The idea that values can be "superior" is misguided.

?????????? umm I would consider equality and liberty values superior to slavery and oppression values

Those are more like arbitrarily and ill-defined ideals of modern Western society.

In other words, they're words we like to throw around in so many different contexts and meanings that they mean less and less.

OK fine, but my point still holds. Of course values can be superior.

Values are highly personal and tied to an individual's identity. To call yours superior to others is to assert yourself as superior to others. How one goes about displaying values or whether or not their actions contradict their claimed values is much more a show of their character.

"Values are highly personal and tied to an individual's identity."
I agree, however they are acquired and learned through out one's life. I'm not calling myself "superior" to them, I'm just saying they're wrong.

for instance a devout Muslim will have strong Islamic values, and a devout Christian will have contradictory values. One will tell the other that his religion and values are incorrect, and therefore inferior

the person isn't inferior

Values can be judged by the results that come from them. A recent article in the Economist claims that Trump's platform is based upon populism, isolationism, and nativism. I would claim nativism is an inferior value because it results in less-than-humane treatment of immigrants and minorities. Trump has made numerous statements that reveal a lack of decency and respect for others, especially women and minorities. See what he's said about Rosie O'Donnell (called her a "pig") and Megyn Kelly (blamed menstruation for the way she questioned him at a debate). Look at his disrespectful treatment of the hispanic judge who was involved in a Trump University lawsuit. Does anyone remember his criticism of John McCain, for being captured while serving overseas? It should be plain to everyone here that respect for others is superior in practice to a lack of this respect.

Not only are Trump's values questionable, but he sees negotation as a zero-sum game. Either America wins or it loses. This is a dangerous attitude that does not relate to the realities of public office. Instead of seeking win-win arrangements, Trump wants America to succeed at the expense of other countries.

Finally Trump distorts the truth, exaggerating the failures of the current administration and using fear-mongering to encourage political participation among what must be seen as some of the least-informed voters in America. He seems not to care about the truth, speculating that Ted Cruz's father was involved in the JFK assassination and that Obama could have been born in another country. His supporters seem to appreciate the power of honesty, but they turn a blind eye to these indiscretions and what it says about the man behind them. What other major politician would allow his wife to use a plagiarized speech?Trump's values are inferior to Clinton's in the context of this election because America will be be a better place to live under a Clinton presidency.

Oh and does it bother anyone else that Trump's "plans" have no details? I heard part of his big RNC speech on the radio and was amazed that he talked only about what he was going to do, leaving listeners in the dark about how he plans to achieve these results.

If you live in America, please vote for Clinton this November.

Prado, I understand your dislike of values being compared and deemed superior or inferior. What I believe these people are saying is that values can be more or less ethical. Ethical values are superior, no?

"If you live in America, please vote for Clinton this November."

-Lol no. Trump!

"I heard part of his big RNC speech on the radio "

Oh? Because he did talk some specifics. Check out his policy positions on his website for more details.

"failures of the current administration"
-The current administration has failed the American people on almost every level imaginable.

"What other major politician would allow his wife to use a plagiarized speech?"
-It was like one sentence. This situation has been resolved and it wasn't known before the speech was given. I don't like to resort to pointing to other people when making a defense, but both Biden and Obama are serial plagiarists. Don't act all high and mighty about this issue because it doesn't serve your case at all.

" Either America wins or it loses. "
-Yes, people (in America) want America to start winning again. I (and many others) want to put America first again. We are sick of globalism.

" Trump wants America to succeed at the expense of other countries. "
-Good. I don't live in another country. I live in America and I want our politicians to put this country first again. I don't care about other countries. That's not my problem.

As for your other points. They are silly. False narratives that distract from the issues. I focus on the issues not some off the cuff remarks about Rosie O'Donnell or John McCain. Seriously who cares?

I went to the website. It calls Obama the most divisive and partisan President in American history! Does anyone with a decent understanding of American history believe that to be true? In what way is Obama more divisive or partisan than Andrew Johnson? Or Nixon during Watergate? Trump obviously doesn't care about the truth.

Obama is definitely one of the most divisive President's in American history. Most American President's can get things accomplished in a bi-partisan way. He can't. I would say that is very divisive, yes.

Sure, let's talk policy. Trump has flirted with the idea of banning all muslim immigration to the U.S. Or perhaps immigration from muslim countries, since that's actually remotely feasible. But with the refugee crisis in the Middle East, how can this be the most ethical approach? (hint, it's not)

You're not talking in superlatives like the website I visited did. Is there a reason for that?

Trump has updated his view on that matter. He now just wants to temporarily ban refugees and immigrants from terror nations until extreme vetting measures are in place to see who these people are who want to come here. If your goal is to keep Americans safe then I think that it is a pretty good idea.

Free trade allows countries to specialize in certain industries, making use of comparative advantage, a mainsteam economic concept popularized by the great David Ricardo. Increased efficiency makes society better off. But Trump opposes free trade. How is that ethical? It's understandable that certain American workers are frustrated by trends in globalisation. At the same time, American consumers (yeah, everybody) benefits from this improved efficiency and the increased availability of foreign products.

Clinton supports free trade. Trump does not.

It's a bit more complicated than that. Trump is a free trader, but he wants to implement fair/smart trade where deals benefit the U.S. while also protecting American jobs. There is an element of protectionism there, but to say universally that he does not support free trade is untrue.

It's hard to say Trump supports free trade when he forcefully criticized NAFTA and other trade agreeements that came about under President Clinton.

He's said he wants to bring jobs back to America. To me that sounds like protectionism.

NAFTA has had a net negative effect on U.S. manufacturing. At least he is open to re-negotiating or ending that agreement.

Ok cool. Net negative effect on US manufacturing. Sounds like other countries have a comparative advantage. Why should we keep manufacturing things that can be made cheaper elsewhere? American consumers benefit from cheaper goods. No need to subsidize inefficiencies.

"Why should we keep manufacturing things that can be made cheaper elsewhere?"\

Because there is a human cost. Blue collar men and women across this country have and are losing their jobs to corporate inversion and bad trade deals.

Why do you want these good, working, people to lose their jobs?

So we can have cheaper shit. So American capital can be spent on medical research and other things that we have a comparative advantage in instead of on inefficient manufacturing. Every dollar spent on one sector is a dollar not spent on another

^
Manufacturing focus is dead end for growth. US needs new frontiers, market and research. We need innovation, and if companies have to spend their money on wages for labor they can find cheaper elsewhere that's money not going into R&D while the US falls behind the rest of the world.

Thanks goldfinger. I completely agree. Also this talk of free trade might distract people from the major problems of Trump's policy proposals: a ridiculous wall along the Mexican border that apparently Americans won't have to pay for, and a completely unrealistic tax plan.

And ND, I'm not completely against American manufacturing. But what manufacturing that does come back must be highly automated, because frankly our workers do not work as hard as Chinese factory workers. I forget what article it was, but a Chinese firm opened an additional factory in Georgia, and the Chinese Foreman were complaining at how slow American workers were

Also, let us not forget Trumps recent comments about not coming to the aid of a NATO ally......like, this dude could destroy American's position at the top of the world order