The only thing more terrifying than Trump as president would be Hillary as president.

You find her more frightening?

I don't think Hillary would push the button, but I can picture Trump doing it.

She's manipulative and secretive and all that stuff, but Trump is an impulsive loose cannon.

I don't get why people find Hilary so scary. I don't think she has displayed any more or less of the qualities and/or flaws than the presidents you've already had.

I do think the fact she is female is a factor. I don't mean that you are sexist for finding her scary - I do however think the particular aspects of her character that are deemed frightening would be less frightening in a guy. Those character traits and ways of dealing are too out of kilter with our unconscious expectations of what a woman is.

When I look at the stuff some presidents and top tier male politicians have got up to without that in any way frightening off the voters and compare it to Hilary's record, I am slightly baffled by the rap she gets.

First of all, Trump would never push the button; it doesn't make business sense and he's enough of a business man to know how to force things to change through economic policies. He is a classic trash talker, a gar mouth.

If he is elected it will be more of the same crazy trainwreck it has always been with trump. I actually think the country's financial situation will improve because Trump's reputation is more important to him than wealth, per se. Bush, on the other hand had a track record of taking over businesses and then sucking all the cash out of them and leaving them bankrupt. He didn't care about his reputation, it was all about the cash grab and all flat out lying was the norm.

Trump's big feather in his cap would be making the US financially sound, not out of any altruistic principal but so he could claim bragging rights. And can you deny that bragging is one of his top, if not the top, activities of his?

Hilary, on the other hand is a habitual liar, Wall Street is her BFF, and is just another politcal corporate tool. I, personally, couldn't give a fuck about what sex she is and it's precisely that "she has displayed more or less of the qualities and/or flaws than the presidents [we]'ve already had" that makes me terrified. Our country cannot withstand another term of American politics, I mean corporate pandering. The country is being bled dry and really our only hope would be Bernie or Trump for two very different reasons and admittedly, very different outcomes, neither of which I see as pandering to corpocracy.

Ok. I can see that makes sense.

Though as toher being a habitual liar - Trump seems to have that same quality. And he seems as happy to brag without having earned bragging rights as he is with having earned them. Some of his business ventures have been great successes. Some have been collossal failures of judgement losing himself and others vast sums of money.

Best hope his presidency catches him when he is making good investment decisions, rather than those that have left the people who trusted him bankrupt.

Both seem bent on continuing the neo-con foreign policy which is brutalizing the mid-east and pushing us into a hot conflict with Russia.

That sounds like Trump.

Has he made any great business decisions since the 80s, other than "The Apprentice"? And how involved is he with the actual business side of making that show?

Wow. That 'sucking all the cash out' and 'leaving them bankrupt' is Trump's history. How did his history suddenly change?

George Jr and Trump are both Ivy League business school graduates embedded with the same concept of business: make profits at the expense of the product and counter-parties.

I thought Trump just lost investor money by making mistakes as opposed to stripping all the assets, lining his and his cronies pockets and then shuttering the place.

It always seemed like Trump tried to recover from his failures as opposed to Bush who seemed to count failures as success.

In any case, he's not my first choice for president. I don't think he even makes the top 100 list of my preferred presidents, but then neither does Hilary.

Sanders would have been a better candidate. Clinton's only fresh from a demographic perspective, her politics and tactics aren't. Sanders seems to have an actual set of belliefs and some genuinely new ideas and approaches.

Socialism/communism is not new at all.

Neither has worked anywhere they have been tried.

Trump demonstrates a tremendous negotiation skill. That is his asset. His ego and need to enrich himself (in money, power, publicity, etc) at expense of others is a severe weakness.

In a TV show called "Good Wife", an Illinois Governor runs for president. In Iowa, his rallies are poorly attended. However a one man band, with customized and creative songs signing praises of that Governor, keeps appearing. Professional campaign managers are appalled - keep trying to distance themselves from this one man band.

In a Caucus, if a candidate's corner does not have enough supporters, then he is eliminated. The Governor is short supporters. That one man band appears causing many to move to the Governor's corner. He could not be a better campaign promoter.

Why did professional campaign managers not see it? Same applies to what Trump is doing. Professionals would never attempt what Trump has done for the same reason professionals would distance themselves from that one man band. What works is not necessary understood in all environment. This environment is chock full of hate and disgust when the facts do not justify it. That creates volatility.

When so many foolishly believe ISIS is a greater personal threat than a car crash, then logic and experience no longer applies. Many in history prospered in such conditions such as Joseph McCarthy and Hugo Chavez.

Trump demonstrates another assent. He is made of teflon.