Net Neutrality
------------
He has no stated opinion? The REPULICAN OPINION ON NET NEUTRALITY is to fucking get RID of it. He's also a Corporatist. Gee I fucking WONDER what his stance is.
I'm assuming his opinion is standing around the "I can take some kickback from Verizon!" line.

NSA
------------------------------
Practically in the NSA? What the fuck does that even mean? She was SECRETARY OF STATE. She had contact with the NSA, but WAS NOT PART OF IT. It's the pretty much the furthest thing from in it.
She spoke both in favor for and against the NSA. Most of the spying the NSA does is pretty fucking useless anyway.

Conflict of Interset
--------------------
There was never a conflict of interest in her campaign at ALL. Nothing was ever tied to be a conflict of interest. There was an attempt to tie money from her charity to her campaign, but it DIDN'T exist and there are myriad of articles to prove this wrong.
I don't see how him funding his own campaign is a positive and just because it's alleged doesn't mean it's the case. To even prove that self-funded statement true you have to have information not availbe to the public.

Presidency Legaltity
------------------
Trumps section applies to Hillary.
You have to prove someone is a criminal. Which she never was. It ISN'T true. The FBI is a credible source you mong, to say they're not credible and every group that has tried her could NOT do anything. There was NOTHING THERE.
Okay so the FBI interfered with the election - With the letter James B. Comey sent to a Repiblican congressman that they were reopening the case on Hillary Clinton. A case that ACTUALLY WASN'T reopening. They also had an ENTIRE YEAR to look at Clinton's information and financial data and could not tie ANYTHING to her at all. In FOUR MONTHS the Democrats and public media have tied Donald Trump stating on tape that he commited sexual assult. BRAGGING ABOUT IT. IN FOUR MONTHS. And the FBI and Congress couldn't do this in a year LOOKING to convit? REALLY? MORE RESOURCES. DIRECT ACCESS TO INFORMATION. And they couldn't find fucking ANYTHING? Okay! False news! Nothing equates to something in his eyes.
Him even doing it 10 days before the election PUBLICALLY says they were A-OK with interfering with the outcome of the election.
Lost popular vote by 3 million. Before you go to the blogpost that study accounts` for the *potential* of 800,000 votes that could be false. IF WE ASSUME ALL OF THOSE went to Hillary there are 2.2 million votes in her favor that make the popular vote which makes Trumps claim of those 3 million votes being illegal false. The NY FBI director directly interfered with the election mentioning an investigation that wasnt open, that was made public to the press 10 days. She was found non-guilty numerous times, with multiple Republican Commities actively trying to convict her. Not to find truth, to convict the distinction is they had no interest in justice.


Non-religion
---------
Bible is his favorite book, this is an actual position of Trump.
It is actually impossible to crush ISIS. Period. It's not a THING the US can do. It isn't a thing ANYONE can do. There will always be RADICAL GROUPS of people trying to get what they want. The idea of crushing groups by bombing or "crushing" makes it easier to recruit. You know what makes it easier? Targeting their families.

The irony here is listing his virtue as the ability to interefere with forrign nations as a Libertarian. That's is literally the opposite of what you just said you believe.

Also claiming anti-war is bullshit. Trade wars are still wars. All the shit about bombing their families and how waterboarding isn't severe enough really means you're anti-war too, I guess.


She was in favor of the war, but so is DONALD TRUMP. He changed his position after ADVOCATING for the Iraq War.
She openly said "she regrets the decision to invade". She took responsibility for a mistake, instead of just fucking lying.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/02/19/sc-gop-town-hall-donald-trump-howard-stern-iraq-invasion-29.cnn

"FAKE NEWS LINK OF TRUMP TALKING THE WORDS OUT OF HIS MOUTH ARE FALSE. They are false because everything he says is incorrect. It's just an alternative quote. It's all edited.
I need a safe space from liberals and from facts. It makes me seem like a Hitleresque monster."

Lolxd
--------
Now this is the level of political discourse I come to expect from a Libertarian.

Nobody cares he says mean things, nobodys EVER cared about words that hurt MUH FEELINGS. It's what they MEAN. Hurting peoples feelings isn't a concern, it's ACTUALLY HURTING PEOPLE.
The inrease of HATE CRIMES in the Muslim/Hispanic communities is a direct link to Donal Trumps campaign.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2016/11/30/report-trumps-election-led-to-a-surge-in-hate-crime-infographic/#260a5dce5f0d FALSE NEWS FALSE NEWS FALSE NEWS SAFE SPACE FROM FACTS

If you consider his double talk and literally changing his opinion constantly staying straight on most of his points you might need to take another look at literally anything he's said.
He doesn't even have policy, he has rhetoric. Republicans have no policy to replace the ACA right now, meaning once it's removed ROUGHLY 43 THOUSAND people will DIE A YEAR. The administration is killing THEM BY THEIR OWN CHOICE WILLFULLY.
His majority of his rhetoric is in line with the GOP, hes just removed the dog-whistles.
Policies that didn't align with the Republican view are somehow WORSE for the American pulic. For our Money - See: The wall / Position of power - See: No country in the world will communicate with us. At all. Not even Russia gives us information. / Economically - See: Trade wars that exhaust consumer goods throughout the United States.

DNC
-----------
THE DNC DECIDING WHO THEY WANT TO RUN AND BACKING THE CANIDATE WHILE SHE ALSO WON THE POPULAR VOTE IS NOT RIGGING THE DNC. The DNC STILL represented the will of the people EVEN IF they backed her, and there's no evidence to the contrary.
Her adjusting stances to what her constituents want is NOT A BAD THING.

They even backed Hillary in the early Primaries of the 2008 election. The second Obama gained popular support, they switched to him because he gained the support of the people. Bernie had grassroots support, but while his message resonated with a large portion of working class Americans, its not the ONLY message that resonated with the democratic party. It's not an afront to Democracy.
That is how politics SHOULD work. Did they have an Err a Parent? Yes, and that's fine. They're allowed to have their voice. However, when the will of the constituents changes from one person to another canidate, they switch with them to where they supported the will of the people. But you're a Libertarian so you don't believe in any of this.
There is a group that was historically called Libertarians in Europe that supported Democracy and Freedom - they're called 'Socalists'.


Businessman
--------
Shitty doesn't even BEGIN to describe it. He also has no political knowledge PERIOD.
Hillary is provably not a shitty SoS.
Before you say Benghazi, the reason that happened is entirely unrealed to her position as SoS and entirely related to budget cuts implemented by the Republican party, which Hillary was asking FOR MONEY FOR TO PROPERLY DEFEND THE BASE.

What the fuck do you even MEAN
-------------------------------
Electing a person you accept as a BIG DUMB DICKHEAD to begin with is FUCKING STUPID. We wouldn't know what his policies would be because his decision making is erratic and irrational, being watchful is pointless because we could be watchful on both Hillary and already with Obama. Our goverment and news agencies are LESS informed because Trump is blacklisting NEWS AGENCIES and our government is being BLACKLISTED by other governments.
They're going through various attempts to remove democracy as They're firing and PUTTING GAG ORDERS on people that would even get them information in the first place. Obama NEVER FIRED ANYONE for dissent. The LAST PERSON to fire for dissenters was NIXON. NOT EVEN REGAN. Regan fired federal workers only because they unionized, not because they dissented.

Liar lul
----------
MEANINGLESS STATEMENT that is EQUALLY applicable to Trump. Hillary was pretty open as SoS to what she was actually doing at every point of her holding that position, and in every other position he's held involving the government and keeping within government standards. It's normative language with no actual critisim of her.
We also know she didn't do anything awful during those times of her holding those positions because there are around 30 thousand emails that hold nothing of no surprise to anyone that knows anything about politics.

None of these are substanitive points. That Steve Bannon penis is delicious please shove it up my asshole. You also scream Breitbart so much that it blows my mind.

--------------------------
A Libertarian sucking authoritarian cock? Color me surprised, another Pinochet cocksucking piece of shit, just like your Messiah Friedman.

Being a self-described libertarian, and therefore inherently a right wing crackpot like your Dear Leader and every other infantile moron who has ever held a similar position sans Robert Nozick who retracted his own defense of your position later in life, it in no way surprises me that you wish to defend so feverently a fascist piece of shit. As every one of your beloved 'intellectuals' previously have*.
if you took a moment to educate yourself on anything involving politics or political philosophy and the surrounding studies you would realize that your limited understanding of the world comes entirely from far right circles and that your conception of freedom is rooted deeply in protecting the interests of the privileged few and only the priviledged few.

*See 1) Rothbard and Hoppe on restrictive covenants.
2) Hoppe on the joys of feudalism.
3) Block on slavery contracts and religious theocracy being compatible with anarcho-capitalism.
4) Gary North on theocracy and stoning people to death.
5) Rothbard's quote on unleashing the cops to administer instant justice.
6) Lew Rockwell always shills for Russia and Trump.
7) Mises Institute support for the confederacy. Also, the general belief that World War 2 and the American Civil War were acts of 'meddling' and unjustified.
8) Bryan Caplan and the 'charter cities' which he believes could be run by technocratic corporations. Basically IRL Delta City from Robocop. Though sometimes these are said to be run by foreign governments within the borders of a poorer country. Which is also authoritarian, since they have no accountability to the people in those countries.
9) Rothbard and Hoppe's general hatred of what they call 'nihlo-libertarians': libertarians who are hedonistic and laissez faire, instead of being socially conservative and willing to preserve property over all other considerations.