Who will beat Hillary in 2020?

[Hollandtx]

Seattle Husker, you have articulated my biggest issue with HRC supporters.
I know of only one (major liberal) who is willing to admit that, yes, there are many bad things that have been said by HRC, done by HRC, and that the Wikileaks situation is a total cluster. However, she is willing to overlook this as she feels that of the two candidates, HRC is the most reliable and the lesser of two evils.

I would have much more respect for Hillary voters if they would just admit that even a few things have the appearance of shadiness, at the very least, but, they could never vote for Trump.
However, they are absolutely rabid in their unwillingness to even consider that one shred of the many issues surrounding the Clintons, and her crew, are valid. They are so quick to deflect any of these issues to 1) Bush did it (seriously, if I see the meme about how many people died in Embassies under Bush's watch one more time I may have to go mideviel on a few people) 2) Russians controlling our election 3) everybody does it, etc. It drives me nuts! These are smart, moral and decent people, and I just don't understand how they can blindly cling to this narrative that the things that are uncovered on a daily basis are all lies. That emails don't matter. That Wikileaks were laboriously typed out by thousands of Russians who know the intricacies of Hillary's political web. That the Clinton foundation is on the up and up. That HRC really didn't know what "C" meant, and Obama didn't notice that Hillary's emails had a funny address. I could go on...

If any other R was the nominee, I know they wouldn't match my values and ideal President in every way, and I wouldn't have an issue admitting their flaws.
People like this lose all credibility with me when the evidence is so clear in so many areas. What would it cost them to admit, "hey, she is fundamentally flawed, and has done some bad things over the years, and lies, BUT, she is the best option we have out there, so she has my vote."
Why the push that she is so squeaky clean? If/when she wins, she will have the worst favorability rating in the history of the Presidency. Half of the country can't stand her. Yet, in their eyes, she is this strong, powerful woman who cares about the people.
Gah, it makes me ashamed to be a woman. I hope I am not insulting your wife, by the way. She sounds just like the majority of my friends who are for HRC.
There is a tiny part of me that wants Trump to pull off a win just to wipe the smarmy grins off of their faces. My biggest fear is that Trump will win "bigly" in the popular vote, but lose in electoral college.
That should set the table nicely for the next 4 years. >sigh<

 

[Mr. Deez]

Fairly certain I said "electorate." However, I respect Husker's views as a liberal democrat even if I do not agree with him. He sincerely believes in wealth redistribution to take care of those who, in his view, need it. I do not think it is for him personally, but for others.

As for NJ, who knows. I thought he was conservative leaning like you? Why would you include him with Husker?

I'm pretty sure Seattle Husker and NJ are both part of the electorate. They claim to vote, and I presume that they're telling the truth and that they vote legally. Therefore, they're part of the electorate.

I didn't bring either of them up to try to incite you to say something ugly about them or put you on the defensive. I brought them up to illustrate that the willingness of people to accept Hillary over Trump is much bigger and more complicated than the "personal handouts" reason you cite as the primary factor. I'm not suggesting that nobody prefers Hillary over Trump because of a desire for personal handouts. Some do (though again, that's irrational since Trump is pro-handout), but a very large number (enough to sway the election) do not. I'll let SH and NJ speak for themselves about their specific reasons, but they're examples of two guys who probably do not get any government handouts and don't seek them. Despite that, both prefer Hillary to Trump, and probably thought it through carefully. They don't strike me as rash.

Also, if you read their posts when actual policy rather than politics gets discussed, they're both conservative-leaning moderates. Neither are ideological liberals who fit neatly into a Democratic constituency. If the GOP wants to win another national election, it's going to come by figuring out how to make voters like them feel comfortable voting Republican at the national level. It can't afford to dismiss their current political preference as a matter of handout preservation, when it clearly is not.

 

[Seattle Husker]

No offense taken, Hollandtex. I should clarify, that my wife doesn't think HRC is "squeaky clean" but on a scale she certainly forgives HRC more than I do. It's my belief that some of the accusations are real and other simply politics. The email example is something HRC should be held accountable for, Benghazi is a boogeyman IMHO. It's clear there is a lot of pent up desire to have a woman as POTUS just like an African American in '08.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Why the push that she is so squeaky clean?

It's because they want her to have a mandate. Most of us would prefer to get kicked in the head than to get shot, but that doesn't mean we affirmatively want to get kicked in the head. If everybody acknowledges that HRC is flawed but simply less flawed than Donald Trump, that isn't a very ringing endorsement. Furthermore, it'll leave a lot of room for Republicans to obstruct her policy agenda on the basis that the public never wanted her agenda but only tolerated her to avoid a total freak show in the White House. That'll especially be true if they hold control of the Senate.

My biggest fear is that Trump will win "bigly" in the popular vote, but lose in electoral college.

You need not fear that. He'll mostly likely lose both, but if he's going to win one, I think it'll be the electoral vote. Keep in mind that the GOP really only has one big state (Texas) that's solidly in their corner, and in this election, Texas isn't going to overwhelmingly support Trump (only leads by 3). He's probably only going to win big in a handful of small states. On the other end, he's going to get completely hammered in California (where she's up 26 points), New York (where she's up 24), and throughout the Northeast (except New Hampshire). With her running up the score in those places and him only narrowly winning his biggest states, I don't see how he wins the popular vote.

 

[NJlonghorn]

No offense taken, Hollandtex. I should clarify, that my wife doesn't think HRC is "squeaky clean" but on a scale she certainly forgives HRC more than I do. It's my belief that some of the accusations are real and other simply politics. The email example is something HRC should be held accountable for, Benghazi is a boogeyman IMHO. It's clear there is a lot of pent up desire to have a woman as POTUS just like an African American in '08.

I should introduce your wife to my wife. My wife thinks that Hillary isn't squeaky-clean but that she is no dirtier than the average politician.

 

[NJlonghorn]

ou need not fear that. He'll mostly likely lose both, but if he's going to win one, I think it'll be the electoral vote.

Fivethirtyeight.com agrees with you. They put the odds of Clinton winning the popular vote but losing the election at 6.3%, and the odds of Trump winning the popular vote but losing the election at 0.2%.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

 

[Mr. Deez]

Fivethirtyeight.com agrees with you. They put the odds of Clinton winning the popular vote but losing the election at 6.3%, and the odds of Trump winning the popular vote but losing the election at 0.2%.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Nate Silver is smarter than I am and probably has a more thorough analysis, but I just look at 2012. Obama won the popular vote by about 5 million. He won California by 3 million and New York by 2 million. In the popular vote, that's huge, and I don't think there's any question but that Trump will lose those states even more decisively. It wouldn't shock me if he doesn't break 30 percent in California. (Romney got 37 percent.) The odds of him making up for that kind of deficit in other states (especially when he's not going to win Texas by 1.2 million like Romney did) seem very slim.

 

[theiioftx]

I'm pretty sure Seattle Husker and NJ are both part of the electorate. They claim to vote, and I presume that they're telling the truth and that they vote legally. Therefore, they're part of the electorate.

I didn't bring either of them up to try to incite you to say something ugly about them or put you on the defensive. I brought them up to illustrate that the willingness of people to accept Hillary over Trump is much bigger and more complicated than the "personal handouts" reason you cite as the primary factor. I'm not suggesting that nobody prefers Hillary over Trump because of a desire for personal handouts. Some do (though again, that's irrational since Trump is pro-handout), but a very large number (enough to sway the election) do not. I'll let SH and NJ speak for themselves about their specific reasons, but they're examples of two guys who probably do not get any government handouts and don't seek them. Despite that, both prefer Hillary to Trump, and probably thought it through carefully. They don't strike me as rash.

Also, if you read their posts when actual policy rather than politics gets discussed, they're both conservative-leaning moderates. Neither are ideological liberals who fit neatly into a Democratic constituency. If the GOP wants to win another national election, it's going to come by figuring out how to make voters like them feel comfortable voting Republican at the national level. It can't afford to dismiss their current political preference as a matter of handout preservation, when it clearly is not.

Well everyone is part of the electorate and I guess everyone has a different definition of "conservative leaning moderates." I did not say anything ugly about either of them nor did I insinuate that they took handouts. In fact, I specifically said that Husker's views were perfectly aligned with his ideology. I have no problem with that.

My point was that everyday democrats are okay with anything and everything Hillary does because - in general - they just want their handouts. This points directly at those who blindly vote because someone is black, or someone is a woman or simply straight party on both sides. And no "conservative leaning" anything would ignore the corruption of HRC over the goofiness of Trump. At this point, it looks like Clinton has used the department of justice - including the FBI, the current POTUS, world leaders, the DNC and the media in a blatantly corrupt fashion. Next is the Supreme Court. She chooses BLM over the police.

Meanwhile, the "conservative leaning moderates" are perfectly happy with being governed by this corruption at even a higher level. I welcome hearing how the moderates on this board see Trump's goofiness or womanizing worse than corruption of the justice system - especially the lawyers on the board.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I'm pretty sure Seattle Husker and NJ are both part of the electorate. They claim to vote, and I presume that they're telling the truth and that they vote legally. Therefore, they're part of the electorate.

I didn't bring either of them up to try to incite you to say something ugly about them or put you on the defensive. I brought them up to illustrate that the willingness of people to accept Hillary over Trump is much bigger and more complicated than the "personal handouts" reason you cite as the primary factor. I'm not suggesting that nobody prefers Hillary over Trump because of a desire for personal handouts. Some do (though again, that's irrational since Trump is pro-handout), but a very large number (enough to sway the election) do not. I'll let SH and NJ speak for themselves about their specific reasons, but they're examples of two guys who probably do not get any government handouts and don't seek them. Despite that, both prefer Hillary to Trump, and probably thought it through carefully. They don't strike me as rash.

Also, if you read their posts when actual policy rather than politics gets discussed, they're both conservative-leaning moderates. Neither are ideological liberals who fit neatly into a Democratic constituency. If the GOP wants to win another national election, it's going to come by figuring out how to make voters like them feel comfortable voting Republican at the national level. It can't afford to dismiss their current political preference as a matter of handout preservation, when it clearly is not.

I'll speak for myself. I don't get any handouts from the government and am a significant net payer with greater than $50k net federal taxes paid in each of the last 3 years. Believe it or not, I'm a fiscal conservative and have great concerns about the impact of our debt on future generations. Entitlement reform is a requisite in any budget/debt conversation. Entitlements were setup as a pyramid scheme in which the receivers get more than they ever contributed. From memory, the average Medicaid recipient pays in ~$150k into the program and receives ~$450k in benefits over their lifetime. That is unsustainable. None of the candidate address this because any recipients of Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, etc are now a very large voting block that claim they've earned those benefits (yes, they have contributed) but they too are receiving handouts whether they like to admit it or not. I don't see those individuals different than the foodstamp recipient. They are all benefiting from a "gift" from the government.

My socially liberal views are based on the belief that a rising tide raises all boats. The accelerating income disparity is a threat to our democracy, moreso than homosexual, religious or other similar topics. History is replete with governments overthrown with wealth inequality as the consistent characteristic. It's income inequality that is driving much of the recent racial divide we've been experiencing lately. Poor are not poor because they are lazy (most of them) but rather they lack the means to improve their situation. Data shows that even when they do escape to the middle class one minor disturbance in their economic situation can send them spiraling back to being poor.

The disdain for Trump I've shared here has to do with the fact that he's actually less fiscally responsible than HRC, which is saying a lot. Any/all evaluations of his tax policies bear this out. Couple that with the fact that he's thrown a middle finger to social liberal views in a move that is clearly pandering to the right and it should be apparent why I and others like me can't vote for Trump. The lack of respect for large swaths of people that Trump has demonstrated during this election has truly been abhorrent and unforgivable. I don't have a daughter but its perplexing to me how anyone can look them in the eye and say "Trump is who we need to represent this country."

I have yet to decide if I'll vote for HRC or Gary Johnson (protest vote). Washington State is a mail-in ballot state. I'll mail my ballot in the next few days.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I welcome hearing how the moderates on this board see Trump's goofiness or womanizing worst than corruption of the justice system - especially the lawyers on the board.

The difference is, you see corruption where I may not. There are plenty of valid accusations to be levied against HRC yet there are an equal number of pure politically driven witch hunts, IMHO.

 

[theiioftx]

I'll speak for myself. I don't get any handouts from the government and am a significant net payer with greater than $50k net federal taxes paid in each of the last 3 years. Believe it or not, I'm a fiscal conservative and have great concerns about the impact of our debt on future generations. Entitlement reform is a requisite in any budget/debt conversation. Entitlements were setup as a pyramid scheme in which the receivers get more than they ever contributed. From memory, the average Medicaid recipient pays in ~$150k into the program and receives ~$450k in benefits over their lifetime. That is unsustainable. None of the candidate address this because any recipients of Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, etc are now a very large voting block that claim they've earned those benefits (yes, they have contributed) but they too are receiving handouts whether they like to admit it or not. I don't see those individuals different than the foodstamp recipient. They are all benefiting from a "gift" from the government.

My socially liberal views are based on the belief that a rising tide raises all boats. The accelerating income disparity is a threat to our democracy, moreso than homosexual, religious or other similar topics. History is replete with governments overthrown with wealth inequality as the consistent characteristic. It's income inequality that is driving much of the recent racial divide we've been experiencing lately. Poor are not poor because they are lazy (most of them) but rather they lack the means to improve their situation. Data shows that even when they do escape to the middle class one minor disturbance in their economic situation can send them spiraling back to being poor.

The disdain for Trump I've shared here has to do with the fact that he's actually less fiscally responsible than HRC, which is saying a lot. Any/all evaluations of his tax policies bear this out. Couple that with the fact that he's thrown a middle finger to social liberal views in a move that is clearly pandering to the right and it should be apparent why I and others like me can't vote for Trump. The lack of respect for large swaths of people that Trump has demonstrated during this election has truly been abhorrent and unforgivable. I don't have a daughter but its perplexing to me how anyone can look them in the eye and say "Trump is who we need to represent this country."

I have yet to decide if I'll vote for HRC or Gary Johnson (protest vote). Washington State is a mail-in ballot state. I'll mail my ballot in the next few days.

I really like that Johnson fella. Just saying.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I really like that Johnson fella. Just saying.

LOL! I'll go Johnson if I'm confident Trump cannot win Washington State.

 

[theiioftx]

The difference is, you see corruption where I may not. There are plenty of valid accusations to be levied against HRC yet there are an equal number of pure politically driven witch hunts, IMHO.

Maybe I can learn something. Which are invalid witch hunts? Because it appears that nobody in the HRC camp - including HRC - are denying anything related to wikileaks or Project Veritas. Does the Bill Clinton visit on Loretta Lynch's plane seem legitimate to you? Does the fact that the company that deleted all of her emails are pleading the 5th bother you? Does the fact Russia received the unusual uranium deal after making a donation to the Clinton Foundation matter? What about all of the FBI immunity deals?

Just curious. I do not see how she governs the people under laws in which she is immune to that she violated.

 

[NJlonghorn]

I'll speak for myself. I don't get any handouts from the government and am a significant net payer with greater than $50k net federal taxes paid in each of the last 3 years. Believe it or not, I'm a fiscal conservative and have great concerns about the impact of our debt on future generations. Entitlement reform is a requisite in any budget/debt conversation. Entitlements were setup as a pyramid scheme in which the receivers get more than they ever contributed. From memory, the average Medicaid recipient pays in ~$150k into the program and receives ~$450k in benefits over their lifetime. That is unsustainable. None of the candidate address this because any recipients of Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, etc are now a very large voting block that claim they've earned those benefits (yes, they have contributed) but they too are receiving handouts whether they like to admit it or not. I don't see those individuals different than the foodstamp recipient. They are all benefiting from a "gift" from the government.

My socially liberal views are based on the belief that a rising tide raises all boats. The accelerating income disparity is a threat to our democracy, moreso than homosexual, religious or other similar topics. History is replete with governments overthrown with wealth inequality as the consistent characteristic. It's income inequality that is driving much of the recent racial divide we've been experiencing lately. Poor are not poor because they are lazy (most of them) but rather they lack the means to improve their situation. Data shows that even when they do escape to the middle class one minor disturbance in their economic situation can send them spiraling back to being poor.

The disdain for Trump I've shared here has to do with the fact that he's actually less fiscally responsible than HRC, which is saying a lot. Any/all evaluations of his tax policies bear this out. Couple that with the fact that he's thrown a middle finger to social liberal views in a move that is clearly pandering to the right and it should be apparent why I and others like me can't vote for Trump. The lack of respect for large swaths of people that Trump has demonstrated during this election has truly been abhorrent and unforgivable. I don't have a daughter but its perplexing to me how anyone can look them in the eye and say "Trump is who we need to represent this country."

I have yet to decide if I'll vote for HRC or Gary Johnson (protest vote). Washington State is a mail-in ballot state. I'll mail my ballot in the next few days.

Well said, Husker. And I'd add, anyone willing to dismiss Trump's flaws as "goofiness" is as willing to ignore reality as the liberal who blindly supports Clinton.

 

[NJlonghorn]

Which are invalid witch hunts?

The biggest witch hunt, imho, is the unreasonable attacks on the Clinton Foundation. At its core, that organization is a well-respected charity that deserves the respect that it gets in most circles. It raises a ton of money and uses the vast majority of that money to do great things all over the world.

The foundation does some things that are a bit too cozy for my tastes, but I don't think it is thoroughly corrupt. For example:

(1) The pay-for-access criticisms are vastly overstated. It is undoubtedly true that some donors gave money hoping to gain access to the State Department. Some of them got the access they wanted, but others didn't. And in every case I've seen pointed out, the donors who did get access were people who probably would have gotten access anyway. There is no evidence that the foundation is little more than a laundry facility for bribes, as most here make it out to be.

(2) The idea that the foundation is there just to make money for the Clintons is inaccurate. Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea do a lot of work for the foundation, and they don't get paid for it. They do get reimbursed for expenses, and some of those expenses are unreasonably lavish. But that is par for the course in this type of organization.

As Deez has said many times, the far right comes across as the boy who cries wolf when they scream bloody murder at every little thing.

 

[theiioftx]

The biggest witch hunt, imho, is the unreasonable attacks on the Clinton Foundation. At its core, that organization is a well-respected charity that deserves the respect that it gets in most circles. It raises a ton of money and uses the vast majority of that money to do great things all over the world.

The foundation does some things that are a bit too cozy for my tastes, but I don't think it is thoroughly corrupt. For example:

(1) The pay-for-access criticisms are vastly overstated. It is undoubtedly true that some donors gave money hoping to gain access to the State Department. Some of them got the access they wanted, but others didn't. And in every case I've seen pointed out, the donors who did get access were people who probably would have gotten access anyway. There is no evidence that the foundation is little more than a laundry facility for bribes, as most here make it out to be.

(2) The idea that the foundation is there just to make money for the Clintons is inaccurate. Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea do a lot of work for the foundation, and they don't get paid for it. They do get reimbursed for expenses, and some of those expenses are unreasonably lavish. But that is par for the course in this type of organization.

As Deez has said many times, the far right comes across as the boy who cries wolf when they scream bloody murder at every little thing.

(1)
In an April 2009 exchange, Band — who also worked for years as Bill Clinton’s close aide or “body man” — forwarded an email from an unidentified person to Abedin, Mills and a third aide, Nora Toiv, about a job.


The person had sent an email to Band that had the subject line: “A favor.”

“Important to take care of [redacted],” Band wrote when he passed it along.

“We all have had him on our radar. Personnel has been sending him options,” Abedin replied.

It wasn’t the first time Team Clinton used its clout to land a position for a donor to the foundation. In emails obtained in June by Citizens United, another watchdog group, it was revealed that a Chicago securities trader who was a Clinton bundler and gave at least $1 million to the foundation landed on the International Security Advisory Board despite having no experience in the field.

The donor, Rajiv K. Fernando, got the gig in 2011 after Mills intervened, according to an email."

You do not have a problem with this or any of the multitude of examples (Uranium deal for Russia)?

2) Nobody disputes that the Foundation does some good work. However, it is very naïve for a fiscal conservative moderate to believe that the Clintons do not use the foundation to enrich themselves. Are you really saying that they made themselves - including Chelsey - 100 X millionaires without the foundation? Are you disputing the wikileaks examples of how they doled out contracts in Haiti?

 

[theiioftx]

Well said, Husker. And I'd add, anyone willing to dismiss Trump's flaws as "goofiness" is as willing to ignore reality as the liberal who blindly supports Clinton.

Goofiness was a "fiscal conservative moderate" term used on this board. Call him whatever you want, but there is a stark difference between his behavior and HRC's corruption.

 

[NJlonghorn]

(1)
In an April 2009 exchange, Band — who also worked for years as Bill Clinton’s close aide or “body man” — forwarded an email from an unidentified person to Abedin, Mills and a third aide, Nora Toiv, about a job.

The person had sent an email to Band that had the subject line: “A favor.”

“Important to take care of [redacted],” Band wrote when he passed it along.

“We all have had him on our radar. Personnel has been sending him options,” Abedin replied.

It wasn’t the first time Team Clinton used its clout to land a position for a donor to the foundation. In emails obtained in June by Citizens United, another watchdog group, it was revealed that a Chicago securities trader who was a Clinton bundler and gave at least $1 million to the foundation landed on the International Security Advisory Board despite having no experience in the field.

The donor, Rajiv K. Fernando, got the gig in 2011 after Mills intervened, according to an email."

You do not have a problem with this or any of the multitude of examples (Uranium deal for Russia)?

Helping donors and political allies get jobs that they aren't qualified for is exactly the type of thing I do think the Clintons do. And while most politicians have done this same thing for decades (centuries?), I think the Clintons do it more often and more brazenly than others. But I don't think they are sooooo much worse than others like the right would have us believe.

2) Nobody disputes that the Foundation does some good work.

Really? Nobody?

However, it is very naïve for a fiscal conservative moderate to believe that the Clintons do not use the foundation to enrich themselves. Are you really saying that they made themselves - including Chelsey - 100 X millionaires without the foundation? Are you disputing the wikileaks examples of how they doled out contracts in Haiti?

The Clintons undeniably get financial benefits from their fame and power. Some (but far from all) of that occurs under shady, sleazy circumstances. But that is a far cry short of what you hear out of the wolf-crying right.

By the way -- just about every high-level politician (president, senate, house, governor....) leaves office in much better financial position than when they came in. The Clintons play the game better (worse?) than most, but its not like they are the worst ever, much less invented the game.

If I had a less sleazy alternative to vote for, I would in a heartbeat. But Hillary Clinton is the only viable candidate on the ballot.

 

[NJlonghorn]

Goofiness was a "fiscal conservative moderate" term used on this board. Call him whatever you want, but there is a stark difference between his behavior and HRC's corruption.

Correct, there is a big difference. Clinton's corruption makes your stomach turn and threatens to tilt policy in bad directions. Trump's "goofiness" threatens to ruin important alliances and start wars that kill millions. I'll take the corruption, thank you very much.

 

[theiioftx]

Correct, there is a big difference. Clinton's corruption makes your stomach turn and threatens to tilt policy in bad directions. Trump's "goofiness" threatens to ruin important alliances and start wars that kill millions. I'll take the corruption, thank you very much.

Wars? Good grief you have bought the media spin hook, line and sinker. Additionally, most of those alliances need a new relationship. Trump has never suggested he wants to ruin alliances. Again, remember the media's spin on everything.

 

[NJlonghorn]

Wars? Good grief you have bought the media spin hook, line and sinker. Additionally, most of those alliances need a new relationship. Trump has never suggested he wants to ruin alliances. Again, remember the media's spin on everything.

I agree that some of our alliances need to be restructured. I just don't trust Trump to pull it off, and think he is less likely to solve problems and more likely to turn them into royal clusterfucks. My fear is driven largely by two fatal personality flaws:

1. Trump has made a career out of aggressive, unethical negotiating tactics. If he uses those same tactics with other world leaders (as I think he will), there is a very realistic chance that he pisses off people who shouldn't be pissed off.
2. Trump has a very bad temper that he can't control. He makes rash decisions and then doesn't even bother to clean up the mess that he leaves behind.

By the way, this is typical of my view towards Trump. I think he is done a good job of pointing out huge problems that need to be fixed. But he hasn't done anything to make me think he is the right guy to fix them.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I agree that some of our alliances need to be restructured. I just don't trust Trump to pull it off, and think he is less likely to solve problems and more likely to turn them into royal clusterfucks. My fear is driven largely by two fatal personality flaws:

1. Trump has made a career out of aggressive, unethical negotiating tactics. If he uses those same tactics with other world leaders (as I think he will), there is a very realistic chance that he pisses off people who shouldn't be pissed off.
2. Trump has a very bad temper that he can't control. He makes rash decisions and then doesn't even bother to clean up the mess that he leaves behind.

By the way, this is typical of my view towards Trump. I think he is done a good job of pointing out huge problems that need to be fixed. But he hasn't done anything to make me think he is the right guy to fix them.

I absolutely agree on the last paragraph. What is crazy talk to me is believing a person with demonstrated ignorance in foreign policy and a history of litigious business relationships is going to fashion new an positive relationships with our allies. The facts before us don't support the projection of Trump's characteristics as POTUS.

 

[Seattle Husker]

(1)
In an April 2009 exchange, Band — who also worked for years as Bill Clinton’s close aide or “body man” — forwarded an email from an unidentified person to Abedin, Mills and a third aide, Nora Toiv, about a job.


The person had sent an email to Band that had the subject line: “A favor.”

“Important to take care of [redacted],” Band wrote when he passed it along.

“We all have had him on our radar. Personnel has been sending him options,” Abedin replied.

It wasn’t the first time Team Clinton used its clout to land a position for a donor to the foundation. In emails obtained in June by Citizens United, another watchdog group, it was revealed that a Chicago securities trader who was a Clinton bundler and gave at least $1 million to the foundation landed on the International Security Advisory Board despite having no experience in the field.

The donor, Rajiv K. Fernando, got the gig in 2011 after Mills intervened, according to an email."

You do not have a problem with this or any of the multitude of examples (Uranium deal for Russia)?

2) Nobody disputes that the Foundation does some good work. However, it is very naïve for a fiscal conservative moderate to believe that the Clintons do not use the foundation to enrich themselves. Are you really saying that they made themselves - including Chelsey - 100 X millionaires without the foundation? Are you disputing the wikileaks examples of how they doled out contracts in Haiti?

You've just indicted every "power broker" that ever lived. Simply look at the ambassador positions from every administration that took up residence in the oval office.

This isn't endemic to politics either. Look at corporate hierarchy. Every new leader pushes out a subset of leaders and handpicks some loyalists to bring in from outside the company.

Is that avoidable? Is it ethical? The answer is probably no on both accounts.

 

[mchammer]

Correct, there is a big difference. Clinton's corruption makes your stomach turn and threatens to tilt policy in bad directions. Trump's "goofiness" threatens to ruin important alliances and start wars that kill millions. I'll take the corruption, thank you very much.

Hillary wants to start a war in Syria against Syria and Russia by wanting a no-fly zone.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Hillary wants to start a war in Syria against Syria and Russia by wanting a no-fly zone.

Wants to start a war? Did the no-fly zone in Iraq (then a Russia ally) start a war? It's doubtful they can get any resolution through the UN for a no-fly zone so the question would be whether the US still has the influence to put a coalition together to enforce a no-fly zone. I doubt it but if they could get the Arab states and Western Europe to participate then I suspect Russia would be forced to back down.

 

[mchammer]

Wants to start a war? Did the no-fly zone in Iraq (then a Russia ally) start a war? It's doubtful they can get any resolution through the UN for a no-fly zone so the question would be whether the US still has the influence to put a coalition together to enforce a no-fly zone. I doubt it but if they could get the Arab states and Western Europe to participate then I suspect Russia would be forced to back down.

So Hillary is talking out of her ***. Agreed!

 

[mchammer]

Hillary Clinton Wants War - THE WORST OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS - YouTube from GradeA UnderA’s Tweet

Fast forward to the 8 min mark or so

 

[Seattle Husker]

So Hillary is talking out of her ***. Agreed!

Like any politician...what they plan to do and what's possible (probable) are are not aligned. Of course, HRC at least has a plan for Syria, bad good or indifferent. Trump hasn't put one forward.

 

[mchammer]

Like any politician...what they plan to do and what's possible (probable) are are not aligned. Of course, HRC at least has a plan for Syria, bad good or indifferent. Trump hasn't put one forward.

He said he was going to put ISIS a higher priority than overthrowing Assad.

 

[theiioftx]

Back to OP - we have the winner. Anthony Weiner.