 

[Pete7469]

She may have been able to beat Cruz.

I probably would have voted for Kasich/Rubio.
.

I think Cruz would have crushed her.

 

[Bleipriester]

I don´t think so. Lets sum up.

Trump:
Trump evades taxes (legal, questionable)
Trump talked dirty (legal, questionable)

Hillary:
Hillary created al-Qaeda and ISIS, hundreds of thousands are dead (illegal, highly criminal)
Hillary killed dozens of people in her environment (illegal, highly criminal)
Hillary sells state secrets (illegal, highly criminal)
Hillary protects rapists (illegal, highly criminal)

Are you claiming that is an objective and comprehensive analysis of the choice at hand?
.

Far from comprehensive but really enough to make a decision, don´t you think?

Well, if people are willing to make decisions based on analysis that is clearly not objective, I guess.
.

It is objective but it doesn´t have to be. I can prove point 1 if you insist on evidence. Point 1 alone is more than enough. The other points cannot be proven due to cover-ups and missing law enforcement but they are obvious and have the same state like a proven issue.

The fact remains that people are looking at both candidates and deciding they're rather see Clinton in there.

For those who are voting for her because they think Trump is worse, it's most likely because they have observed his behaviors, listened to his words, and decided that he lacks the personality, the temperament and the intellectual elasticity for the position -- even though he is running against a badly, deeply flawed candidate. That is how much they are repulsed by him.

If that still doesn't make sense, I gave it my best shot.
.

It´s media created mood. Today´s morning on German news TV was exclusively reserved for Hillary. How she helped the poor, then friends of her praising her to high skies. It was Hillary, Hillary, Hillary TV even though we Germans don´t participate in US elections. It was frightening and another reason to not to vote Hillary.

 

[Papageorgio]

Once again, Trump supporters don't seem to understand that elections are about contrasts. Choices. A vs. B.

Hillary is a terrible candidate, but, all things considered, Trump is worse, at least in the opinion of many.

So, they'll sigh wistfully, shake their head, roll their eyes and vote for her.

That's how it works. Why this still hasn't sunk in is a mystery.
.

I go the other way Hillary is worse than Trump, however neither is worthy of my vote.

 

[Mac1958]

Are you claiming that is an objective and comprehensive analysis of the choice at hand?
.

Far from comprehensive but really enough to make a decision, don´t you think?

Well, if people are willing to make decisions based on analysis that is clearly not objective, I guess.
.

It is objective but it doesn´t have to be. I can prove point 1 if you insist on evidence. Point 1 alone is more than enough. The other points cannot be proven due to cover-ups and missing law enforcement but they are obvious and have the same state like a proven issue.

The fact remains that people are looking at both candidates and deciding they're rather see Clinton in there.

For those who are voting for her because they think Trump is worse, it's most likely because they have observed his behaviors, listened to his words, and decided that he lacks the personality, the temperament and the intellectual elasticity for the position -- even though he is running against a badly, deeply flawed candidate. That is how much they are repulsed by him.

If that still doesn't make sense, I gave it my best shot.
.

It´s media created mood. Today´s morning on German news TV was exclusively reserved for Hillary. How she helped the poor, then friends of her praising her to high skies. It was Hillary, Hillary, Hillary TV even though we Germans don´t participate in US elections. It was frightening and another reason to not to vote Hillary.

Well, my personal opinion of him comes specifically from observing his behaviors and words. From "I know more about ISIS than the generals to, believe me" to insulting McCain and POWs to talking about the size of his dick in a nationally televised debate, he has proven to me that he simply not cut out for the office.

Has the media taken that ball and run with it to partisan advantage? Yes, they have, and that's wrong. But he put the ball there in the first place.
.

 

[Bleipriester]

Far from comprehensive but really enough to make a decision, don´t you think?

Well, if people are willing to make decisions based on analysis that is clearly not objective, I guess.
.

It is objective but it doesn´t have to be. I can prove point 1 if you insist on evidence. Point 1 alone is more than enough. The other points cannot be proven due to cover-ups and missing law enforcement but they are obvious and have the same state like a proven issue.

The fact remains that people are looking at both candidates and deciding they're rather see Clinton in there.

For those who are voting for her because they think Trump is worse, it's most likely because they have observed his behaviors, listened to his words, and decided that he lacks the personality, the temperament and the intellectual elasticity for the position -- even though he is running against a badly, deeply flawed candidate. That is how much they are repulsed by him.

If that still doesn't make sense, I gave it my best shot.
.

It´s media created mood. Today´s morning on German news TV was exclusively reserved for Hillary. How she helped the poor, then friends of her praising her to high skies. It was Hillary, Hillary, Hillary TV even though we Germans don´t participate in US elections. It was frightening and another reason to not to vote Hillary.

Well, my personal opinion of him comes specifically from observing his behaviors and words. From "I know more about ISIS than the generals to, believe me" to insulting McCain and POWs to talking about the size of his dick in a nationally televised debate, he has proven to me that he simply not cut out for the office.

Has the media taken that ball and run with it to partisan advantage? Yes, they have, and that's wrong. But he put the ball there in the first place.
.

But ISIS is still around and McCain can be seen with Baghdadi.

 

[rcfieldz]

Like how?

 

[007]

Once again, Trump supporters don't seem to understand that elections are about contrasts. Choices. A vs. B.

Hillary is a terrible candidate, but, all things considered, Trump is worse, at least in the opinion of many.

So, they'll sigh wistfully, shake their head, roll their eyes and vote for her.

That's how it works. Why this still hasn't sunk in is a mystery.
.

How is someone vowing to end the corruption in Washington worse than someone that is just part of the corruption?

Or are you just basing this revelation of your's purely on emotion? Even then, Trump may have had a big mouth before he learned how to talk like a real politician, but clinton is a pathological liar and criminal.

There is no comparison, one is a builder, the other's greatest accomplishment has been keeping her ass out of prison.

 

[007]

Far from comprehensive but really enough to make a decision, don´t you think?

Well, if people are willing to make decisions based on analysis that is clearly not objective, I guess.
.

It is objective but it doesn´t have to be. I can prove point 1 if you insist on evidence. Point 1 alone is more than enough. The other points cannot be proven due to cover-ups and missing law enforcement but they are obvious and have the same state like a proven issue.

The fact remains that people are looking at both candidates and deciding they're rather see Clinton in there.

For those who are voting for her because they think Trump is worse, it's most likely because they have observed his behaviors, listened to his words, and decided that he lacks the personality, the temperament and the intellectual elasticity for the position -- even though he is running against a badly, deeply flawed candidate. That is how much they are repulsed by him.

If that still doesn't make sense, I gave it my best shot.
.

It´s media created mood. Today´s morning on German news TV was exclusively reserved for Hillary. How she helped the poor, then friends of her praising her to high skies. It was Hillary, Hillary, Hillary TV even though we Germans don´t participate in US elections. It was frightening and another reason to not to vote Hillary.

Well, my personal opinion of him comes specifically from observing his behaviors and words. From "I know more about ISIS than the generals to, believe me" to insulting McCain and POWs to talking about the size of his dick in a nationally televised debate, he has proven to me that he simply not cut out for the office.

Has the media taken that ball and run with it to partisan advantage? Yes, they have, and that's wrong. But he put the ball there in the first place.
.

You're not balancing any of the positive with the negative. You're fixating. Half of what he's said most other people have said as well. Read comments, people have filthy mouths.

 

[Mac1958]

Well, if people are willing to make decisions based on analysis that is clearly not objective, I guess.
.

It is objective but it doesn´t have to be. I can prove point 1 if you insist on evidence. Point 1 alone is more than enough. The other points cannot be proven due to cover-ups and missing law enforcement but they are obvious and have the same state like a proven issue.

The fact remains that people are looking at both candidates and deciding they're rather see Clinton in there.

For those who are voting for her because they think Trump is worse, it's most likely because they have observed his behaviors, listened to his words, and decided that he lacks the personality, the temperament and the intellectual elasticity for the position -- even though he is running against a badly, deeply flawed candidate. That is how much they are repulsed by him.

If that still doesn't make sense, I gave it my best shot.
.

It´s media created mood. Today´s morning on German news TV was exclusively reserved for Hillary. How she helped the poor, then friends of her praising her to high skies. It was Hillary, Hillary, Hillary TV even though we Germans don´t participate in US elections. It was frightening and another reason to not to vote Hillary.

Well, my personal opinion of him comes specifically from observing his behaviors and words. From "I know more about ISIS than the generals to, believe me" to insulting McCain and POWs to talking about the size of his dick in a nationally televised debate, he has proven to me that he simply not cut out for the office.

Has the media taken that ball and run with it to partisan advantage? Yes, they have, and that's wrong. But he put the ball there in the first place.
.

You're not balancing any of the positive with the negative. You're fixating. Half of what he's said most other people have said as well. Read comments, people have filthy mouths.

That's your subjective opinion.

I can see both ends of this argument, because I'm not bound by partisan ideology.

People have different priorities. That doesn't make opinions wrong, it just makes opinions different.
.