Who do you think? Me, I think the list goes Trump -> Clinton -> Sanders. I'll make a tally, though, and you can add on with your own negative bullets, as long as all the candidates don't hold the same stance - it's all about relativity.

D. Trump:

*For wielding torture as punishment in gaols. -5.
*For wielding torture to get knowledge from suspected dreadknights. -5.
*For sending back all Syrian refugees immediately back to Syria. -3 (would be a clear -5; but they don't have American denizenship, so I'm only counting them in half).

Those are the big things that are really bad, then we've others.

*Against decriminalising any drugs not already countrywide legalised (including weed) for fun (note: decriminalisation ≠ legalisation. Decriminalisation means that you can't go to gaol for it, you'll just get fined.). -3.
*For mandating that GMOs are labelled as such. Good thing, in my thought - even if you have total faith in GMOs, you should still have the right to know what you eat. -1.
*Against giving everyone the right to a fair trying in court. -5.

*Against abortions except in rape, incest, or hazard to mother/child. Conservative: +3 for not legalising directly killing somebody, but not +4 since he does have exceptions, and -3 since it greatly inconveniences the mother. So +0. Liberal: -3 since it greatly inconveniences the mother.
*For immediately deporting all illegal immigrants, whenever found. Would be -3, but since they don't hold denizenship, -2.
*For limiting the right to sue. -2.

-29 freedom points (-26 for for-life folk).

Edited 6/10/2016 03:20:37

tfw xapy tries to quantify freedom

Tfw Genghis uses horrible memes to express ideas.

Wow, I really like the structure you made for this. Maybe I'll make one later.

Hey! Spongegar is a semi-quality meme

Major News Stations:
*Polarizing America by bringing out the most extreme of people just for a sensational headline.
*Play a big role in political thought of many people
*Influence on which candidates succeed.

Political Parties:
*Control which candidates succeed through dirty politics
*Collectivize a whole front of political thought under one candidate
*Concerned more about their power than the populace's views.

After that, the order is Trump -> Clinton -> Sanders

Clinton. Trump has rhetoric, but will use it to negotiate, plus Clinton will have the unlimited support of her mindless party, while the #NeverTrump and other cucks will prevent Trump from doing shit. Plus, I only care about American's freedom (sue me), so a lot of stuff doesn't apply.

In the short term or long term? In the short term, it's Trump, but it's Sanders in the long term.

*Against decriminalising any drugs not already countrywide legalised (including weed) for fun (note: decriminalisation ≠ legalisation. Decriminalisation means that you can't go to gaol for it, you'll just get fined.). -4.

https://www.merryjane.com/news/want-marijuana-legalized-then-donald-trump-is-your-best-option
http://www.hightimes.com/read/pot-matters-trump-marijuana

He really isn't that bad

Major News Stations

They don't actually cut any freedoms, they just brainwash folk, who want to be brainwashed. They manipulate folk. But it's totally by choice - if you don't want this to happen to you, then don't read them.

Political Parties

Mm, politic parties really are undemocratic. The concept behind them is good (a convenient grouping of folk who have like stances), but they turn out to be just a blight, where you must fulfill X amount of stances, or be usually unknown and unsupported (money-wise, vote-wise). Several countries have banned politic groupings altogether to make sure this doesn't happen.

In the short term, it's Trump, but it's Sanders in the long term.

And what makes you say that?

He really isn't that bad

He's not said anything about legalising it for fun, though he is for medic use of it. The truth that the government is interfering in what drugs are used for medic purposes, it's very bad. Let the healers do their work as they best see fit - there are far worse (more addicting, more hazardous) drugs that save lives, like heroin.

Clinton will have the unlimited support of her mindless party, while the #NeverTrump and other cucks will prevent Trump from doing shit.

This is very one-sided. Do you really doubt Clinton has a great muchness of foes as well?

Plus, I only care about American's freedom (sue me), so a lot of stuff doesn't apply.

Yes, it all applies, I specifically tailored this to be applying to Americans, and how much weight it holds to Americans, not anyone else, though that's very narrow-minded, and really failing your job as a denizen of the world - it's up to you to vote and stop any unneeded deaths or tortures of innocent folk who don't have a vote, but are still affected by American antagonism. If everyone wanted their folk to succeed, at the cost of other's, it'd be (and kind of is) a full-on bloodbath.

Edited 6/10/2016 02:41:26

Well Trump, his attacks against freedom are only short term. They can be repealed, gotten away with, and ignored as soon as the next person comes in. But what about the programs socialists create, that encompass entire parts of folks lives, are those easy to get rid of? No, not in the sense of the word at all. It's a extremely hard fought battle to even get a economic program out of the way. It doesn't have to be anti-freedom intially, say the government let's you have private healthcare at the first phase if you want. But as soon as someone adds no private healthcare, it's essentially impossible to repeal it, and to protect against more anti-freedom stuffs in these economic policies.

Edited 6/10/2016 03:24:45

Well Trump, his attacks against freedom are only short term. They can be repealed, gotten away with, and ignored as soon as the next person comes in.

What grounds do you have to think that Trump's programmes would be significantly harder to reverse? I'm for-democracy, as well, so any socialist programmes, they don't stay since they're hard to rid, they stay since folk like them. Furthremore, Sanders is not curbing really any big freedoms, just a few business ones that don't matter.

X, governments and the folk running them benefit from limiting freedom, so limiting freedom in a existing program is quite easy and often done. Also, that's the point, a lot of folk in power and a lot of folk benefit from those programs, but those programs are inherently destructive and immoral.

Look at Canada's fishing industry. For hundreds of years, fishing on the east coast was stable, until the Canadian government violently monopolized it. Then within decades, that resource nearly collapsed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Atlantic_northwest_cod_fishery

You've not answered my frain.

I didn't say his programs would be harder to reverse.

his attacks against freedom are only short term. They can be repealed, gotten away with, and ignored as soon as the next person comes in...the programs socialists create, that encompass entire parts of folks lives, are those easy to get rid of? No, not in the sense of the word at all. It's a extremely hard fought battle to even get a economic program out of the way.

Yes I said Trump's programs would be easier to get rid of.