Judging the debate: a point by point analysis

[Norris2k]

Final-Fan said:

Norris2k said:

The point is not the example, the point is that with her husband, foundation she is getting hundreds of millions from banks, foreign companies that lead to conflict of interest considering her position as a public servant. And we know that these companies and countries does not pay if they don't get something back, we know she has no other service to offer than her political power, and we know that she does not actively seek to filter donators, even when the timing is inappropriate. Public servants just can't accept gifts to avoid the risk or doubt about corruption... Speeches, Foundations are mostly a loophole. So that's it, that's not enough for the justice to convict because it's based on what they can prove, but that is clear enough based on what we know. And that's probably where we will have to agree to disagree ;)

So ... on that basis you are saying "although Trump is 100 times worse, Clinton is still bad".  I can go along with that. 

No, I'm saying that Clinton is very bad, one of the worst candidate ever, and that should not be dismissed. And so is Trump, and that should also not be dismissed. My opinion is that Clinton is by far worst, yours is that Trump is by far worst, and that's fine But that should be an educated choice, based on what one value the most, what risks one see and accepts to take, and not about dismissing any fault from one candidate, and trashing the other candidate and voters like most websites, forumers, channels, and candidates do. When I saw your post, I was like "ah... again... this is hopeless". Would you not feel better if Trump supporters when they saw the debate would honestly think and say "he was very bad, and not convincing at all" and take account of it, rather than saying "no, Trump won the debate, he was greate, and we have (meaningless) online polls !" ?