SpokenTruth said:
Let's get rid of this false dichotomy first. My disdain for Trump should never be taken for a love of Clinton. 2016 will forever be known as the election with the 2 worst possible candidates ever. That said, she was running for the Democratic nomination. There is not the same presumption of impartiality as there is for Supreme Court justices. But if you want to talk about presidential candidates that are not impartial...... You really don't want to go down that road, do you? |
It wasn't a jab at you specifically but mostly the left's viewpoint as the media portray's. It's hard to assume the news is wrong, since when they are called 'fake news' they make sure to point out that's totally incorrect. If that is incorrect on an overall scale, then by all means correct me, as you did already based on your own personal stance.
Sure there is. The candidate who seems to be the most impartial is who the Country votes for, a majority, no different than how you would want the most impartial individual confirmed to the Supreme Court. As President your job is to cater to all the people equally, or that's what is supposed to happen, even though we all know that's not exactly the case, just like how we all know some Justices are known to be lefties and some are known to be righties. Also, considering the President themselves choose the nominee, having a heavily biased President would more than likely lead to a more biased pick.
No I don't want to go there, because corrupt vs corrupt is an argument nobody but the most corrupt can win.
