Help an undecided voter

[Witherwings]

On 5/3/2016 at 1:47 AM, Julifornia said:

I would vote for Trump a million times before I'd ever vote for Hillary, though if the general came down to Trump vs Sanders, not sure who I'd choose.  There is a tremendous amount of overlap in their positions vis a vis the economy and immigration, which are the only two issues that actually matter.

And the upshot is that either of them would be single-termers.  Unless Hillary suffers an acute bout of observed death, she'll be in office for two terms.  That's eight more years of 0% (or probably negative) interest rates, eight more years of the middle class being gutted to pay corporate subsidies, eight more years of selling American secrets and weapons systems to China, eight more years of pretending that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are not state sponsors of terrorism, eight more years of unnecessary mid-East wars, eight more years of outsourcing jobs and importing cheap labor, eight more years of unfettered immigration, and eight more years of record deficits.  Bush doubled the national debt.  Obama doubled the national debt.  You really think Hillary (the darling of the Establishment on *both* sides) is going to buck the trend?

I'd say vote for whomever you want (Bernie), but the winner will be Hillary, sudden death notwithstanding, because the GOP and Dems will collude to make it so.

/cynicism  (And this is why I wish the parties would pick platforms *before* candidates, and streamline or abolish the primary system.)

YES! YES! YES! to the bolded. Also to the rest of your post. 

It could be argued that Bernie is part of the establishment a well.  He has been a member of congress for 26 years and a senator for 10, etc. I can see where it can be argued he is not. He (as well as trump) are both bringing an aspect to their campaigns that has generally been overlooked in the past. They are both wanting to confront what is wrong with the system as is. Both want to "buck the trend" and both have a large number of supporters who like them for this. 

[sparkles]

I voted for Sanders in the NY primary but I don't think he has a snowball's chance of getting the Democratic nod. In that case, even though I have some MAJOR issues with Clinton, I'll be voting for her in the general election. As much as I'd like to write in Sanders, IMO, given our current system it's a wasted vote and one that benefits the opposition, not the write-in candidate. I can't in all good conscience cast a write-in or third-party vote just to make a statement. 

There is not way in HELL I'd ever vote, or even consider voting for Trump. I think he's about as dangerous a candidate as there could ever be. While he certainly wouldn't be able to get away with a lot of things he blathers on about, he can still do a tremendous amount of damage. Among other things, POTUS is very much a PR position. The Commander-in-Chief at needs to appear presidential, at the very least. (Politics aside, I have painful memories of comparing W to his contemporaries like Tony Blair.)  Trump is a PR nightmare, an embarrassment, a blowhard who would make the US a laughingstock. I have no doubt that we'd see a huge rise in unrest and terrorism in this country under a President Trump. Frankly, I get the same feeling when I look at Trump as I do when I see images of Kim Jong-un. Both are seem like buffoons but they're actually megalomaniacs with massive egos who couldn't give two shits about "the people." Not that I don't think Clinton is ego-free but say what you will, she has the experience, the gravitas and the smarts for the job. Certainly not my first choice, but there it is.

I'll say one thing about this election, it's reawakened my interest in both US history and current political events. I'm just finishing up my latest two books, Michael Waldman's "The Fight to Vote," and Jane Mayer's "Dark Money." Both are chilling.

[Witherwings]

I do worry about how Trump will present himself. I wouldn't go as far as saying he gives me the same feeling that Kim Jong-un gives. To start, I am doubtful that Trump that trump is going to want to do anything that could end capitalism...

[bashfulpixie]

1 hour ago, Witherwings said:

I do worry about how Trump will present himself. I wouldn't go as far as saying he gives me the same feeling that Kim Jong-un gives. To start, I am doubtful that Trump that trump is going to want to do anything that could end capitalism...

Maybe not, but I'm worried about the temper tantrum that will ensue the first time he's told "No".  He's used to being the boss and having everyone tell him yes, sir all the time.  Not compromising. And that will not work for a president.

[FaustianSlip]

The idea of voting for Trump because your candidate of choice (regardless of whether it's Sanders or Clinton) didn't get the nomination is breathtaking in its privilege. The next president will, in all likelihood, be appointing multiple justices to the Supreme Court, not to mention appellate courts. Personally, I like having the right to marry who I want, access birth control and get an abortion if need be. I expect my nonwhite and Muslim friends and neighbors like not being deported, forced to carry special ID cards or harassed. I consider it a moral imperative to vote against Trump, and while I know people's blood is up right now, if any friends of mine cop to voting for Trump in the general, we will no longer be friends, because I'll take that as a sign that they never really cared about me or my welfare in the first place.

Blue no matter who. As far as the primaries, vote your conscience, and make sure to vote downballot, too, if it applies in your state!

[19 cats and counting]

To clarify something.

I'm still undecided and the rest of the ballot is filled out (waiting to be mailed in).  I asked my parents for input and got a different response from each.   My Instagram brought out more Bernie supporters.

As far as voting for Trump.  If the two choices for any office were between Donald Trump and Josh Duggar, I would vote for the philanderer reality TV star who spreads hate (wait, that's both of them).  But I'd vote Josh Duggar over the Donald.  (If it ever did come to that, I'd write someone in and then want an AK-47 to my head)

[Mama Mia]

3 hours ago, sparkles said:

I voted for Sanders in the NY primary but I don't think he has a snowball's chance of getting the Democratic nod. In that case, even though I have some MAJOR issues with Clinton, I'll be voting for her in the general election. As much as I'd like to write in Sanders, IMO, given our current system it's a wasted vote and one that benefits the opposition, not the write-in candidate. I can't in all good conscience cast a write-in or third-party vote just to make a statepment. 

I've thought that in the past. Back when Nader ran in 2000, for example, I really strongly felt it would have been throwing away my vote. There are times I would vote for a third-party or no-chance-in-hell candidate in the primary - because I live in California, and generally we don't count at all. ( I've seen here that some people think California voters are courted - that's actually not true - candidates come here all the time to throw fund raisers and raise big $ and big name endorsements - but actually courting voters? Doesn't happen ) . But in the general, always went with the Dem. But the landscape this time really is different. In numerous ways. 

- Independents make up the majority of the electorate

- Both Clinton and Trump are hugely unpopular with the general public. They have the worst favorability ratings of any two candidates presented by the major Party's , ever. 

- Sander's currently beats Trump by double digits in national head to head polls. I don't think there has ever been a time that a potential third party/ Independent candidate polled positively against the candidate they would be considered to be in ideological opposition to.  

There is not way in HELL I'd ever vote, or even consider voting for Trump. I think he's about as dangerous a candidate as there could ever be. While he certainly wouldn't be able to get away with a lot of things he blathers on about, he can still do a tremendous amount of damage.

Absolutely. He is far too erratic and all-over-the map. Terrifying. And bizzare.

 

Among other things, POTUS is very much a PR position. The Commander-in-Chief at needs to appear presidential, at the very least. (Politics aside, I have painful memories of comparing W to his contemporaries like Tony Blair.)  Trump is a PR nightmare, an embarrassment, a blowhard who would make the US a laughingstock. I have no doubt that we'd see a huge rise in unrest and terrorism in this country under a President Trump. Frankly, I get the same feeling when I look at Trump as I do when I see images of Kim Jong-un. Both are seem like buffoons but they're actually megalomaniacs with massive egos who couldn't give two shits about "the people." Not that I don't think Clinton is ego-free but say what you will, she has the experience, the gravitas and the smarts for the job. Certainly not my first choice, but there it is.

It's the PR  aspect is the main reason I think Sander's would be great. The big money in politics has to go. It controls everything. Him bringing it the forefront, over and over, and over  might possibly get that changed.

 

 

[artdecades]

On 5/7/2016 at 9:20 PM, sillybeebo said:

If Bernie doesn't win, sure as heck I'm going to write him in! I'm not going to vote for Trump and his xenophobic nuttery. I'm not a fan of Hillary, either! Bernie seems like he is the only one who gives a damn!

If Bernie can't win the nomination or the dem popular vote, what makes you think writing in his name will do anything? Do you think the person who could not win the popular vote of his party could win the popular vote of the country on write-ins? Or do you just want to make a statement no one will see or know about (that is, unless you chose to blast it from the rooftops which many Bernie or Bust people seem to be doing). Does it make you feel better to be ~ideologically pure~ but to have your vote contribute to a Trump presidency? I really want to understand the logic.

[artdecades]

#imwithher

At first, I liked both her and Bernie. I think Bernie's candidacy did a great thing by forcing her left on many issues and making her platform focus on issues of income inequality. But then, Bernie got a little too into himself it seems. His campaign is playing dirty. There were the comments about her being unqualified. There were misogynistic comments coming from his surrogates about how she is "ambitious", only an insult when used to describe a woman, and a "democratic whore". Insults that Bernie did not do enough to condemn. Not to mention his fans' aggressive and disgusting behavior towards Hillary supporters. At a recent rally in Los Angeles, Bernie supporters, who were primarily white men, screamed insults at Hillary supporters, mostly not white and not male, attending the rally. There is video of one of them making a child cry. This isn't to say its Bernie's fault that his supporters are a-holes, but he is being very careful to not piss them of or outright condemn their behavior. He took a page out of the Drumpf playbook with that and its shady. Not to mention his insistence on staying in the race long after there was a viable path to victory because of, what, pride? But, oh, wait, superdelegates! Those evil pawns of Debbie Wasserman Schulz when they support Hillary could be his savior if they switch to Bernie! 

Hillary and Bernie's records matched up 93% of the time when they were in senate. Hillary voted liberal. She has a documented record in supporting causes for women. She has foreign policy experience. She has a documented record of leadership within the Democratic Party. She has the potential to bring various disenfranchised groups together (exit polling during Super Tuesday II showed she won every demographic except white men, the only people who have nothing to lose in a Drumpf presidency). She has the best shot of beating Drumpf  (and don't cite me that BS rasmussen poll that Bernie supporters like to throw around to undermine her). 

So, basically, I think the party needs to get its ish together and rally around our best chance, which is Hillary.

[Mama Mia]

If you look at any on-line comment stream you can find equally offensive and statements by any of the presidential candidates more ferverant supporters. I recently was in a debate on Facebook where I stated that not all Sander's supporters are young and naive --a Clinton supporter then told me my problem was that I was having menopausal rage and needed to go take my estrogen pills. And this was an actual person ( friend of a friend on fb ) so not some manufactured troll. 

If I didn't think that the DNC and the media were so blatantly, over-the-top biased in their rush to a Clinton coronation I would be much more accepting of the process and the results. As I said before, my primary picks have often not been the eventual nominee, but I threw my vote ( and time, and $ ) behind the Dem. Choice. --  But I really am undecided if I can do that this time. The power abuses and the rigging/manipulation of opinion has just been too blatant.

And really, just the total domination of power and control between two party's , who don't even claim most voters - just kind of over it. And so much media control has creeped in without really being noticed - but the end results are appalling. Take the debate system - that used to include 3rd party candidates when sponsored by league of women voters,  but now is run by a Dem/GOP entity. Or those silly equal time laws they used to have - but CNN plays Clinton adds and calls them " news" . Or subtle things like the CBS show Madam Secretary. Great show -about a brilliant, likable, human, pragmatic ,realistic , moral, Secratary of State who solves the worlds problems - and, I swear to God- even bares a resemblance to Hillary! It's just ridiculous.

 

And Clinton gets away with far more insulting commentary than Sander's ever could. Her comment about " experience handling men who've gone off the reservation " - phenomenally racist and sexist. Or "men  having temper tantrums" - can you imagine if Sander's had said that about women?

 

 

[Witherwings]

2 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

If you look at any on-line comment stream you can find equally offensive and statements by any of the presidential candidates more ferverant supporters. I recently was in a debate on Facebook where I stated that not all Sander's supporters are young and naive --a Clinton supporter then told me my problem was that I was having menopausal rage and needed to go take my estrogen pills. And this was an actual person ( friend of a friend on fb ) so not some manufactured troll. 

If I didn't think that the DNC and the media were so blatantly, over-the-top biased in their rush to a Clinton coronation I would be much more accepting of the process and the results. As I said before, my primary picks have often not been the eventual nominee, but I threw my vote ( and time, and $ ) behind the Dem. Choice. --  But I really am undecided if I can do that this time. The power abuses and the rigging/manipulation of opinion has just been too blatant.

And really, just the total domination of power and control between two party's , who don't even claim most voters - just kind of over it. And so much media control has creeped in without really being noticed - but the end results are appalling. Take the debate system - that used to include 3rd party candidates when sponsored by league of women voters,  but now is run by a Dem/GOP entity. Or those silly equal time laws they used to have - but CNN plays Clinton adds and calls them " news" . Or subtle things like the CBS show Madam Secretary. Great show -about a brilliant, likable, human, pragmatic ,realistic , moral, Secratary of State who solves the worlds problems - and, I swear to God- even bares a resemblance to Hillary! It's just ridiculous.

 

And Clinton gets away with far more insulting commentary than Sander's ever could. Her comment about " experience handling men who've gone off the reservation " - phenomenally racist and sexist. Or "men  having temper tantrums" - can you imagine if Sander's had said that about women?

 

 

Yes to all of this. To the bolded: the double standard is one of the many things find so irksome. 

To everything else. Nail on the head. 

[artdecades]

The reservation comment is indeed racist and her campaign immediately apologized for it. but lets be real, does anyone actually think that she meant natives should be stuck on reservations? she obviously did not use it with racist intent (i know intent doesn't matter to the hurt party, but it matters when discussing the character of the accused). Instead, we should be talking about how much racist language still makes up everyday phrases, from her reservation comment, to "peanut gallery", to "sold down the river", these should not be part of our everyday language but they are.

 

As for her "sexist" comments against men. If this weren't coming from Bernie or Bust people, I would think it was satire. Like, sexist against men when talking about her running mates? I just can't. I can't.

[Ali]

13 hours ago, artdecades said:

 

The reservation comment is indeed racist and her campaign immediately apologized for it. but lets be real, does anyone actually think that she meant natives should be stuck on reservations? she obviously did not use it with racist intent (i know intent doesn't matter to the hurt party, but it matters when discussing the character of the accused). Instead, we should be talking about how much racist language still makes up everyday phrases, from her reservation comment, to "peanut gallery", to "sold down the river", these should not be part of our everyday language but they are.

 

This is so true. There are so many phrases in everyday language that can be said without meaning to be racist. There is a children's CD that my husband and I hid from our daughter because so many of the songs had racist language in them. Some of them I did not even realize had issues until my husband pointed them out to me. They are all songs that anyone who grew up in the United States would know and probably sang as children.

[Witherwings]

1 hour ago, Ali said:

This is so true. There are so many phrases in everyday language that can be said without meaning to be racist. There is a children's CD that my husband and I hid from our daughter because so many of the songs had racist language in them. Some of them I did not even realize had issues until my husband pointed them out to me. They are all songs that anyone who grew up in the United States would know and probably sang as children.

Meaning to be racist or not, the language was still racist. Do words not have meanings when a democrat says something that is clearly racist? Hillary has said many racist things. You would think she would be a bit more cautious with her words at this point. 

[ShepherdontheRock]

7 hours ago, Witherwings said:

Meaning to be racist or not, the language was still racist. Do words not have meanings when a democrat says something that is clearly racist? Hillary has said many racist things. You would think she would be a bit more cautious with her words at this point. 

In all honesty, so has Bernie (basically implying all black people live in ghettos.) So has every republican.

Yes, words still have meanings. Yes she should do better. But I also think it serves little purpose to belabor the point.

[Witherwings]

19 minutes ago, ShepherdontheRock said:

In all honesty, so has Bernie (basically implying all black people live in ghettos.) So has every republican.

Yes, words still have meanings. Yes she should do better. But I also think it serves little purpose to belabor the point.

I agree. I am also not a Bernie fan or supporter. I have issues with the Bern as well. Huge issues. I don't believe he should be sitting in federal prison right now, but I have issues. 

Spoiler

 

My point. Hold all to the same standard. If we are going to belabor one candidate, we can and should do it with all. If we want to ignore Clinton's racist tendencies, we should ignore all. 

Dont blame a party, blame an individual. I personally won't vote based on party. I will vote based on issues. I tend to be a bit all over the map there, so I will consider what I feel is currently most important. I will consider history of the individual and how that plays into what I feel is important. I will most likely judge criminal tendencies pretty harshly for the POTUS. 

This election is tough. I don't "support" anyone.

Argh. I tried to edit this and add the photo as a spoiler but I am failing and too tired.

[ShepherdontheRock]

48 minutes ago, Witherwings said:

 

My point. Hold all to the same standard. If we are going to belabor one candidate, we can and should do it with all. If we want to ignore Clinton's racist tendencies, we should ignore all.

That's what I'm saying. I have yet to see many people jump down Bernie's throat about his racist tendencies (where he insinuates that he lost in the south because the south is conservative when he actually lost black voters) or the above mentioned comment. I'd like people to hold him to the same standard, instead of claiming Clinton is some low key racist because she worked for Goldwater when she was a teenager.

And tbh, I think that's actually worse than saying "off the reservation."

[Witherwings]

7 hours ago, ShepherdontheRock said:

That's what I'm saying. I have yet to see many people jump down Bernie's throat about his racist tendencies (where he insinuates that he lost in the south because the south is conservative when he actually lost black voters) or the above mentioned comment. I'd like people to hold him to the same standard, instead of claiming Clinton is some low key racist because she worked for Goldwater when she was a teenager.

And tbh, I think that's actually worse than saying "off the reservation."

The "off the reservation" comment is one of many. She has said worse. But I digress, 

as far as Bernie's comments there, I hear you, but I also think he is treading unfamiliar territory in this aspect. Make of that as you will. Remember, Bernie comes from Vermont. An incredibly white state. Vermont is also a pretty damn liberal state with a lot of progressive ideals, but seemingly unique to the rest of the country (example: Vermont is a very blue state with some of the least restrictive gun laws). 

I am not suggesting him being out of touch is okay, or that this excuses him, but I do think he is newer to this game. Clinton has had plenty of experience when it comes to race relations, so she really doesn't have an excuse. 

I would rank Clinton with Trump when it comes to racism. Bernie is not up there.  I could even argue Clinton is worse than Trump, but she certainly isn't much better.

Back to Bernie, it is a better example of how race relations differ drastically across the US. 

[nausicaa]

2 hours ago, Witherwings said:

I would rank Clinton with Trump when it comes to racism. Bernie is not up there.  I could even argue Clinton is worse than Trump, but she certainly isn't much better.

Wow, really?  You're gonna have to explain this one to me.

If this is the case, I'm also curious as to why you think she's doing so much better with African-American votes than Sanders? 

[artdecades]

20 hours ago, Witherwings said:

Meaning to be racist or not, the language was still racist. Do words not have meanings when a democrat says something that is clearly racist? Hillary has said many racist things. You would think she would be a bit more cautious with her words at this point. 

No one said that racist language is ok. NO ONE. We simply said that racist language is built into our everyday vocabulary and, while people should be more cognizant of it, they often aren't. Intentions don't matter when discussing the effects that racist language causes.

Intentions do matter when rating whether a person is racist or how racist a person is. Intentions matter when you are comparing a woman who made an unfortunately racist comment with a man who wants to ban all Muslims from the US, deport 12 million people on his first day in office, build a wall, etc. Not to mention the countless racist comments he has made against pretty much every ethnic and racial group there is.

But really, I can't even take you slightly seriously on this when in the Ted Cruz post you linked to an anti-Hillary article from Judicial Watch, a website founded by crackpot Larry Klayman who thinks Obama is a Kenyan Muslim who brought ebola to the US to kill white people. If that sort of thing is ok to you, but Hillary's unfortunate comments aren't, then your problem is clearly with her and not her comments or beliefs.

[apple1]

@Witherwings You are fooling no one.

[Witherwings]

1 hour ago, nausicaa said:

Wow, really?  You're gonna have to explain this one to me.

If this is the case, I'm also curious as to why you think she's doing so much better with African-American votes than Sanders? 

We need a Clinton thread because I feel like I am posting about her in multiple thread. I am trying my best to keep my posts in this discussion organized and structured. I have explained this a bit in a few places, but will get back to it again.

Bernie is doing worse with African-American support because of what I previously mentioned. He lacks the street cred that Clinton has with black voters. Bernie has very little experience in this area. He has never had to appeal to voters outside of Vermont before. He comes from Vermont. Vermont has a little over a half million people in the entire state and about 95% of the population is white not of Hispanic or Latino origin (according to my wiki research). He is focused on economics and has defended his unwavering focus. This has seemed to gain much support from young white voters (and some young black voters). Bernie has done better with black voters in Northern states than he has in Southern states, obviously not enough though. 

I don't think we will see Bernie as the nominee, so I think this discussion is more thought provoking than anything. I do think, had Bernie realized his lack of cred with minorities and racial issues early on, we may be looking at a different race. He has been a politician who has been hyper focused on economic equality and being from a lily-white state, he has been able to do that in a way that hasn't looked at racial issues nearly as much.

I would also LOVE to see a Bernie thread. Bernie has a pretty interesting (and often shady) past. 

[Witherwings]

3 hours ago, artdecades said:

No one said that racist language is ok. NO ONE. We simply said that racist language is built into our everyday vocabulary and, while people should be more cognizant of it, they often aren't. Intentions don't matter when discussing the effects that racist language causes.

Of course not. I did not mean to imply that anyone said that. I also agree with this.

3 hours ago, artdecades said:

Intentions do matter when rating whether a person is racist or how racist a person is. Intentions matter when you are comparing a woman who made an unfortunately racist comment with a man who wants to ban all Muslims from the US, deport 12 million people on his first day in office, build a wall, etc. Not to mention the countless racist comments he has made against pretty much every ethnic and racial group there is.

She did not make a single racist comment. 

Here are a few:

“But we also have to have an organized effort against gangs, just as in a previous generation we had an organized effort against the mob. We need to take these people on. They are often connected to big drug cartels. They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘super-predators.’ No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way but first we have to bring them to heel and the President has asked the FBI to launch a very concerted effort against gangs everywhere.” (1994)

 “There was just an AP article posted that found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans is weakening again, and how the, you know, whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me … I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on.” (2008)

“I love this quote. It’s from Mahatma Gandhi. He ran a gas station down in St. Louis for a couple of years. Mr. Gandhi, do you still go to the gas station? A lot of wisdom comes out of that gas station” (2004)

We are all well aware of all the absurd shit that comes out of Trump's mouth. One problem with Trump is that he is never incredibly clear with what he plans with policy. Banning all Muslims would be one example. As well as the claim he wants to register all Muslims.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/nov/24/donald-trumps-comments-database-american-muslims/

I swear, I don't get all my information from politifact, but this had a good explanation of the sequence of events. 

Right or wrong, Trump seems to have been saying that due to terrorist attacks committed by Muslims he wants to temporarily halt Muslims from immigrating until representatives can figure out what is going on.The problems with this are clearly profound. I am not sure how he plans separate Muslims from any other immigrant or refugee with certainty. It may have sounded less outlandish, had he given an actual deadline. "until figured out" is a bit vague and I would like to know what steps he would like to see taken to "figure it out". 

Trump is certainly not a career politician. I also wonder how much of this is him talking out of his ass. I doubt this is a primary concern of his, but he realized it got him a lot of traction and attention. 

3 hours ago, artdecades said:

But really, I can't even take you slightly seriously on this when in the Ted Cruz post you linked to an anti-Hillary article from Judicial Watch, a website founded by crackpot Larry Klayman who thinks Obama is a Kenyan Muslim who brought ebola to the US to kill white people. If that sort of thing is ok to you, but Hillary's unfortunate comments aren't, then your problem is clearly with her and not her comments or beliefs.

I linked documents Judicial Watch obtained via FOIA. It wasn't an article. I don't believe the Dept of State has published anything on their site since Feb 29th, but it is possible I am not navigating the site correctly. I believe I noted in the Trump thread that I am aware of Judicial Watch's conservative leanings. 

I have problems with Clinton's behaviors. With her past comments, and often (though not always) with her beliefs. I think her behaviors, comments and beliefs represent her.

Clinton is far from innocent when it comes to painting Obama as a Kenyan Muslim. 

Clinton aides claim Obama photo wasn't intended as a smear

[formergothardite]

I don't like Hillary at all, but I'm less concerned about her removing women's rights and minority rights than Trump. I hate them both, but if it came down to Trump or Clinton I would have to go with Clinton. 

[Witherwings]

1 hour ago, formergothardite said:

I don't like Hillary at all, but I'm less concerned about her removing women's rights and minority rights than Trump. I hate them both, but if it came down to Trump or Clinton I would have to go with Clinton. 

I doubt Trump is going to do much to remove women's rights. I highly doubt removing women's rights is at the top of his list. I would even venture to say he probably isn't as "pro-life" as he claims to be. He claims he has "evolved" on this issue. Maybe he has. If so, I doubt it is much more than on a personal level. If he even feels that way. Trump isn't a right-wing Christian nutcase, but he is attempting to appeal to that base. 

He is all over the place with this (as he is on many topics) I have a lot of thoughts and concerns about him being all over the map on so many topics. It confuses the issues, but Trump is not a career politician. We don't always get "political" comments from Trump. Add to that, he is beholden to no one and you have Trump saying whatever comes out of his mouth.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/03/donald-trumps-ever-shifting-positions-on-abortion/