Fair play in Nevada? Objective people may have justifiable doubts.

[Chomsky]

Trump cannot be expected to personally finance a billion dollar campaign. It's a non-issue to me. As for the "do as he's told": Trump is far too narcissistic and if he wins the presidency his ego will get even more inflated. He won't take orders from anyone. John McCain has always and will always be a scumbag and a sellout. Knowing how the game is played does not preclude him from wanting to change how the game is played. Business in New York is nearly impossible without making sure the bread gets buttered. He'd never have made it otherwise.

Could Trump go against the tide? That's all he's done this campaign. Could Hillary go against the tide? Not just no but Hell no. She's practically never resisted the tide. Her moral compass is a weathervane.

True, that!

 

[FieldTheorist]

She's practically never resisted the tide.

No, that's not true. She's resisting the tide of the Sanders movement as hard as she can, because it competes with what her donors want.

Her moral compass is a weathervane.

Agreed, but Trump's sense of truth is a weathervane. I don't think I could ever buy into the argument that is any better.

 

[FieldTheorist]

Sorry, forgot to respond in full to this part:

Trump cannot be expected to personally finance a billion dollar campaign. It's a non-issue to me. As for the "do as he's told": Trump is far too narcissistic and if he wins the presidency his ego will get even more inflated. He won't take orders from anyone. John McCain has always and will always be a scumbag and a sellout. Knowing how the game is played does not preclude him from wanting to change how the game is played. Business in New York is nearly impossible without making sure the bread gets buttered. He'd never have made it otherwise.

Could Trump go against the tide? That's all he's done this campaign.

Trump has only said one thing this campaign: Trump makes good deals for Trump. And I expect that trend to continue well into his presidency, should he be elected. Bare in mind, this is a man who once asked why poor people are allowed to play golf. You honestly, sincerely think he gives a **** about all of his poor supporters, most of whom he's previously profiteered from with the same trade deals that he now denounces?

Sure, you can believe that, but that's faith and marketing and feelings. But the only thing I do believe, which is fact based, is that Trump does what's good for Trump. Telling the masses what they wanted to hear was good for Trump. Whether he's honest, well, again, I see no evidence for that. He's now flip-flopping on not cutting social security and is openly pandering to the rich, because now that is what is good for Trump. If Trump becomes president, Trump will continue to do what's good for Trump under all of the constraints of a president. The average worker has really have no control or power over the process after election. And I think he'll act accordingly.

 

[reinoe]

No, that's not true. She's resisting the tide of the Sanders movement as hard as she can, because it competes with what her donors want.



Agreed, but Trump's sense of truth is a weathervane. I don't think I could ever buy into the argument that is any better.

Then let's compare and contrast with the problems in American and the who contributes to them.

American workers find themselves increasingly in stagnant wages in jobs that do not provide opportunities for enough advancement.
Hillary Clinton directly benefits from this and Trump advocates against it.

Our wars in the middle east are poorly managed and make things worse.
Hillary Clinton is directly and indirectly responsible for this. Furthermore not only has she directly had her hands all over the problems in the middle east she advocates doing it even more despite showing that it has never worked. And to put a cherry on top of it, she's directly profiting from all this at the expense of the lives of our American troops.