> 1. The Goldman Sachs speeches, showing that Hillary has a "public and private position", is still against gay marriage, wants open borders, wants to enact gun bans, and wants to establish a hemispheric common market.

With the exception of a common market I must strongly disagree with your assessments.

I'll also point out that everyone has public and private positions and everyone except the most socially inept tries to tailor what they say to their audience to get a better reception. That's half of being a politician: glad-handing and smooth-talking your constituents and colleagues into going along with your plan.

> 2. John Podesta (Hillary's campaign chair) giving a list of "needy latinos" to call.

What's your point? Is that supposed to compare to calling Mexicans rapists, saying more countries should have nuclear weapons, calling for a ban on muslim immigrants, saying you want veto-power over the press, claiming US elections are illegitimate, attacking a Gold Star family, ... I mean I could go on and on and on here.

> 3. The DNC planning fake Trump assault scandals

I haven't seen anything legit on this. Care to elaborate? I know some campaign staffers have occasionally proposed really stupid ideas but they were always shot down. If there is proof that anyone actually carried out such a plan please let us know.

> 4. Clinton Campaign Discusses Which Emails To "Hold" Hours After Subpoena

This is standard practice. It's called a document retention notice and every single company in the US follows this exact procedures. The court orders you to deliver evidence and you must figure out which documents are covered under that order. If you just backed up all your servers and dumped them on the court wholesale you'd be held in contempt.

Also: 1. Podesta upset that San Bernardino was perpetrated by a Muslim rather than a gentile white male http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/301254-pode...

2. Current DNC chair (then CNN analyst) Donna Brazile giving Hillary Townhall questions early http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/10/roland-martin...

3. Hillary admitting that our greatest allies Qatar and Saudia Barbaria fund ISIS https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3774

4. Bill Clinton getting a $1m birthday gift from Qatar for access http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/13/wikileaks-em...

RE: #4 that's not true, they were ordered to cough up all emails and they failed to do so, so they were subpoena'd in the middle of proceedings too[0]

[0] https://youtu.be/hlxQIAQ7Q7I?t=28

That's not the point. Is it only left or right in America? Both candidates are rubbish and if you support Hillary you're no better than your average Trump's redneck.

So, wild exaggerated claims are made, they get trivially refuted as bs, and your comment is that's not the point? Really? Get some perspective. Neither candidate is flawless but let's not pretend they're equally so. One is a dangerous megalomaniac, and the other is pretty much a regular standard ass politician.

If you think Hillary is not dangerous you are either clueless about everyday politics or part of her campaign.

But I guess who can use the toilet where is more important than spying on people, taking away their freedom, being habitual liar and hypocrite by taking money from the people who are supposed to be everything you believe in against.

How is Trump any worse? He is just smart enough to think what he's saying, all in all they would make a great team with Hillary.

I'm seeing a lot of people deciding who to vote for by deciding which candidate they dislike less - not which they like more. Is that normal in US presidential elections? This is the first one I've followed.

Sadly yes; it's unusual for an election to have a majority of people voting for rather than against someone for president, but it does sometimes happen.

It hasn't always been this way.. Reagan, JFK, FDR and several others had some overwhelming popularity at their time. Today, I feel that another Eisenhower or Truman would be better for the country, but would be very happy to see another Reagan or JFK take office. Even Bill Clinton was pretty likable, even if I disagree with many of his political points of view.

In the end, I've been voting Libertarian and/or "not the incumbent" for a few years now, and wish more people would do so.

I recently discussed this topic with some U.S. citizens in their sixties. It is their impression, and mine as well, that this is the worst election in our lifetimes in that way. Of course there are always some people that vote according to which candidate they dislike less, but this election does seem to be an extreme case.

How are those two different things? Seriously. I like Hillary more AND I dislike her less. How are those even two separate concepts?

The implication is that they "like" neither. Technically, disliking one less means you like them more, but the wording is meant to convey the distaste in the available choices, as opposed to being excited for the new term.