Looking at all these protests I am struck by the thought that there are few more

[Ash]

Trump on ISIS: we should 'take their oil' and we should 'bomb the **** out of them'.

I'm struggling to reconcile these statements with your view of his foreign policy, if I'm honest, Ash.

ISIS are attacking the West and subjecting the areas they control to barbarism, so bombing them is fair game imo, as the Russians are in Syria. Clinton wanted to threaten Russia to chase them out and leave Syria to ISIS & Al Nusra/Al Quaeda.

[7sisters]

something along the lines of holding your children a little bit closer

[World's End Stella]

If the calculation is between two people who might **** up the world (or continue ****ing up the world, in Clinton's case), and after reasoned analysis you decide that one of the two people is likely to **** up the world in a lesser way than the other, then it seems reasonable to vote for the one that you believe is likely to do the less damage.

This decision does not have to be made - CANNOT be made - with absolute certainty. But then that applies to most decisions in life.

I would have thought that in this scenario most sensible people would choose the lesser of two evils. It's hard for me to understand how someone could see Hillary as the greater evil. You may not like her, or agree with her, but are you really telling me she's more likely to do something insanely stupid than Trump?

I struggle with that view.

[World's End Stella]

ISIS are attacking the West and subjecting the areas they control to barbarism, so bombing them is fair game imo, as the Russians are in Syria. Clinton wanted to threaten Russia to chase them out and leave Syria to ISIS & Al Nusra/Al Quaeda.

That's missing the point. The US is already very actively engaged in the fight against ISIS and the current situation is improving.

Trump's uttering are what you would expect from an 8 year old or an illiterate imbecile. They don't really tell you anything other than that the person uttering them has no sensible view of the issue. So how could anyone vote for him?

[Monty92]

I would have thought that in this scenario most sensible people would choose the lesser of two evils. It's hard for me to understand how someone could see Hillary as the greater evil. You may not like her, or agree with her, but are you really telling me she's more likely to do something insanely stupid than Trump?

I struggle with that view.

Yes, I think there's a pretty good argument to say that Clinton was the sensible choice for those who are risk-averse when it comes to the future security of the world.

But then again, it's also true that the world never changed because people hedged their bets. It changes by shaking things up. And in this respect, Trump was the obvious choice. And probably would have been for me were he not mentally ill and monumentally stupid.

The hugely respected historian Dan Carlin, who is quite liberal in many ways, pretty much endorsed voting for Trump (though said he was not voting himself).

[Pokster]

That's missing the point. The US is already very actively engaged in the fight against ISIS and the current situation is improving.

Trump's uttering are what you would expect from an 8 year old or an illiterate imbecile. They don't really tell you anything other than that the person uttering them has no sensible view of the issue. So how could anyone vote for him?

Perhaps because HC is a corrupt serial liar who has bent the truth to create a wealth for her and her husband, she is part of the establishment that has failed the USA at home and abroad... so perhaps people had just had enough of her

[Ash]

You may not like her, or agree with her, but are you really telling me she's more likely to do something insanely stupid than Trump?

Something as insanely stupid as starting a war against a nuclear power?

[Burney]

Yes, I think there's a pretty good argument to say that Clinton was the sensible choice for those who are risk-averse when it comes to the future security of the world.

But then again, it's also true that the world never changed because people hedged their bets. It changes by shaking things up. And in this respect, Trump was the obvious choice. And probably would have been for me were he not mentally ill and monumentally stupid.

The hugely respected historian Dan Carlin, who is quite liberal in many ways, pretty much endorsed voting for Trump (though said he was not voting himself).

Point of order: I like Dan Carlin very much, but he is always at pains to point out that he is NOT a historian, but a 'fan of history'.

[World's End Stella]

Something as insanely stupid as starting a war against a nuclear power?

Yes, exactly that.

[Burney]

Yes, I think there's a pretty good argument to say that Clinton was the sensible choice for those who are risk-averse when it comes to the future security of the world.

But then again, it's also true that the world never changed because people hedged their bets. It changes by shaking things up. And in this respect, Trump was the obvious choice. And probably would have been for me were he not mentally ill and monumentally stupid.

The hugely respected historian Dan Carlin, who is quite liberal in many ways, pretty much endorsed voting for Trump (though said he was not voting himself).

The thing is, though, that a more competent, sane and suitable candidate than the Donald wouldn't have been as appealing. His very unsuitability was rather the point.