EricHiggin, have you done actually any research on Trump outside of what you may hear from TV.  The reason I say this is that your opinion seems to be one where you are dismissing a lot of the history of Trump the businessman and seem to be making assumption that he is somehow better.  It's not that Trump has a big mouth its the fact that he doesn't have a clue what he is doing.  You can easily go to Trump web site and Hillary website and see a clear difference between the 2.  One site list a lot of policy about pretty much every political issue and stance on those issues.  You go to another site and you see a lot of ambigious talking points but most important you see a very small list of items that canidate is going to do.  

You say Trump will bring back equality but exactly how will this be accomplish by him.

Trump daughter cannot advise or have any real communication with her father if he becomes president because it would be a conflict of interest if she and her brother are still running the Trump Organization as Trump stated they would do if he become POTUS.  

Your next point I have to wonder if you actually have paid any attention to Trump.  You state Trump seesm to never get insulted or upset when someone disagrees with him make me seriously wonder exactly what canidate you have been watching for he past year.

Exactly why do you believe Trump will do the right thing for the American people and not do the right thing for Trump and his family.  Like I asked, have you did any research on Trump the business man.  After that look at his tax plan how it favors people like him.

In the movie Gladiator, everything would have been fine if the outgoing leader's recommendation for his successor had been respected.  Is this the plot similarity you mean? 

Obama says Hillary should be POTUS because shes in the same party. Plain and simple. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. It's politics and that how it works, so no, that's not what I meant. Back in those days, people didn't live their lives based on politics, it was just another part of their lives. Always being politcially correct was not normal. Just look at the barbaric wars they had. There was no, we have to look like the good guys even though we're here destroying your country and taking your wealth. They just went in and took what they wanted, end of story. This is why Caesar decides not to choose his Son instead of the General, because its the right thing to do for the people, end of story. Does this mean Hillary will end up POTUS anyway like in the movie? Possibly yes.

Trump is not winning this election

You just want my herd of capybaras

The latest polls (as in the ones coming out today and the last couple of days) show Clinton rebounding from the low point in her campaign (being sick at the 9/11 event) and starting to re-establish a 5-point lead over Trump.

Both candidates are very unpopular though, lol, with Clinton at 40% favorability and Trump even lower at 37% (yikes).

We'll see what happens in the debates.

Though, Wagner since you're such a hardcore Christian, shouldn't Bernie Sanders be your candidate? He is by far the most "Jesus-like" candidate, Trump is the furthest thing from that, lmao. 

Based on my point that neither candidate is that great, should have made it clear that while I think Trump is the better option, he's not exactly going to be the saviour of America. Yes his poilicies are quite vauge, and her's are to a "T", but thats because shes a poilitician and a lawyer and has been for a very long time. The problem with laying out policy like that is your expected to follow it exactly. Deviate from it, even for good reason, and its a mark against you. Trump knows this which is why he is keeping his so vague. Its better for him politically because it makes it hard for Hillary to take direct shots at him, and it allows him leeway with the American people. I'm not saying having no plan and winging it is a smart idea, but having only a basic plan and adapting to changes along the way makes much more sense than locking yourself down under stacks of policy.

The point is that for anyone running for the Office of POTUS they should not be giving any leyway for going into a job and not being prepared.  Trump is going for a job he has no experience and we as the people are supposed to cut him some slack because.  Trump had years to prepare for his presidental bid and coming into it unprepared shows how his presidency will be as well.  Also your opinion that keeping your policy vagues because you do not want to be held to them sounds really off for a voter to support.  Why as a voter I see him being vague and not taking a stance on important issue as a positive.  If anything its deceitful since it means he can change at a moment notice or pull something that no one supports because he never stated what he will do.  Also this is giving him a pass as if this is a pass, the other answer is that he has no clue what he will do so there is nothing to present.  Either way both are very not good for someone seeking the POTUS postion.

As for Trumps children having no say in his life. Well Obama's wife apparently gives him a lot of idea's and feedback, as well as many other people. Obama said it himself. He looks to many people, outside of office for advice if he feels their opinion is of value for that topic. Some of these people being quite wealthy. There is no reason why Trump would not include his family when it comes to making political or business decisions for the Country. Obviously the fact that he has a billion dollar company is a conflict of interest, but he would be a fool to use his position as POTUS to blatantly benefit his company. It wouldn't be a surprise if some decisions did in a way help his company indirectly. It alwas happens with politicians, just some are better at hiding it and getting away with it. Like his competition.

 Since Trump Organization is a private company, governments and other interest could pump billions of dollars into all types of funds and there would be no real way to track it based on what he does as President.  There is an article that talks about some of the groups and businesses, governments and other interest that his company deal with.  There are a few issues where some projects are held up due to governments intervention.  Giving Trump and his family the benefit of the doubt when it comes to something like this would be iresponsible.  Either his kids do not run the company and get rid of the conflict of interest or they keep running the company and must have absolutly no say or political positions in a Trump presidency.  Anything less is inviting big corruption.  This would be no different for Hillary and her daughter as well.

Trump acts like a bully when he's arguing with other politicians, just because it makes him look more bold, powerful and confident. Its natural for people to be drawn to that. It also helps deflect from his lesser understanding of politics as compared to his competition. When he does interviews with people who are not politicians, he is very cool and calm and in control. If you watch any videos of him from the past, hes the same way. She on the other hand can be cool and calm at times, but more often than not, she gets defensive very quickly and gets upset and raises her voice in an angry tone like how a kid whos not getting their way does. It makes her look childish and not fit to deal with the adults.

You need to see the statements he has made about our allies and other public figures.  The fact that he hasn't shone a real ability to not rant on every single or imagine slant against him shows a lack of displine or an ability to just let stuff go.  I am not sure I understand if you are defending him for base tactics that show his short commings so he personally attack his opponents or not but its hard for me to see this as a quality I would want in POTUS.  So when he finds himself with other world leaders not knowing what the heck he is talking about will he do the same.  Will he be as unprepared during those meetings as he was during the Primary and even during his own speeches.  The difference is that Trump lovs to wing it with barely prepared prep for subjects which does not sound like a redeaming personality.

Trumps tax plan does favor the rich no doubt, but so does her plan. The difference is that Trump doesn't use fancy words and sleight of hand in his policy to hide what he's doing. Anyone who expects trump or Hillary to heavily tax the rich and give it all to the poor isn't being realistic. That's the way it should be yes, but won't go that way because people are like animals down to our instincts, and much like how a lion won't give up his territory just because his neighbor has no food or prey on his, the rich will not just give up their money. Trumps plan to stop the oversees trade deals and bring jobs back to America will help fix the equlity issue in terms of money. Just look back to the post WWII era, when there was tonnes of work and babies being born like the species was quickly being erradicated and needed more people. Slowly over the years as the work was shipped oversees, the rich started to get richer, and the middle class, poorer. Times were great back then, there was more than enough to go around, and there will be again if he can make that happen like he says he will.

Did you actually look at Hillary econmic plan.  The last thing it favors is the rich since it actually taxes the rich more, does not touch the Middle and lower class.  I am not sure if you have even looked at her plan to make that statement.  Trump plan gives every break possible to the rich.  From lower taxes, to getting rid of the estate tax to only providing child incentive that favor the 1% you name it.  Those jobs overseas are gone.  The reason those jobs are gone because in America labor cost are way to high compared to where those jobs are at.  If you think trade agreements which have been in place for years and could have been overturned by a Republican congress did not happen why you think Trump will change this.  Trump cannot bring jobs back to the US that are gone because they are not gone because of trade agreements they are gone because the rest of the world has cheap labor with enough skilled labores to do the job.

Way to many people look solely to policy and base their decision on that. Which is wrong. Who that person is deep down matters just as much. Way to many times does a story break where someone broke the rules, the rules they put into place, but because theres no direct evidence, or its confidential just by chance, they get away with it. Does anyone of authority dig deeper to find out the truth, nope. Do the people do anything to right the wrong, nope. All because the law, wrote by their kind, says their rules, allow them to hide behind their rules, so they can break their own rules without consequence. How convenient.

If we were to based our decision on why the person is, then everyone would be voting for Gary Johnson.  Have you looked into Trump past because it seems you are making an assumption on Trump that does not reflect his history.  So do you just dismiss, Trump Universionnt, Trump Institute, Trump Foundation, Gary Indiana, Atlantic City, Golf course and other deals.  That is just a very small sample of how Trump conduct business.  Have you even read the book "The Making of a Deal" and some of the business practices Trump promoted within the book.  One thing is very clear is that Trump is not Maximus and has no honor.  If anything I would put Trump in the role of Caligula

The comparison is ridiculous and I picked the first obviously wrong thing that occurred to me to contradict your claim that Trump's situation "follows the plot line very closely." 
—King dies//President's second term running out—Similar, although Clinton didn't backstab Obama.  Would have been a good parallel if she had run against him after his first term to try to replace him before his second term. 
—King handpicks successor but his wishes are not honored//Obama doesn't take sides between Sanders and Clinton until there is a clear winner, but backs Clinton versus Trump—Not similar, especially with Trump as your choice for the general.  If anything, Trump blitzing his way through the Republican establishment taking everyone off guard seems more of a usurpation than what Clinton did.  And the whole reason the kid backstabs the old emperor is that he was backing someone else as his successor:  this would be like Obama really backing Sanders to the hilt against Clinton, which didn't happen. 
—General is sentenced to death for not going along with usurpation, but escapes, eventually winding up as a slave fighting as a gladiator—Obviously none of this even remotely resembles Trump.  And this is the main plot of the movie. 
—Gladiator gets famous fighting, meets evil emperor, and they scheme against each other.  The conflict becomes physical and they kill each other—To the extent that there was politics involved and they were enemies, there is some vague similarity, but Clinton isn't President yet, and presumably someone will actually win the election. 

Please explain in more detail how this situation "follows the plot line very closely".

P.S.  The Roman Empire was incredibly political among its ruling class.