Personally, i find it comes down to 2 things , Trump's perceived incompetency, and Hillary's perceived corruption.

People fear trump because "he is a SJW term-phobe", which is retarded, but there's rational things like his perceived constant bankruptcy. Defending that, somewhere i read that he has something like 10,000 businesses. For only 4 to fail is impressive, but i don't know his portfolio so i won't say i know much.

Some say his bankruptcies are corporate corruption and embezzlement or whatever, which is ironic because people might whail on trump about it yet when someone like martin shkreli or other shadier figures pull shady stuff, they seem to not be noticed as trump is for what he only allegedly did.

He does have some crap policy plans, but compared to what Hillary has in store?

If there's a specific plan i found appealing it's removing the "Obamacare" act. Unnecessary act, braindead execution, wasted taxpayer moneez. Knowing hillary wants to keep it, that's enough justification for a trump preference.

Now i won't say anything good about hillary, but I'd say she is much more corrupt and more desperate than Trump for voter appeal to youngin's, whereas Trump's campaign has cut the BS and is just appealing to an actual demographic (that is, the demographic of every person) from what I have seen. Note i mean trump's campaign ads or campaign items, not necessarily interviews or speeches (like that recent pence/hillary Iraq vote busyness).

As for corrupt, she got away with breaching national security. Snowden did that and had to exile, nope Hillary gets a pass. Not even a pardon. Complete cancer.

All that said, if i could have a candidate that was trying to be a president, not just trying to get into office, that wound be great. And for me, i think the person trying to be a president is trump moreso than hillary.

But both are extremely cringe to think about being in office. I'll probably cast my vote for an Independent.

he weel protek MERICA frum terries and aliens

I know Hillary will do some bad stuff but she wont be a absolute failure. The problem with trump is he could actually be amazing or crazy

killery will start ww3 w/ her interventionist policy

Way I look at it, Hillary is a career politician who knows how to work the system. She'll make modest gains and not completely screw shit up.

Trump is a complete unknown. Has no political experience whatsoever. We have no clue what his actual executive abilities are. He is a complete wildcard and that is terrifying.

"I'll stick with the murderous maniac I know!"

If i was American, i could not care less to vote

The status quo is shit. Hillary is the status quo. Hillary is shit.

Robert Mugabe for president.

since the "status quo" (please don't speak Latin, it's a dead tongue) is shit, he must be wonderful.

Trump isn't an unknown. Economists already think his presidency will cause quite a bit of damage. We also know his policies on immigration and have a good idea how he'll damage our international relations. He's clearly anti-NATO as well, given how much resistance he's putting against even the most minor Republican platform plank of indirectly and economically opposing Russia in Ukraine.

Media narrative here is pretty lazy, tbh. There's a lot of stuff they ignore about Trump and Clinton just to get better ratings, because more nuance will make the race way less exciting.

Economists already think his presidency will cause quite a bit of damage.

Bernie Sanders.

98% of economists thought there will be no recession in late 2000s.

And it's so scary, if Trump mentions radical Islamic terrorism then ISIS will be mad at the US! The damage he can cause to international relations! Not so with Crooked Hillary. Her campaign is financed with Saudi money so she clearly has the international edge.

Edited 7/20/2016 21:25:01

Bernie Sanders.

You might hate him, but he's not running anyway so who cares?

Edited 7/20/2016 21:27:51

and have a good idea how he'll damage our international relations. He's clearly anti-NATO as well, given how much resistance he's putting against even the most minor Republican platform plank of indirectly and economically opposing Russia in Ukraine.

NATO is useless, and is pretty bad for our image.

Economists also predicted that the U.K would fall into an apocalyptic great depression after Brexit, but the U.K seems to be holding on.

Not going to say anything one way or the other about Trump's policies, but I've noticed a pattern of Economists foretelling gloom and doom if so-and-so is elected. The end result is much less dramatic 95% of the time.

Uh their economy fell hard and has yet to recover, Eklipse.

It was also a global shock, too. The Dow fortunately recovered but the GBP:USD ratio and the British stock markets have yet to. We just had that small surge when the Bank of England chief made his reassurances, but nothing near enough to cover all that lost ground. Companies like Airbus are moving, taking jobs with them. Others are moving their European headquarters to Frankfurt, Amsterdam, even Dublin.

This is all before they even start the EU withdrawal process. Economists are also exactly the people that got us out of nearly every economic collapse.

Edited 7/20/2016 23:19:48

Economists are also exactly the people that got us out of nearly every economic collapse.

They created the recession in 2008 and lengthened the Great Depression. Economists can be wrong.

TRUMP wins and it is final

That's Greenspan. Not economists at large. Depression wasn't created by economists; the downsides of speculative investing were understood by that point. But even then economists have gotten better since 1929.

And economic consensus is almost always correct.

Edited 7/20/2016 23:28:06

Depression wasn't created by economists; the downsides of speculative investing were understood by that point

The Great Depression was lengthened by Keynesian policies.

And economic consensus is almost always correct

And it can be very very wrong sometimes.

Edited 7/20/2016 23:30:38