Duckk said take Mrs Clinton\not in jail here.

If he tries, there more than enough folks to raise Caine to stop him. Where are such voices to the Clinton Foundation when she was SecState?

Intentions are moot if he doesn't have the influence to pull it off.

Annachie wrote:People do realize don't they that Trumps idea of placing his business in a blind trust is to let his kids run it, ie: the exact opposite of a blind trust.
That he intends to co mingle the presidency and his bussiness interests?

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

PeterZ wrote:Glad your media is evenhanded. Ours is 90%++ hostile to Trump.

It's kind of hard not to be when every second word out of the guy's mouth requires negative reporting just to tell people he said it.

He legally bought access through campaign contributions. One also suspects that he gained influence as well.

Hillary accepted gifts from foreign entities through her foundation's foreign branches. Accepting foreign gifts/donations to a campaign is illegal. Accepting foreign gifts personally as an appointed agent of government is also illegal.

Both Trump's and Hillary's actions paint a dreadful picture of a conflict of interest. Although as a private American Citizen, he is legally and morally allowed to purchase access. Hillary's actions skirt illegalities closely enough to investigate.

That she can evade that investigation worries me enough to prevent me from voting in any way that increases her chances of winning.

Annachie wrote:You do remember Trump BRAGGED about buying influence don't you?

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Yes, he has said nasty things. Clintons' have DONE nasty things. One gets covered by the press incessantly and the other the Press engages in a game of the Three Monkies; hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil.

Absent WikiLeaks, nothing bad will be spoken about the Clintons.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Glad your media is evenhanded. Ours is 90%++ hostile to Trump.

It's kind of hard not to be when every second word out of the guy's mouth requires negative reporting just to tell people he said it.

PeterZ wrote:Yes, he has said nasty things. Clintons' have DONE nasty things. One gets covered by the press incessantly

Because one keeps RE-OCCURING incessantly.

That news reports what's happening. That's what's happening. Trump making his latest outrageous offensive idiotic announcement or argument. That's the theme of his entire campaign.

And just characterizing it as "nasty things" rather understates it.

I don't disagree. Yet, downplaying what Clinton has done understate her actions.

Bottom line is that one has said vile things (and continues saying them) and other has done awful things with more being revealed each day. Done them and is successful at getting the Press to avoid mentioning them if they can. Which they have been largely successful at avoiding. Thank you WikiLeaks.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Yes, he has said nasty things. Clintons' have DONE nasty things. One gets covered by the press incessantly

Because one keeps RE-OCCURING incessantly.

That news reports what's happening. That's what's happening. Trump making his latest outrageous offensive idiotic announcement or argument. That's the theme of his entire campaign.

And just characterizing it as "nasty things" rather understates it.

PeterZ wrote:Of course reasonable people can disagree.

You believe that fundamental corruption is acceptable so long as the corrupt office holder bribes you with policies you support. That's what Hillary is doing as it relates to gaining your support.

Kind of backward of what I'm saying, but, ok. Humans are not, never were, never will be perfect. Corruption, part of the problem never to be resolved. Bribery a la campaign contributions, part of the problem of corruption, probably never to be resolved. I can't deal with "what can't be dealt with" with one vote. I could vote my conscience and vote for Jill Stein. I could even call it a protest vote. In Oregon which is so Democrat, my vote is unnoticed.

Corruption is not on my top 35 most important issues in this or any other election cycle. It does, however, seem to be number 1 on yours. Again a place where reasonable persons can agree to disagree. Don't judge me by your priorities. There is an old saying back home about tossing away the baby and keeping the after-birth.

You accept her "appearance of impropriety" in using a foundation to accept donations from foreign and domestic entities she engages in the course of her public service activities. There is beyond doubt a conflict of interest. There is beyond doubt a comingling of activities between her foundation and her public office. You accept this trade off because the policies you cherish are being implemented.

NO! I said from the beginning, find evidence present it, file charges. I only wish that the republicans in the House were as concerned about actually finding evidence of her wrong doing and actually prosecuting her for it as they are about "Political Theater." Inside then beltway those hearings play out as farce. Nobody expects those of us outside the beltway to take it seriously. Surprise, we do. Hence the disconnect between BOTH the republican and Democrat base and their respective "leaders". Which created both the Trump and Bernie phenomena.

YOU keep saying it is a farce, she will buy/bribe/influence her way out. We sort of agree, it IS a farce. Aghain, Nothing I can do will change that, there are larger principles here. You callit me being bribed, Fair enough, reasonable people ...

I hold that policies are only so good as the fidelity of the system those policies direct. The best policies in the world will mean squat when executed by a corrupt system. In another thread you agree that the execution of well intended policies in the US has been poor. This is the reason they are as poor as they have been. We accept that the political reasons watering down policy is acceptable. Sometimes this is honest horse trading of support for good ideas. Other times execution of policy suffers because of corruption.

Corruption that Mrs. Clinton will more deeply imbed into the already corrupt system we have to deal with. If no one is willing to sacrifice the policies they hold dear to maintain the fidelity of the system, then we will no longer have any hope of an honest system. As I said, I would have voted for Bernie over Trump, even though I would have shared more values with Trump's stated policies. I do so because I agree that trump is also corrupt. Bernie would have been an ineffectual idiologue, but he would have tried to remain honest.

Yes, reasonable people can disagree. Ask yourself this: how many Hillary supporters are being pilloried as an irredeemable basket of deplorables? How many Trump supporters are being characterized as reasonable? Not the candidate, but the supporters. So, the questions suggest to me that a significant portion of Hillary supporters do not believe it is possible to be reasonable and not vote for Hillary. Perhaps it is better to say it is unreasonable to vote for Trump.

I also would have preferred Bernie over anyone else, except my first choice: Martin O'Malley.

Trump insults everybody. L< Mexicans are rapists, murderers, drug dealers, ALL Muslims are terrorists, murderers, suicide bombers. All women are sex toys for his personal Gratification.

Trump is already funneling campaign contributions back into his businesses. Trump is already funneling federal $$$ into his businesses through his Secret Service detail flying on airplains owned by a Trump Company leased to Trump by another Trump Company.trump is already as much a corrupt player as Clinton, yes, maybe a newer player, but no innocent naif.

Hillary Clinton = Sirius Black?

Michael Everett wrote:Hillary Clinton = Sirius Black?

Did I stumble into the crossover forum???

Right Family. My pick would be Andromeda Malfoy nee Black (Draco Malfoy's mother). Others would likely pick her sister Bellatrix LeStrange nee Black. All depends on if one thinks there is any redeeming quality in her (HRC) heart.

PeterZ wrote:I don't disagree. Yet, downplaying what Clinton has done understate her actions.

Bottom line is that one has said vile things (and continues saying them) and other has done awful things with more being revealed each day. Done them and is successful at getting the Press to avoid mentioning them if they can. Which they have been largely successful at avoiding. Thank you WikiLeaks.

One major difference between Trump's daily embarassments and whatever people dig out of wikileaks: Nothing in wikileaks is capable of substantially altering the public perception of Hillary Clinton as a seasoned political operator who is not afraid of playing dirty. Trump, on the other hand, is constantly undermining the image he wants to project. Guess which story is more relevant?