Granted, most of Trump's output is not even properly formed sentences, so maybe he's doing a malformed data denial-of-service attack on voters' senses?
If Clinton gets elected, nothing will change. If Trump gets elected, the hope is that it will dip negative for a few months, he gets impeached and removed from office, and at the next election we vote in Jill Stein or something.
The Weimar Republic was broken in many ways, and many Germans essentially voted against it in the 1933 elections... That example of "creative destruction of a democracy using its own tools" didn't work out great.
One example of a nation deciding overnight that the way they've done things in the past was not the way they wanted to continue.
He also seems to be quite anti-globalization, anti-TPP etc. Slapping Wall St banks would be cherry on top.
In any case a change of "elites" (if not economical, at least political) would be welcome. Probably won't be less corruption, but different corruption instead.
Re: Trump's speeches - mostly non-sensical, yes, but at least he's not pretending to be truthful. Personally, I don't have any trust in what Hillary says either - even though her lies are much more sophisticated and eloquent.
It seems extremely generous to characterize Trump as being interested in anything at all except himself. All accounts suggest that he doesn't read. On his private plane he watches his own TV appearances. He has put his name on a hundred products, but he's not an entrepreneur and doesn't care at all about developing the actual products.
Trump claims to be an expert on taxes, at least... But his former accountant Jack Mitnick says he did all the work, and when Trump visited once a year, his wife was actually asking more questions than Trump himself.
Really the best-case scenario for a Trump presidency is that his quantum-sized attention span moves to something else and he leaves the United States to run itself, like he did with the Trump University. That means Vice President Mike Pence would be the effective president, supported by a Republican Congress... And you can look at Pence's track record to see whose interests he represents: ultraconservative fundamentalist Christian Republicans. Pence is as much part of the establishment as Clinton. Is that really the change America needs?
Trump's speeches - mostly non-sensical, yes, but at least he's not pretending to be truthful.
What do you mean by that? He is definitely pretending to tell the truth. For example, since last week he has been saying that the election is rigged against him and there will be widespread vote fraud. There is not a shred of evidence of this. Republicans all over the country are actively countering the notion that the election is somehow being rigged. Yet Trump persists. That's not a harmless white lie -- no candidate has questioned the legitimacy of US elections since before the Civil War.
Pretty certain Trump called for US troops to be used in both Syria and Libya. He's also called for an escalation of bombing of ISIS, and supported torture. And he's made intemperate remarks about reacting to provocation - Russian planes shot down for flying over US ships, Iranian ships shot at if the crew make rude gestures. I would say it's at least arguable to say there will be fewer wars under Trump. Personally I find it quite difficult to follow that line of argument. I'd expect Clinton to be more hawkish than Obama, but Obama has been one of the US Presidents most keen on diplomacy and de-escalation for decades.
In a First Past the Post voting system like the one in America, a vote for a third-party is, and always will be a vote against your preferences. Rank-choice is a far superior system (though it has its own downsides as well), but that isn't what we have in America. The lesser of two evils is still the better of two options. You want "better" candidates, get involved in party politics and vote in the primaries.
And I don't collect welfare because it's such a small paycheck compared to my salary. But for people who could really use that money, it's a huge help.
It really depends how you weight this election vs others coming up. But if you're in, say, California, your vote for President will not swing the state at all -- it's locked in for Hillary. If (and it's a big if) some other party is closer to your preferred policies, feel free to vote for them without a trace of guilt about making your side weaker for this election.
Most voters live in states that are essentially a lock-up for one of the two candidates. Arguably about 10 states might swing, but third party candidates could easily get 10+ percent of the popular vote nationally and largely influence the direction of the major parties if the voting public understood the electoral college and the multi-election game theory of it.
Another crook, Clinton, for the next years is survivable, but long term a strong third party has to invade this broken system, sooner or later.
Initially I hoped Trump will tear the GOP apart, but he made it impossible with his latest stupidities.
Yeah, so many libtards would be triggered... it's hardly worth it.
I have sympathy with where Doug is coming from, let's just get it over and done with already.
But that candidate has decided to take the low road. And I mean LOW.
Consider that it is the crooked system that has led you to believe that.
See this, newly released, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY shocking stuff.