I know. I've been on here for years. But sometimes it's just too much fun. lol

There's two big differences between them as far as voters see them. Both are disliked very much.

However, there's a large portion of the people who hate Hillary Clinton do it for completely fabricated reasons. This isn't to say that there aren't some reasons to hate her. But when Trump and the GOP are going around saying stuff like "Hillary Clinton wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment", which absolutely isn't true in the slightest, gosh, I wonder if there's a portion of the electorate who will hate her for a complete falsehood. Who could it be? Hmmmm....

Again, don't get me wrong, there's plenty to not like about her. I've said numerous things about the whole email thing, which I still can't believe she ended up doing something that stupid.

Trump? Well, I'm sorry, but he's said so many things at this point to piss so many groups off, they hate him for things that actually are true. He did target Muslims for discriminatory policies. He has said disparaging remarks about women, implying a news anchor who disagreed with him must be on her period, and women who get sexually harassed should find another job, not the people who were doing the sexual harassment. He's said most Mexican immigrants are rapists, murderers, and drug runners. And Hillary Clinton is mostly hitting on stuff like that, you know, stuff he's ACTUALLY said. In fact, one of her attack ads is just a barrage of clips of Trump saying Trumpy stuff with kids watching it. There's not a shred of evidence Hillary Clinton has ever come out in favor of completely abolishing the 2nd Amendment.

So, you can say half the country hates her, but come election day, when she wins by what appears at this point to be a margin larger than Obama thumped Romney, CLEARLY Americans like Clinton a heck of a lot more than Trump overall.

Ummm, no.

Hillary Clinton said she would continue her primary campaign because you never know, and gave RFK's assassination as an historical example of someone who appeared to have the nomination well in hand, and then suddenly didn't. She CLEARLY wasn't telling anyone to go assassinate Obama, nor implying it.

The only valid defense of this Trump clip is he was talking about the people can use their guns to stop their guns from being taken away, which at best is inciting violence against the government. The worst part is he's telling hardcore gun right advocates they could do this against the odds on favorite next president of the US for a policy she doesn't even support.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/11/donald-trump/donald-trump-falsely-claims-hillary-clinton-wants-/

There is no equivalency between Hillary Clinton's remark and this Donald Trump clip at all, just like even if you don't like Hillary Clinton at all, equating Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as candidates is also ridiculous.

But you have zero proof. You're stating that you have enough proof, but yet you really don't have any proof. You have circumstantial evidence.

I have zero doubts that DWS once in that position helped because she and Clinton are friends and political allies. But that's not quid pro quo. If Clinton hires her to help in her campaign, it isn't quid pro quo if Clinton hired her because of DWS's skills in the area. You have zero proof that's why DWS was hired. You have zero proof DWS did "whatever Clinton asked her to do". You have zero proof Clinton asked her to do anything that broke the rules in the first place. None.

You are inferring every single accusation you made against Clinton. There's absolutely no evidence of any of them at all.

Clinton has zero insights about what the public thinks? You're kidding, right? The woman who was the front runner for the Democratic nomination, who has been in the public spotlight at the national stage for almost 25 years doesn't have any insight about what the public thinks?

Come on, man.

Also, DWS's job wasn't solely to ensure the nominating process was fair. She had a ton of responsibilities, and many of them she did well. That was my point. All you're seeing is the part where she screwed up because it hurt your preferred candidate. Her job was also to protect the Democratic party, and help Democrats win elections, too.

Perhaps a few might say DWS wasn't the reason Sanders lost? A few? You mean like.... ohhhhh, I dunno... Bernie Sanders? How about Bernie Sanders' staff members? But what the hell do they know, AMIRITE?

Dude, Sanders got crushed with minorities. You know where that can allow you to win the nomination? The GOP. Unfortunately for Sanders, he was running for the nomination where minorities are a significant part of the voting bloc. Absolutely CRUSHED. Clinton won 76% of the African-American vote. Before the primaries really began, Clinton was polling at 73% among Hispanics. You honestly think that was because of DWS? Let me put that to rest for you. Hillary Clinton did well among Hispanics against Barack Obama. Was that DWS's doing, too?

That's the thing. I have clear cut FACTS about why Sanders lost. I have the words from Bernie Sanders and his campaign staff. You have speculation about whatever small impact DWS's had on primary votes.

Valarie Plame? No, Bush never named her. It ended up being Karl Rove.

How did I shove Hillary Clinton down your throat? Explain that one to me. I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. In VA, I chose to vote in the GOP primary to do whatever I could to stop Trump, which was vote for Marco Rubio, as he was polling second in VA. I didn't do a damn thing to stop Sanders or help Clinton win the nomination.

Why didn't I vote for Sanders? Because of his lack of foreign policy experience, and he wasn't putting forth enough practical policies that I think would work. I like the guy fine. I'd vote for him as a Senator if he was in Virginia. I like having voices like his in Congress. But Commander In Chief is a big part of the job, and I want someone with foreign policy experience. He doesn't have that.

I also value flexibility in a candidate. The world isn't black and white. I like Sanders' values. It would be nice if everyone could go to college if they had the motivation. I very much think the rich are not taxed nearly enough. But I also think ideologies and ideals help to create ideas for solutions, but the solutions need to be practical, and I don't find his practical unfortunately. Sometimes they're not politically practical. Sometimes they just fall apart on the mechanics of them.

Gary Johnson has more experience? Uhhhhh, no. He was governor of New Mexico for 8 years. That compares well to Sarah Palin. Do you think Palin is more experienced than Clinton, too? Johnson has zero foreign policy experience. Hillary Clinton was an active first lady who proposed Health Care Reform, got children's health care reform passed. She was a US Senator for the short time of 8 years, which is way less than Johnson's 8 years as governor of New Mexico (wait, what?!), was on the foreign relations committee during that time. Then she was Secretary of State.

Sanders is the only one who I'd put in the ballpark, but he's had legislative branch experience only, and he doesn't have much foreign policy experience at all. Interestingly enough, you said he was the most experienced candidate, overlooking his complete lack of executive experience, which you favored when it came to Gary Johnson. Huh?

Clinton can't win? You know, I wouldn't even say Trump *can't* win. Once normalized from the convention bounce, she'll be the favorite to win. Sure, she could still lose, but I wouldn't bet against her.

Clinton supporters have blinders on only. Seriously? Dude, EVERY candidate has supporters with blinders on. Every single candidate. Most voters are ignorant, regardless of candidate. Don't give me that holier than thou stuff. You've got blinders on for why Sanders lost.

There are candidates who are threats if elected. There are incompetent candidates. There are competent candidates. There are great candidates. Sorry, but there aren't great candidates every election. I've voted in enough presidential elections to know you should be grateful to have at least one competent candidate who has a shot of winning. Sometimes there aren't any. Sometimes there are a few.

In your mind, I'm a Hillary supporter with blinders on. I'm not beholden to any party. I'm not beholden to any candidate. It's just not in my nature. This is the first presidential candidate from a major party in my lifetime that I felt was truly an existential threat to the US and the world in Trump. I'm a level headed person. Hillary Clinton has an astounding lack of charisma for a politician who won a major party's nomination. I don't find her particularly inspiring. I think it's a legitimate criticism to say she sometimes bends to the political winds too much. She sometimes doesn't handle things like the email thing like she should, as she flees to secrecy from a paranoia from the press and the other party, which is often a mistake, but you have to understand at some level why. She's a part of a major political party, which has a lot of "this is how the sausage is made" in every party out there, and she operates within that system.

If she were a meal, she'd be an unseasoned microwaved chicken breast, with broccoli, with too much salt on it to pander to people some to get them to want to eat it. And you wouldn't want to see how the chicken was killed. But you need to eat. Sure, there's too much salt. Sure, it's not drawing you to the table, but it's nutritious mostly, and you need to eat. It's a meal made of real food.

Let's go along with you thinking Sanders is SOOOOOOOOOOO much better. He was a perfectly prepared steak dinner, but it's lean steak, and lots of organic veggies, perfectly seasoned, and low salt. It's a masterpiece meal that the restaurant no longer offers, and you gotta eat.

Donald Trump is a plate of deep fried oreos. While a surprising number of people find that tasty, it also turns out the cream filling was contaminated with salmonella.

Gary Johnson looks like a better meal than the chicken, but you're told immediately if you order it, you're gonna get contaminated deep fried oreos or the chicken, and you have absolutely no say which it will be.

You can bitch and complain all you want about Clinton. But Sanders is out.

As Bill Maher would say, eat the chicken.

I'm not voting for Clinton solely because I hate Trump. She's a competent candidate. At least we have one to choose from who can actually win.

And I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comparison of Trump to Clinton. One of them has far more governmental experience. One of them isn't unhinged. One of them is clearly not racist or sexist. You would at least agree with that, right? Clinton, for all her warts, is not racist, sexist, bigoted, and actually knows how government works. To equate them is insane to me. I'm sorry.

And this is coming from someone who voted for Nader in 2000. I totally get voting for a third party candidate in some situations. This isn't the time.

Edit: You know who else is considering voting for Clinton? Penn Jillette, one of the most vocal Clinton haters out there, and outspoken libertarian. Even he is saying if the election is close enough, he'll have to vote for her.

"“My friend Christopher Hitchens wrote a book called No One Left to Lie To about the Clintons,” Jillette says. “I have written and spoken and joked with friends the meanest, cruelest, most hateful things that could ever been said by me, have been said about the Clintons. I loathe them. I disagree with Hillary Clinton on just about everything there is to disagree with a person about. If it comes down to Trump and Hillary, I will put a Hillary Clinton sticker on my fucking car.”

But he says he hopes the race will turn out well enough that he feels safe casting his vote for Gary Johnson, who is running on the libertarian ticket, and who he believes is the best choice."
http://www.newsweek.com/penn-jillette-terrified-president-trump-431837

You have ZERO proof she was hired quid pro quo. Absolutely zero. Do you honestly think Clinton would risk any bad optics whatsoever if she thought DWS wouldn't help her win? That was the Rodman analogy. Clinton hired her to help win the election, not to regulate elections to be fair.

And even Sanders supporters said the nomination wasn't stolen. He lost. He lost mainly because he didn't appeal enough to minority voters. You have to take a massive leap of cynicism to make that claim.

You're making it sound like Clinton hired Alan Grayson. That's my point.

Then you magically transfer DWS's guilt directly to Clinton. Did Clinton do that, or did DWS? I'm pretty sure it was DWS. I hated George W. Bush as president. That didn't make me magically transfer guilt about the Valerie Plame incident directly to him because there's no evidence he was responsible for outing her as a CIA operative.

And again, you're also talking about the leader of the Democratic Party favoring a lifelong Democrat over a dude who just decided to join for a Presidential run. When I think of a candidate who is personally corrupt, I think of Nixon. He broke a law. Clinton didn't break any laws whatsoever. NONE! She didn't even do anything. DWS didn't break any laws for that matter. She shouldn't have done what she did, but good lord, you're blowing this way out of proportion.

How exactly am I helping Trump win? Because I'm gonna vote for Clinton over Trump, Stein, and Johnson?! You're gonna have to explain to me how I should help Trump lose. Do I vote for Trump?! Do I vote for some other candidate who has absolutely zero chance of winning?

And all evidence does not argue against Clinton being the most qualified candidate out of the remaining candidates. She is BY FAR the most experienced candidate in government. You can sit there and rail about the hiring of DWS to help campaign all you want, but there is no possible way you can possibly make the claim that she isn't the most experienced out of the remaining candidates. She was the most experienced candidate among all primary candidates, too. That's an undeniable fact. All evidence at the very least doesn't say she isn't the most qualified. None of the 2016 primary candidates came remotely close to her experience in foreign policy. None of them came close to her experience in domestic policy.

This isn't to say experience is everything. But you're making a very flimsy argument about her being personally corrupt, and then claiming the ridiculous assertion that all evidence says she's not the most qualified candidate, even though she's clearly the most experienced.

And yes, we don't know how good or bad a President she would be. You also can't know if a specific Honda Accord will be more reliable than a specific Chevy Corvette either. That doesn't stop me from buying the Honda Accord without batting an eye if I want the most reliable car.

Only in this case, it's more like a Honda Accord vs. a lit on fire dumpster on wheels.

The Democratic Party having control of both the executive and legislative branches does not mean Congress will go along with whatever the president says. Do you remember Obamacare at all? Was Obamacare what Obama wanted? No. It was a center left compromise to keep Democrats in the fold to vote for it. The Democratic Party still has a significant number of moderates within it.

Do you honestly think Obama got whatever he wanted his first two years in office with control of the house and a supermajority in the Senate? Absolutely not.

In fact, because of filibusters and polarization of the electorate, you can't get much of anything done anymore without control of the house and a supermajority in the Senate.

And the Shultz thing is hilarious to me. Clinton hired a high up skilled Democratic Party political operative for her campaign, and that means she's corrupt? Because Schultz favored a candidate who has always been a strong party candidate over another candidate who only caucused with the Democrats, and wasn't actually a Democrat himself? Yeah, she shouldn't have done what she did. Dennis Rodman shouldn't have done what he did to Scottie Pippen in the playoffs, too, when he was with Detroit. And who thought Rodman should have been brought in to help the Bulls? Pippen. Clinton is trying to win an election. If that's the kind of thing you consider as proof of actual corruption, I don't know what to tell you.

I am not voting against Trump. I am voting for the most competent, experienced candidate who I think will do the best job out of this lot of candidates. She is the only candidate who is extremely qualified.

Is she perfect? Hell, no. She isn't particularly inspiring. She's not very good as a politician at persuading people to her side. She panders too much. Sometimes she plays political games too much, like with the email fiasco.


But you can do a lot worse than Clinton. You don't have to go back far to find an inept president.

The President does have enough power to totally sink us IF they're volatile enough. Simple incompetence in a president doesn't sink us. However, that can cost lives. 1,833 people died officially from Katrina, although obviously not that many were directly from the utter incompetence of the Bush administration. 4,500 Americans have died in Iraq during the invasion and subsequent occupation. These things don't "sink" the US completely, but they're VERY consequential.

But Trump is incompetent AND volatile. Bringing both of those qualities to the table as president, and you've got much much bigger issues.

Finally, I absolutely do not get the charges of personal corruption against Hillary Clinton, especially when compared to Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton, so far as I can tell, is an agent who is operating within a system that has been corrupted, and not personally by her. The system needs to be reformed. She's done things to win within the system that you'd ideally not do. But I don't get how she is personally corrupt.

But you speak as if Clinton is the competent but corrupt one, and Trump is the incompetent but non-corrupt one, which blows my mind. How is the only way you can be corrupt is through accepting campaign contributions? How is Trump University not an indictment of how corrupt Trump personally is? How is it not corrupt to appeal to white supremacists? How is it not corrupt to name call, incite your supporters to violence, and dismiss women because they must be on their periods? How is it not corrupt to have your daughter make a speech at the RNC and then tweet how to buy the dress she was wearing, so she could make some coin?

Because one of those forms of corruption is being potentially corrupted by a corrupt system, but they're at least trying to reform that system. Hillary Clinton is the one against Citizens United, officially calling for a constitutional amendment to get rid of it. Has Donald Trump?

I don't think HRC will be a great president. I don't particularly like her much. However, she is qualified to be President. She's done nothing illegal, which is the hallmark of whether someone is corrupt.

And don't kid yourself about our government's ability containing a fascist. The Weimar Republic's government had structures in place to prevent the rise of Hitler, too. They had separation of powers. The government was one of the most democratic governments in the world. Fat lot of good that did.

I'm not saying necessarily that Trump is the next Hitler. But I am saying that there are enough similarities that I can't vote for him, and the mere fact he got a major party's nomination is scary beyond all reason. And voting for someone like that proves out their blueprint for future candidates across the board for offices in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches at all levels of government.

As much as I don't like HRC, Trump is easily the worse major party's nominee in a very very very long time.

First off, 1 in every 300 Americans are NOT on watch list used for this. That's complete horse crap. Less than 5,000 people living in the US would have been impacted by the bill had those people actually tried to get a gun. 1/300 Americans is 0.0033% of Americans. The actual percentage of Americans being impacted? 0.0015384615384615385% with the highest estimate, and that highest estimate would also assume every one of those people would seek to buy a gun where a background check would be conducted.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article85294962.html

If you go with the gun ownership rate of roughly 33% (generous), now you're talking 0.000512820512820513% of Americans impacted by the law who would actually go buy a gun, and that's assuming those people ALL went to buy a gun where a background check would be conducted. That's like one out of 2000 people.

Secondly, it was a terrible compromise.

We all need to understand just how ineffectual just the concept of putting anyone on the watchlist would be anyway in stopping a shooting.

We're talking about stopping only the people on the watchlist who are actually trying to buy a gun where they'd do a background check, not a private sale.

And on top of that, if the government can't make a case against them within three days, they get the gun. There's no way the federal government would be able to make a case with all the evidence within three days.

It was ridiculously weak and ineffective as is. The Democrats' bill was a joke, and the GOP's turned into a Carrot Top-esque joke.

In fairness, Vanguard funds are not almost always the lowest. I'd say they often are, but Fidelity beats them enough of the time that it's close between them.

With that said, I am in agreement with you that I would prefer Vanguard because of their ownership model. But as I accrue assets in my IRA's, I may open IRAs with Fidelity as well, as each of your retirement accounts' balances are ensured per account for up to $250,000. I would trust Fidelity as well, so I might diversify my index funds between fidelity and Vanguard for the insurance and other reasons.

I never paid much attention to my employer's 401k administrative fees until they recently changed 401k providers. I was blown away that our new CFO with the company for the last year, not only fought to introduce Vanguard funds as investment choices, which offered significant cost savings, changed our 401k provider. When I looked into the paperwork to try to figure out why, it became abundantly clear - he saved 1% in annual administrative fees on the plan.

Kudos to him! I sent him an email immediately thanking him for doing an awesome thankless job hardly anyone will likely appreciate.

my favorite part is when Lemon literally says, "Are you certain of the words you just said?"

Here's a hint you probably royally screwed up - if the moderator in a debate asks if you purposefully meant what you just said, you probably just sat on your own balls.

I freaking cracked up, because all I could think about was this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2Bih48rAtw

The problem is the GOP as constructed is already the minority party at least nationally. Since 1992, they've won the popular vote once in presidential races. Demographics favor voting blocs that track for Democrats. If the GOP splits into a moderate party and Tea Party, that is the effective end of the GOP, and the Tea Party would also be politically castrated. The people who built the Tea Party understood that the way to gain influence was as an insurrection within the GOP, not as a third party. For the Tea Party, it was a smart move. They've gained massive influence nationally compared to their numbers. But it is a cancer to the Republican Party that they've proven they're completely unable to control.

Every single problem or mistake you've listed is all due to one common thread - there are too many supporters of the GOP that are too radical. Why did McCain pick Palin? He was too moderate for the base, so he needed to up his conservative street creds, and he needed a minority splash to combat Obama being black. Combine those two, and you can't get Olympia Snow or Susan Collins, but you could get to either of them if you drop the "needs to be hard right conservative". Why did McCain move to the right in the first place? The base demanded it.

Why can't Obama do anything right according to no one in the GOP pretty much? Base is too rabid and demands it. Why did Romney shift to the right? Base.

You can blame the party for catering to the extreme too much, but the problem is the extreme makes up so much of what they have for support, they have no choice. Tea Party organizers astutely realized that, radicalized their supporters to threaten to not turn out for moderate candidates, and even to primary challenge even guys like Eric Cantor for compromising too much.

I mean this sincerely - the GOP party leadership is not at fault. Blame the original Tea Party organizers. Blame Tea Party candidates. Blame the media environment for increasingly favoring more radical candidates by creating partisan bubbles to carefully dissimenate information that suites partisan goals. Blame an electorate too stupid and/or apathetic to understand that neither conservative nor liberal ideology solves every problem (which is so painfully obvious that I can prove that in about 5 minutes), so you need to learn about each issue, and use those ideologies to form options, and then choose the one that's more likely to work, regardless of its ideological foundation. Yeah, that actually takes work and critical thinking, but you'll actually solve problems!

But that ain't happening, so it's time to sit back and watch the slow decline of the GOP as it eats itself alive, and Democrats will increasingly win because we'll keep being presented more with GOP candidates a majority of candidates can't stomach, and hope like heck the Democrats nominate at least someone semi-competent for office, because that's pretty much all we got.

I couldn't stomach voting for a single GOP nominee for president since George Bush, Sr. It's gotten worse because I couldn't stomach my choice for VA governor last year either. I had to choose between a batsh1t insane Cuccinelli or political sleeze in McAulliffe, and it was both the fastest choice to make for me, yet I was the least happy about having to make it for McAulliffe.

And just when I thought you couldn't get much lower from the GOP, they're on the doorstep of nominating Trump or Cruz for president of the entire country.

Pedophile Bill Clinton?! Based on what? Dead bodies?!

While you are completely making things up, Trump said publicly that most Mexicans coming over the border are drug dealers and rapists. I wonder when faced with a choice between them, which negatives will Latinos focus on. Or if you are a woman, will you focus on Bill Clinton's negatives or the actual GOP candidate saying only the woman should be punished for getting an abortion?

If you honestly believe the BS you are shoveling, prepare to be shocked when Trump gets crushed should he get nominated.

First off, he's not talking about everyone who plays video games. He's talking about people who ONLY play video games to the point that they're socially maladjusted. Big difference.

And even if he was talking about the geekier video gaming crowd, I don't even understand why it even registered on your radar as insulting. If you're a group that's actually discriminated against broadly, fine, but nerds? In this day and age of Mark Zuckerburg and Bill Gates? Really?!

It reminds me of this Louie CK bit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AbxHo9ybD0

"You can't even hurt my feelings."

Us poor nerds these days, with our solid paying upper middle class jobs and even higher, with college degrees! Pity us!

Just have the ability to laugh at yourself from time to time. Trust me, it's all going to be ok.