Fred99:
Like hell they are.

They are both pretty much as bad as each other in terms of scandals committed.  Hilary really takes the cake when talking recent history.  I didn't even mention the organised voter fraud or the paid stooges to incite violence at Trump rallies.  Or the debate question scandal.  The list of lies, deception and criminal behavior from the Hilary camp is unparalleled.  I can't think of another election immersed in so much controversy.

I'm not really sure how/why the yanks are putting up with it to be honest.

gzt: The watergate claim seems to have little merit. Here's one close look at it:

http://urbanmyths.com/urban-myths/politics/fact-or-fiction-was-hillary-clinton-fired-from-watergate-investigation/

There is another examination of the claim in Washington Post. Tldr; a guy involved in the enquiry claims he fired her.
(a) They guy was not in any position to fire her (b) she wasn't fired (c) she was involved in the enquiry as long as comparably senior people were.

Never said she was fired.  The accusation of lies and deception still stand though.  I really wouldn't be surprised if those accusations were true given her track record in recent history.

gzt: Who would be most likely to use nuclear weapons? Now that's an interesting question!

Clinton clearly appears to prefer military solutions to many problems. However, this is not uncommon for American presidents. It's only a contrast because of Obama's appearing not to.
Trump on the other hand appears to be somewhat diplomatically clueless and therefore much more likely to shoot nuclear from the hip, or at least publicly threaten nuclear, which is just plain silly.
So it depends on the circumstances but I'm thinking Trump is more likely to fire one off at a weak country or opponent just to appear tough in his own self image. I'm voting Trump on that one.

War mongering military rhetoric for American presidents is certainly not uncommon, which is exactly why trump scores points in this department.  Deep down, most people don't want another war and so far Trump has presented a more placid take on Hilary's chosen boogieman, Russia.  Trump instead on record saying "Wouldn't it be nice if we were friends with Russia.  Wouldn't it be nice" and at another rally something to the effect of "Hilary is talking about war with Russia, I just want to do business with them".

It's worth noting that (and I can't find the quote) but Trump said something to the effect that he trusts the current general of the military and would rather take his advice on diplomatic matters.  Where as Hilary, even when advised her political speak was ill advised by many military minds, continued to tell everyone a no-fly zone was a good idea.

I wouldn't say Trump was diplomatically clueless.  He's not the greatest at foreign policy, sure.  But trigger happy with nukes?  That's media fluff to get the backs of the republicans up.  Depending on which news you read and on what day, trump has 80 retired generals rallying against him.  Or 88 generals backing him, or over 90 generals in support.

I personally believe the media fluff around Russia is a welcome distraction for the bigger problems in both campaigns.  War with Russia is so stupidly unlikely it's really not worth mentioning.  Russia is the second largest military power in the world with the next best nuclear arsenal and isn't over-stretched like the US military is.

Whether or not he sticks to his pro-Russia stance is another story.  But considering the track record of presidents gone by, I wouldn't be surprised if he flip flopped.  And the same goes for Hillary.

gzt:Americans can't seem to figure out the presidential election is voting for the chief executive of an administration and an administration with international military powers, not a government. If they want a new government, that is going to require an attention span of 10 years

Of course it does not help that the rest of the world population can't figure this out either and only encourages them.

jarledb:
So you don't like Clinton because "she is a liar". Trump lies about things that can easily be proven are false. Again and again. And his Politifact rating from Mostly False to Pants on Fire is 70%!

 

How about this latest one:

Yep.  Never said Trump was a rose.  The difference here is, while Trump has obviously taken the situation out of context and glossed over the fact Obama wasn't speaking to the protestor and instead the crowd; Hilary's camp has given me good reason to believe that the protestor was paid to be there to incite violence/disturb the peace and intentionally cause problems.  Although Obama lost control of the crowd at the beginning, he did a great job at diffusing them towards the end.

I could counter with Hilary's lies and I'm sure you could counter my counter with more Trump lies.  As I said earlier, they're both as bad as each other and that is what is so hilarious about this election.  The 50/50 polls suggest people are having a really hard time picking the candidate that least resembles the proverbial devil.  It's the first campaign I've witnessed where both candidates have had people call them a modern Hilter and have had so much revealing baggage pegged against them, TMZ does not know where to start and has Fox news starting to look impartial for god's sake.

I like the third party Libertarian choice.  That said, while voting for the third party isn't technically a wasted vote, it's certainly not going to be a rewarding one considering any candidates other than the top two are punished when it comes to airtime and the millions spent in advertising.

TL;DR: Both are terrible liars, both are equally unfit.  Trump is breaking even because he is a better talker and Hilary is competing with a generation that don't like the Clinton name.  The fact that she is a woman also puts her at a severe disadvantage.  America likes to pretend they are progressive, but yea.  Na.  Clinton will likely win anyway because of the backwards "democratic" voting system they have instituted and the establishment pick usually gets to hold the football.

What a time to be alive.