Doubtful, he'll be worse than Hillary.
That's entirely your opinion. As far as I'm concerned, the guy is the white-trash Obama, which leaves an absolutely mind-boggling scope for awful.
Based on what? It's easy enough to say that, backing it up is a lot harder. All I have to do is look at her horrible record as Secretary of State, how she almost single-handedly destabilized the ME, got several people killed, exposed who knows how many of our state secrets. In just foreign policy alone it would be vary difficult for Trump to do worse. Then their is her already divisive talk in race, he completely idiotic proposed policies in economics, and there is very little doubt that Trump would be better.
I'm sorry, are you asking me the basis for calling him the white-trash Obama, or for saying he has a mind-boggling scope for awful?
You don't have to sell me on how awful Hillary is. I'd rather be tortured with thumbscrews than tolerate her and her horny hick husband in the White House for four years. The problem is, how horrible SHE is isn't a mitigating factor on how horrible TRUMP is, and I have an equal preference right now for torture over tolerating HIM in the White House, too. Sadly, "horrible" is not a zero-sum game in this instance, where there's only so much to go around and the more horrible she has, the less there is available for him to have.
But our argument is about Trump being worst or at least not as bad as Hillary.
I have provided some points to support my claim that he won't be as bad as Hillary, you disagree. Can you provide something other than disagreement?
Now that you have clarified, yes. I can.
Ask yourself this: which of the two is more likely to get their policies and agendas enacted by Congress?
Hillary Clinton would love to be a continuation of the policies of the Obama Administration, no doubt about it. But she's not Barack Obama. She's an ugly shrew with a strident, clunky, massively unlikable personality. The only reason she's winning the Democrat primaries at all is because they're literally set up to be a coronation procession for whomever the party insiders anoint, with virtually no reference to their rank-and-file at all, because they can be counted on to vote in lockstep however they're told and swear up, down, and sideways that it was all their idea. She has no charisma or persuasiveness of her own, and no legion of rabid fans. She does, however, have the capacity to galvanize Republicans and conservatives against her. So President Hillary would likely face massive gridlock and right-wingers coming out of the woodwork to retain control of Congress to keep it that way.
How likely are Congressional Republicans, who are not the most stalwart of champions under any circumstances, to react that way to a President who wears, however falsely, the label of "Republican"? Especially with his cult of worshipers screaming at the gates? And given that he readily and easily flip-flops from right to left on virtually any issue that comes up, how likely is it that Congressional Democrats will feel the need to strongly oppose him? Hell, he's donated to a lot of them. What are the chances that we'll see teaming up to neutralize the spaghetti-spined Republicans?
We certainly would not see any movement forward on any truly conservative issues, particularly involving limiting the scope and overreach of the federal government, because Trump's not a conservative and he's also not even remotely the sort of man who would voluntarily limit his own power. What we WOULD likely see is more of the populist crap he spews on the stump, which the Democrats would be just fine with and the Republicans would be too weak-sistered to resist in the face of his unwashed masses of populist fans.
So basically, we're looking at two people putting forward policies that are ultimately bad for America, and only one of them with a good chance of actually achieving those policies.
Which one do YOU think would be worse?
