Might want to stay in your lane on this one.

It's obvious you haven't studied the policies and the track record of both. I'll save you some time. One has has no policies and no track record of legislation. Her videos and interviews show an extreme socialist belief system along with a total ban of fracking as well as no limitation on abortion and public funding of it as well as paying for *** change operations. These policies are considered extreme by the majority of Americans. It's fine if you believe that, but then state that position as a candidate. The other candidates policies are spelled out in detail and there is a 4 year track record of those in practice. You might also want to note that during his 4 years we didn't have a single war or "police action" started.

The option is someone who's primary attribute involves Parisian street walker skills. She is a babbling cackling fool that pretends to be black while her grandfather owned 200 slaves that were forced to worked a sugar cane plantation. She has never had an original thought or policy in her life. She is just a tool for her masters. I know it will stun you but no one in my extended family ever owned a slave and I'm not aware of a single American who's family owned a slave. it's an extremely small percentage of the population and only involved the most affluent land owners of the day. She probably represents less than 1% of the population having a family member that owned a slave.

The real question is, with a population of over 200 million eligible candidates for president we ended up with these two as our choice. They are both reprehensible candidates for one of the most powerful leaders in the world. It's obvious that someone else is picking who they want for high offices in this country.

And yes, whether you hate America or not, a world leader without competence or leadership skills will end up affecting the entire world eventually.