3 ms·
Well, you have to move past childish rhetoric before we talk substance. And even if we did, Donald doesn't have any substance. If he did, he would have focused
by dmode 10y ago
Well, you have to move past childish rhetoric before we talk substance. And even if we did, Donald doesn't have any substance. If he did, he would have focused on those. His policy ideas are broad brush strokes which don't hold up under further scrutiny. Hillary is a centrist and pragmatic politician. I for one is pretty happy with where the US is and do not want radical change. Minor tweaks around healthcare, military spending, and safety net should be good enough.
- ThomPete 10y agoYou still really only object to form. I have no interest in that.and be happy where the US is all you want. That makes you part of the problem the way I see it. Something have to change IMO.
- dmode 10y agoLet's agree to disagree that something needs to change. Also, as I said in my previous comment - I object to form AND substance. His form is so vile that it catches attention, but his substance is equally lacking.
- ThomPete 10y agoHe has substance it's just hidden from the rhetorics. This is his own fault of course but that does not change my interpretation of what I consider most important. I don't care what he said about women or what cigars Hillarys husband put into what interns something. Clinton was a great president, his (to use modern feminist rhetorics) exploit of his white male privilege to force a young women into obedience doesn't change the fact that he was a great president. Neither will Trumps rhetorics change the fact that he has more important points than Hillary in my book. So I will live with his language just as I lived with Clintons sexual escapades, Bush absurd wars, Hillarys support for them and Obamas draconian use of targeted killing and it's collateral damage.