No it is not. There's not POTUS SAT whereby we discover the ability of a proposed politician to fill the role. There's no Kobayashi Maru simulator for the job.
I think that if I were more informed on many things I'd likely have different opinions than I do currently as well.
Me too. What makes you think I'm not informed on Hillary vs. Trump and you, by comparison, are so much more knowledgeable? Simply because I disagree with you?
What's great about this is that you refuse to set any objective standards, while trying to defend some objective state of being correct. If you really hold this position, are you willing to state that there's nothing objectively wrong with Trump, and that your complaints about him are subjective?
I never claimed that there was any objective standard of correctness. Of course it's subjective. Always has been, always will be. There's nothing objectively wrong with Trump. There's nothing objectively wrong with Hillary. Pick the one who will do the job, in your opinion, most to your liking.
So, is this an election purely of your emotions? Are you ceding that this is about anything measurable, and that you are no more than a child, stamping their foot? Am I misreading this?
"You're patronizing me!" You sound like an SJW screaming at the oppression olympics, rather than someone interested in any real debate or discourse.
I don't like Trump because he personifies a whole bunch of things that I personally find loathsome. Much more so than Hillary. And no, there's not a damned thing objective about it. It's what I find compelling and important. And I get to decide, for myself, what those things are.
I thought I was having a reasonable discussion, but thanks for the reminder of why you were in my kill file for so long.