Assuming that you think Trump would somehow be a disastrous clown - or at least more of a disastrous clown than Hillary. Really, it's Giant Douche vs Turd Sandwich here, but from my perspective, Hilary has done nothing to inspire confidence, and a great deal to make me wary - Trump might be a jackass, but he is generally a shrewd operator, and really not liable to simple corruption.
> but he is generally a shrewd operator, and really not liable to simple corruption.
That would probably come as a surprise to the small army of people who have sued him over the years[0], or who have been sued by him for what seem to be vindictive or petty reasons[1].
You may prefer Trump, but the corrupting interests of business and politics very often intersect. I think it would be a mistake to assume he's neither corrupt nor corruptible.
My comment was mainly aimed at people who agree with me that Trump would be a disaster and Hillary would simply be the continuation of the not-so-great status quo. To those people, I plead to stop making the both-sides-are-evil argument.
You seem to be a Trump supporter, so there you go, you're not on the both-sides-are-evil boat. I have no qualms with you other than the obvious political differences.
I'm no fan of Hillary, but have you listened to what Trump has been saying?
I highly recommend reading https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer . It was written in the aftermath of WW2 and tries to break down the factors that go into the formation of mass movements like Naziism and Communism.
I wouldn't say we've reached the same levels by a ways, but the parallels between the situation then and now are chilling.
