> had they not been complete dullards Even if they were dullards, I'd prefer them to people who have shown tendencies to destroy countries. I think I saw this

> had they not been complete dullards Even if they were dullards, I'd prefer them to people who have shown tendencies to destroy countries. I think I saw this joke on 4chan: if Gary Johnson does not know where Aleppo is, that's one less place for him to bomb. > Wehre we seem to disagree is that you believe that Hillary is worse than Donald. Well, one of them is an egomaniac, talks garbage, has misbehaved with people, and has run shady charities and a university. The other one has received millions of dollars from banks and foreign powers, and has demonstrated that she will say exactly what her audience wants to hear. Not only has she threatened to up the ante against Syria, she has shown she can deliver, in Libya. I think the worst-case difference we are looking at here is a history of misdemeanor and fraud vs a history of fraud and felony. I prefer (peaceful) dullards to these. > Wikipedia isn't as biased as you'd like to think. Depends of the topic, I guess. Politifact is biased, and my recommenation for using both resources is the same.