Well that's a fairly reasonable post...
and this fits in well with my support of Trump.
whooooaaaaaaaaa. Well this ought to be interesting.
What I've found is that all of the posts on either side are simple blind insults. Clinton is dirty and corrupt, Trump is a racist and bigot, there's not much else to see here. I've even called out the readership, asking for any *rational* reason to vote for Clinton over Trump (my particular choice - it would work as well the other way). No one has ever put forth a reasonable and rational reason for one candidate over the other(**).
Well Clinton IS corrupt and Trump IS a racist. But alright, here you go buddy.
Reasons to vote for Clinton over Trump.
1) Clinton more or less follows the democrat party platform. Anyone who is historically a democrat or otherwise shares the political views of democrats will more or less agree with her stance on most issues.
2) Trump does not follow the republican party platform. Anyone who is historically a republican or has like-minded views aren't going to necessarily like his plan. Arguably, he's not even really a Republican given his history of jumping parties. And considering how hard he pushed for Clinton in 2008, it's made me seriously consider if it's just a false flag operation. Normally I'd dismiss that sort of hogwash as a conspiracy nutcase. (After consideration, naw, still don't buy it)
3) The sheer amount of crazy that has come out of Trump. Now, this might sound like a baseless insult, and while it IS an insult it's not baseless. He is* an anti-vaxer, a birther, doesn't believe in global warming (and worse, it's all a ruse by the Chinese to kill US manufacturing [DESPITE, US manufacturing growing. The rabbit hole just keeps going and going]), encouraged violence against protesters at his rallies, encouraged espionage from Russia, pretended to be one "Chris Miller" when talking about his divorce in a phone interview, admitted in court to using the name "Chris Miller", and then denied using the name "Chris Miller", and he's advocated for committing war-crimes by suggesting we target the families of terrorists. This list goes on and on.
4) The in-feasibility of his plan to "Build a wall". It's pointless without a patrol, and then why not just have a patrol? (The answer: Money)
5) The pope came out against "Those who build walls". And then Trump bashed the pope.
6) While Clinton's shortcoming are far less than ideal, the ramifications for corruption are a few ambassadors and appointments who don't really deserve it. The culture of corruption is the worse thing, and yeah, that would probably take a hit.
7) And she's a slimy politician who does whatever will get her into power. This is bad, but it also means she knows how to play the political game. As opposed to Carter who was a great guy, but couldn't get much done. I don't think either Clinton or Trump actually want to destroy America. They just have different views about what needs to be done.
8) While it would send a nice message to "the establishment" as some sort of 4 year protest vote, the resulting damage would send so much support towards the establishment that they would never face competition again. It's like calling someone's bluff, you have to have a decent hand yourself.
9) Clinton can smile and play nice with foreign dignitaries. Trump is a little more... Brash.
10) Speaking of foreign affairs, Trump wants to defund/exit NATO and talked about using Nukes again. Coming from the biggest dog in the fight, this is the sort of thing that gets our allies nervous and ruins alliances. While Congress and the courts could probably keep Trump in check for domestic affairs, as long as he doesn't wield the FBI's surveillance like a club, there's little keeping him from screwing up foreign affairs.
11) If you're Mexican or Muslim you're probably going to face less static in the streets if Clinton is elected.
* But of course all that assumes that he actually means what he says (and doubles-down on when people ask if he's really sure about it). He's publicly stated that he uses sarcasm and doesn't mean what he says, sometimes, not that he's gotten specific about it. So how does anyone actually know what his platform is when anything he says could be facetious?