> He's a little less of a warhawk

Given that he's criticized Obama/Clinton for being insufficiently aggressive in several areas, and praised Putin's aggressiveness, I'm not sure where that conclusion comes from, besides his after-the-fact claims to have opposed the Iraq War before it started (his only public statement on the war before it started appears to have been grudging support, not opposition, on the Howard Stern show in 2002, and stating that a decision on the war one way or another was important on Fox News in January 2003, without expressing support or opposition.)

He has criticized John McCain and Lindsey Graham over their pro war stances. In the debates he has mentioned problems with the interventionist foreign policy.

Surprisingly he even attracted support of Michael Scheuer ( a huge critic of our interventionist foreign policy), although I believe he has pulled back a bit on that recently.

However, yes he has also made somewhat contradictory statements as well. So, it is hard to draw any definitive conclusions what his actual policy would look like.

Honest question: if that's really what you believe (that he's fundamentally unpredictable), why would you vote for him?

I don't find him credible enough to vote for him. However, what I have observed is that some feel that Clinton is a certainty in continuing our existing foreign policy and that the choice is between certain more war and maybe less war and they are opting for the maybe less war. The one facet he has been mostly consistent on to my knowledge is at least he is not trying to push an aggressive provoking stance against Russia.

It will be very interesting of Gary Johnson can succeed in getting into the debates. If he has a good performance, that could really change everything.

But he lies so much and makes so many factual errors how can you trust him on anything? His pro-torture position seems to show disregard of the 8th amendment is he really going to protect the others and is the 2A that much more important to you than all the others?

I'm no saying that you should like Hillary but congress will probably block gun reform as always and while she spins and dissembles at times it isn't the same outrageous disregard for the truth that I see from Trump.

> But he lies so much and makes so many factual errors how can you trust him on anything?

This applies to Hillary too, you know? The most awful thing about this election is that neither candidate is trustworthy. They are both blatant liars.

I still feel that there is a real difference in the shamelessness of Trump's lies. Many easily contradictable.

At least Hillary would care if she was caught out, that puts some constraint on her.

no she wouldn't. Look at the whole emailgate scandal.

that makes her more dangerous, not less. I would always prefer the devil I know...

But isn't that Clinton? We have no real idea of Trump's policies. He barely strings full sentences together, just fragments of thoughts that people turn into the full policies that they want in their own minds.

He makes things up in writing such as who wrote his wife's speech that he really doesn't need to; surely less lies is better than more.

I see the current federal gun control laws as an overreach. So the fact that she's for an additional assault weapon ban, when we should be pulling back on rules is just a total non starter on that issue.

It's just as important as any over constitutionally protected right. With the way the courts are stacked these days I'm not that worried about roe v wade flipping, or a major set back on free speech. Gun issues I only see going in a negative way unless there is a strong pro gun person at the federal level.

> Honestly, Trump and Hillary aren't that different. He's a little less of a warhawk, speaks his mind, and is pro-2A.

They differ massively on energy and climate. Trump makes coal and oil a major focus, and wants to repeal most environmental rules that affect them. Trump would cancel the Paris agreement.

Clinton will be similar to Obama in these areas.

Except when he's torturing people and bombing civilians because they might be related to terrorists.