I see the point now but it’s a ridiculous illustration.

So in order for a ‘vagina in the White House’ to be deserving of the presidency, they have to be as successful and creative in their field as possible?

To be honest, I think both candidates are poor choices for the presidency. Each with his (or her) own flaws. None of them hold the required attributes that make a good president — but that’s just my perspective on the issue.

As for Clinton, there were too many issues raised throughout her campaign: Lying (which I never understood why people are surprised by a politician lying), the investigation against her, and the accusation of collusion with the DNC. It could have been raised again after her inauguration if she had won.

Having a female president is great. Having a female president that goes down in history as one of the best, is much, much, better.

Is Trump an excellent business man? That’s seriously arguable.

It’s a moot point, as being a good president have very little to do with the business world. It might give him a different perspective from the previous presidents, but on the whole, doesn’t really translate to a better presidency.

Did people believe he’d be a successful president when they voted for him? I’m betting that most didn’t care as long as it wasn’t Hillary.

Unfortunately, you are correct. It’s even worse that most of those who voted for Hillary didn’t do it because they believed in her — but because she was not Trump. I think that’s a bad reason to vote for a candidate and maybe points to a bigger issue with having only two relevant options.

Does the character of the person matter to you? Do you have no problem with Trump’s character?

I thought he was an idiot before it was cool. Saying that; he was criticized for the wrong things, and still is. His comment about pussy grabbing indicates his lack of tact and self-respect. It was also taken out of context and overblown. If the media didn’t exaggerate his character and didn’t have a vendetta against him, he would have probably been a marginalized candidate.

So yes, he has a flawed character, but not as flawed as people had made it out to be. He is not a xenophobe because he sees the migrant crisis as a problem or that he lacks any public speaking ability and generalizes everyone from the US southern border. The same with every other generalized insult.

Of course, his attitude might be a manufactured show to create outrage and sensationalize, which, in essence, is even worse —to both sides of the political spectrum.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Shachar Haad’s story.