It's like they say in virtually every election -- NOBODY ever finds a candidate that they agree 100% with. If you can find someone that supports 70-80% of our issues, that's probably as good as you're ever going to find it. To refuse to vote for someone because their thinking is not 100% allgned with our own is pretty foolish.
I can't argue with that. The trouble is what to do if you should find that you disagree with both candidates on a majority of issues, or for some other reason find both candidates sufficiently offensive in ways that overcome the fact you might agree with them on some things.
Using an analogy and comparing agreement with candidates to ingredients in a dish, if there's one or two things in the dish you dislike you may decide to order it anyway and pick out the bits you don't want. I've done this a few times myself. But what if you've got a dish that's just about exactly to your liking except for the fact it comes mixed with fresh dog faeces? You wouldn't just pick out the nasty bits, you'd order something else.
Regarding the "derisive" candidates, it is a matter of perception -- which usually is something created by the leftist mass media. Hillary certainly IS derisive because of her criminal background and the horrific performance she gave as secretary of state and everything else she has done. Even most Dems (most of who will vote for her anyway -- if they show up at the polls) do not like her and there is a pretty good number of them who are switching to Trump.
I actually said divisive rather than derisive. Hillary is the kind of candidate who appeals to the hardcore Dems but, as a rule, not to even moderate Republicans, and it appears there are a fair few Dems who won't vote for her. Likewise Trump seems like a character who appeals to diehard Repubs but not to Dems at all, and it appears there are many Repubs who won't vote Trump.
Her record, itself, disqualifies her from even running for president. But there she is, with the coddling press, getting the nomination after performing in the same manner that makes her so derisive in the first place -- rigging the system so that she automatically got the nomination over Sanders.
You're preaching to the converted here. I have no time for Hillary at all. I just remain to be convinced that Trump would be any better.
As for Trump, he speaks loudly and boldly. And, based mostly on that, the mass media has portrayed him as some sort of monster. But, getting back to the percentage of issues that a candidate might agree with us on, look at the points he is running on....
He is for stopping illegal immigration, which is ruining our economy, increasing our drug problem, paving the way for terrorists to sneak through, etc. He is for supporting our veterans with proper health care through the VA. He is for nominating solid, conservative supreme court justices who will act based on the intentions of our constitution, he is for bringing jobs back to the USA and creating a much stronger economy for the nation. He is in favor of a massive rebuild of our military, which Hillary & Obama have virtually dismantled, etc.
I could go on & on. But I hope you already get my point. There is very little that Trump is running on that would not be highly supported by most sober, patriotic American voters.
On the face of it at least Hillary appears to be saying much the same things. Most candidates will promise to reduce illegal immigration, it's just a question of what they do about it. Since, by definition, illegal immigrants don't go through the formal process it's hard to know who they are, where they are, and how many of them there are. And if someone can slip into the country through a tunnel or with a little help from a coyote it's easy to see how they can bring drugs or worse with them.
Your statement about "most sober, patriotic American voters" doesn't really add anything given that probably 30% of voters would vote for a turnip if it wore Democrat colors and another 30% would vote for a turnip if it wore Republican colors. It does little more than say "right thinking people agree with me" - it's no surprise that you think your stance is correct because as a rule few people hold a viewpoint they consider to be wrong. It's just that millions of Americans who would vote Hillary would disagree, probably using similar terms to suggest that most sober, patriotic American voters would support her progressive agenda.
And anyone, who actually does support those values, and refuses to vote for Trump simply because he is loud and bold -- is directly responsible for helping elect a socialist/communist loving candidate who OPPOSES all of those values.
In reality, the differences between two candidates for POTUS have probably never been more striking and well defined in our nation's history.
As far as I can see a vote for Hillary is a vote for more of the same, where a vote for Trump is like a big step into the unknown. In a way a vote for Trump is not entirely unlike a vote for Brexit - a vote to say we want something else even if we don't yet know what something else looks like or where it will take us.
