Trump versus Clinton (Round 1)

Not really. Almost all the things he is proposing are policies that have been in effect in Western European countries for years. He'd be a centrist here.

More importantly she needs to get the contents of those speeches sorted out

So Debbie Wasserman Schultz just resigned as chair of the DNC after emails leaked by WikiLeaks showed that she and the DNC hadn't been impartial and have tried to sabotage Sanders' campaign, in which they succeeded.

His campaign wasn't over until 7 June, when there were still 676 pledged delegates to be distributed with Clinton having a lead of I think only roughly 200. However, the media suddenly called the race for Clinton the night before, based on the undemocratic super delegates, who actually don't vote until next week!

And no one has any right to judge people for voting Nader. People should vote FOR something they want, not AGAINST something they don't want. The democrats lost because they had a sh*tty candidate, because they couldn't attract enough voters and because of election fraud. Votes have to be earned. If Clinton loses, it's because people don't like her and don't trust her, and because she hasn't done enough to earn people's votes. Are you really going to tell people they can't vote for a third party candidate they like, especially now that it's been proven that the system was rigged from the start. If Trump wins, the only people who are to blame are the corrupt Clinton campaign and the corrupt DNC!

The greatest danger to liberal democracy is scaring people into voting for someone or something they don't like and/or don't agree with. Do you really think it's okay and makes sense to blame people who didn't vote for the person who got elected for the fact that that person got elected?

By the way, you can't call it puritanism from the left if neither of the 2 major candidates is even remotely left wing.

The thing is, what Clinton stands for is something many Bernie supporters don't want AT ALL. It's not like they don't quite like it, but can live with it. She has hardly made any compromises. And now she also picked a running mate who is very pro 2 things which Bernie and his supporters hate. Fracking and the TPP. He's the prototype corporatist sellout, just like Clinton. She hasn't made any real compromises in her policy ideas either. She has repeatedly offended Bernie supporters. And now they expect them to just fall in line.

Do you think it's logical that if there's a candidate you agree with on 90% of the issues, you vote for someone who you only agree with on 30% of the issues (and who you don't trust either)?

And by the way, voters are not to blame for the outcome of an election, the candidates and their respective parties are. Like I said, if you want a vote you have to earn it; If you don't get it, then that's your fault and your fault alone.

I saw that last night, sighed deeply and closed my ipad before I responded.  

BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB please, regardless of race, sex, creed, age or looks.  Surely!?!

So many of my American friends are distressed about this election.  Don't trust Clinton, can't stand Trump.  

I've always thought Obama was a class act; he looks like a blooming superstar against these two.

A nod to my West Wing obsession, WWJD - (what would Jed do). 

What I meant is that voters who didn't vote for the person who got elected should not be blamed for it. Like you said yourself, don't blame others. If your candidate can't win, it's their fault, especially if they offend their potential supporters multiple times and then expect them to get in line without making any concessions. If you don't think voters should vote for the person they want to be president, you don't understand the concept of democracy.

Sorry to cause such distress, but then again I wasn't the person who gave awy the White House cat, when President Clinton's tenure came to an end. so really having the cat was sychophanatic and you want this person running the world?!?!

Yikes. I guess she thinks that, you know, being one of the most powerful people in the world and all might mean that she may not have much time to do an Estee Lauder advert campaign or challenge Kim Kardashian for "most pointless person on the planet" so there's probably not really any need for a facelift . . . . 

Hillary looks good for her age, she's almost 70. She looks about 15 years younger than Bernie who is only 6 years older. Looks shouldn't matter in politics.

I very much understand the nature of elections. I understand that if there's a candidate who has all the right policy ideas, you should vote for them. And to address your point of "what's possible", that's a self fulfilling prophecy. If you keep saying that a certain party can't win because no one knows who they are, but at the same time you are the one who keeps them out of the presidential debates (I'm talking about the media here), then of course they won't win. If you say don't vote for them because they won't win, then obviously they won't win. They can win once people start thinking for themselves and no longer let themselves be scared into voting for someone they don't want. Sure, the Green Party of the Libertarian Party aren't going to win this year. But if they get a decent percentage of the vote now, and some more next time, ultimately they will get big enough to make a difference. Also, this election could make a considerable difference for them, because if they get enough votes they can get federal funding. That would mean they will be able to get there message out with more people and thereby build up more support.