I guess some people are conversely thinking that what Trump would do will out just like any other sort of information, so they aren't worried about that.
Oh, absolutely. I'm not voting for Hillary because of her integrity or authenticity. Those are nearly worthless values in an office of the utmost national security (i.e. national security and international/geopolitical affairs are not necessarily concomitant with individualist interests).
I'm voting for her because I know she represents social interests that I happen to agree with on an ethical level. But ethics is a groundless system - there is no "meta-ethics" or ground from within any ethical system by which to substantiate it. Seeing as individualistic rhetoric and ideological positions are not attractive to me, I tend to gravitate toward more systematic and potentially alienating political programs/platforms.
Part of this undoubtedly stems from an ethical imperative to privilege the estranging at the expense of the familiar. I'm absolutely aware that this could spell disaster, and that this does nothing to bridge the gulf between the academically enfranchised and disenfranchised. But given the present political choice, I'm going with what I think complement my ethical tendencies.
I think it's more because he wants to have as many stances available for his game as possible. As I said, he's an opportunist.
You see a dumb person. I see a calculating game player. In my view you're underestimating him.
Personally, I won't be surprised if he backpedals or even does a full 180 on certain issues once he's in office. To this extent, I don't see him as even much of a person at all. He's a calculation machine, and in this regard does whatever to achieve the programmed goal (i.e. win the presidency).
Unfortunately, if this is the case, there's no way for us to know what he'll do once he's in office. If his primary directive is to win the election, then he ostensibly has no goals beyond winning. Obviously, if he does win, he'll pursue certain goals; but these are not available to us as a voting populace. Given that he could exponentially intensify some of his positions, and who the fuck knows which ones, I'm voting for Hillary.
The scale is tipped by the evidence of Hillary's horrible political career.
And not by Donald's horrible financial career? This is what confounds me. People say how even though Donald has no political experience, it's better than Hillary's because hers is horrible. But if his business experience tells us anything (and who's to say it even should), it's that he's only made it this far because he's cheated other people out of money and declared bankruptcy - what - four times?
Okay, so let's reframe: he has
no reputable experience at anything other than getting a hell of a lot of people to flock to him; and those people aren't stupid or ignorant, and it's unfair to call them that (a position which, while not directly attributable to this discussion, has surfaced before). I'll agree with that much for argument's sake. But then it's okay to call the people who flock to Hillary stupid and ignorant? What is going on here...
