Make Donald Drumpf Again

[brandino29]

I searched to see if anyone else posted about this and hadn't seen it anywhere but my apologies if I missed the thread.

John Oliver on "Last Week Tonight" talked about the Donald and it was incredible. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQ

Drumpf is a complete joker.  Not sure how anyone can look past his machismo, his narcissism, his straight up lying, and his questionable business record (among many other deplorable traits) and see someone worthy of holding the world's most powerful elected office. 

[Midwest]

Just think if he runs against Hillary.  2 of the worst candidates in the field battling it out.  It would be comical if it weren't so sad that these 2 are the front runners.

[BlueMR2]

Just think if he runs against Hillary.  2 of the worst candidates in the field battling it out.  It would be comical if it weren't so sad that these 2 are the front runners.

Looking more and more likely too.  If it comes to pass then the system in the USA is truly failed.  As much as it pains me to say this, but I'd have to vote for Trump in the case.  Ick.

[PencilThinStache]

Certainly wouldn't put myself in the fan of Clinton category, but she's not even in the same league as Trump.

She carries herself with general class and professionalism. She was Secretary of State. She has a general understanding of policy and politics. He's just an ass. Is she the most honest, ethical, trustworthy candidate? No. Is it difficult to choose between her and Drumpf? Not in the slightest.

[vern]

I agree that it would be an easy choice between the two.

On one hand you have an extremely wealthy, dishonest, and corrupt, megalomaniac.

And on the other hand you have Trump.

[marty998]

Romney was out there today blasting Drumpf.

Much as I didn't like Romney in 2012, he was surprisingly and refreshingly well spoken, direct and honest in his assessment of the Don.

Tempted to say give Romney a go....

[Curbside Prophet]

Not to worry, if Trump wins the GOP nomination Bloomberg will jump in the race and then you have a choice of which billionaire you want to elect (or Hillary).

[sirdoug007]

The only way Bloomberg is getting in is if it's Sanders v Trump. Otherwise he will just support Hillary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hotstreak]

If Trump gets nominated, establishment republicans will find a conservative to run as a 3rd party candidate.  That person will give downstream candidates a way to save face in their states, since they can vote for a "real conservative" instead of pro life, pro single payer Trump (or what's he saying today?).  If this candidate gets even 5% of the vote Trump has no change of winning a general election.  It's a terrible sacrifice, especially after 8 years of a Democrat president, but it's better than the catastrophic effect that would otherwise happen to the party.  It could take 20-40 years to recover after the fracture of Trump as an only candidate, or Trump as President.

[music lover]

Certainly wouldn't put myself in the fan of Clinton category, but she's not even in the same league as Trump.

She carries herself with general class and professionalism. She was Secretary of State. She has a general understanding of policy and politics. He's just an ass. Is she the most honest, ethical, trustworthy candidate? No. Is it difficult to choose between her and Drumpf? Not in the slightest.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...the ability of Clinton supporters to turn a blind eye to the years of corruption and lies is truly amazing.

[Midwest]

Certainly wouldn't put myself in the fan of Clinton category, but she's not even in the same league as Trump.

She carries herself with general class and professionalism. She was Secretary of State. She has a general understanding of policy and politics. He's just an ass. Is she the most honest, ethical, trustworthy candidate? No. Is it difficult to choose between her and Drumpf? Not in the slightest.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...the ability of Clinton supporters to turn a blind eye to the years of corruption and lies is truly amazing.

Hillary winning (versus Trump) could be the best thing for the republican party.  Dem's won't win the senate or the house with her in office and if the republicans put up a decent candidate in 20, she's out.

Even the democrats I know don't like her.  They just like the alternatives less.

[sol]

Has anyone figured out why people call him "The Donald"?

There aren't many other public figures upon whom we bestow a definite article. The Situation.  The Weeknd.  There are probably others?

It's clearly grammatically incorrect, on purpose.  I understand that some other languages sometimes use this form, so is it supposed to be a reference to some foreign culture?  Is it purely a social media phenomenon?  I just don't get it.

[MsPeacock]

Has anyone figured out why people call him "The Donald"?

There aren't many other public figures upon whom we bestow a definite article. The Situation.  The Weeknd.  There are probably others?

It's clearly grammatically incorrect, on purpose.  I understand that some other languages sometimes use this form, so is it supposed to be a reference to some foreign culture?  Is it purely a social media phenomenon?  I just don't get it.

I thought it was from 1980s era interviews where his wife (which one...?) referred to him as "The Donald." Though it would surprise me at all if he was one of those people who picks their own nickname.

[brandino29]

Certainly wouldn't put myself in the fan of Clinton category, but she's not even in the same league as Trump.

She carries herself with general class and professionalism. She was Secretary of State. She has a general understanding of policy and politics. He's just an ass. Is she the most honest, ethical, trustworthy candidate? No. Is it difficult to choose between her and Drumpf? Not in the slightest.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...the ability of Clinton supporters to turn a blind eye to the years of corruption and lies is truly amazing.

Out of genuine curiosity, what "years of corruption and lies" are you referring to? Other than Benghazi (an issue on which even Republican led committees have been unable to actually condemn Clinton on, has become its own political circus [i.e. Email servers] and has even been acknowledged by some Republicans as motivated politically to undermine Clinton's presidential aspirations) and the Lewinsky affair (of which Hillary was obviously one of the victims) I'm generally unaware of anything.

I'm not trying to be facetious or send anything off the rails, in recent years I've managed to keep a safe distance from most 24 hour media (much better for your sanity), but I honestly don't understand exactly what the Clinton haters are so up in arms about?

Personally, I don't care who people support or hate but I believe there has to be legitimacy behind it other than believing who yells the loudest.

[LeRainDrop]

I've said it before and I'll say it again...the ability of Clinton supporters to turn a blind eye to the years of corruption and lies is truly amazing.

Out of genuine curiosity, what "years of corruption and lies" are you referring to? Other than Benghazi (an issue on which even Republican led committees have been unable to actually condemn Clinton on, has become its own political circus [i.e. Email servers] and has even been acknowledged by some Republicans as motivated politically to undermine Clinton's presidential aspirations) and the Lewinsky affair (of which Hillary was obviously one of the victims) I'm generally unaware of anything.

An open question on Hillary Rodham Clinton's ethics, from when she worked on the Watergate investigation:  http://jacksonville.com/reason/fact-check/2014-03-08/story/fact-check-was-hillary-clinton-fired-watergate-investigation

[pbkmaine]

"The Donald" comes from his first wife, Ivana. In certain European countries, you put an article before the first name as a sign of affection.

[Cressida]

An open question on Hillary Rodham Clinton's ethics, from when she worked on the Watergate investigation:  http://jacksonville.com/reason/fact-check/2014-03-08/story/fact-check-was-hillary-clinton-fired-watergate-investigation

Short version of link: A guy said a thing one time.

[BlueMR2]

Much as I didn't like Romney in 2012, he was surprisingly and refreshingly well spoken, direct and honest in his assessment of the Don.

The fact that Romney was even a thing in 2012 shows how out of touch the GOP is with modern conservatives.  The grassroots level hates him about as much as Clinton.  I expect he'd kill voter turnout if he got the nomination.

[libertarian4321]

Just think if he runs against Hillary.  2 of the worst candidates in the field battling it out.  It would be comical if it weren't so sad that these 2 are the front runners.

Hillary and Trump are both AWFUL candidates.  The USA should be embarrassed.

Trump is horrible.  Appallingly bad. 

The worst candidate in the world other than the self serving, dishonest, corrupt opportunist, Hillary Clinton.

If the Dems nominate Sanders, I will vote for Libertarian Gary Johnson (former Governor of New Mexico).

But damn it, if Hillary wins the Dem nomination, they are almost forcing me to vote for Trump!

[ransom132]

Just think if he runs against Hillary.  2 of the worst candidates in the field battling it out.  It would be comical if it weren't so sad that these 2 are the front runners.

Hillary and Drumpf are both AWFUL candidates.  The USA should be embarrassed.

Drumpf is horrible.  Appallingly bad. 

The worst candidate in the world other than the self serving, dishonest, corrupt opportunist, Hillary Clinton.

If the Dems nominate Sanders, I will vote for Libertarian Gary Johnson (former Governor of New Mexico).

But damn it, if Hillary wins the Dem nomination, they are almost forcing me to vote for Drumpf!

Either one is very bad. At least with Hilary you know what you are going to get...with Drumpf, you don't. This guy dodges all the important questions, it is not even funny. He acts all tough, but then gets all scared when someone like Megyn Kelly is in the room. He also tends to contradict himself quite alot....If I were an American citizen, I really wouldn't know who to vote for, there isn't alot of great choices out there. Bernie Sanders policies does resemble alot of what we have here in Canada, so I guess it would be him by default.

[libertarian4321]

Just think if he runs against Hillary.  2 of the worst candidates in the field battling it out.  It would be comical if it weren't so sad that these 2 are the front runners.

Hillary and Drumpf are both AWFUL candidates.  The USA should be embarrassed.

Drumpf is horrible.  Appallingly bad. 

The worst candidate in the world other than the self serving, dishonest, corrupt opportunist, Hillary Clinton.

If the Dems nominate Sanders, I will vote for Libertarian Gary Johnson (former Governor of New Mexico).

But damn it, if Hillary wins the Dem nomination, they are almost forcing me to vote for Drumpf!

Either one is very bad. At least with Hilary you know what you are going to get...with Drumpf, you don't. This guy dodges all the important questions, it is not even funny. He acts all tough, but then gets all scared when someone like Megyn Kelly is in the room. He also tends to contradict himself quite alot....If I were an American citizen, I really wouldn't know who to vote for, there isn't alot of great choices out there. Bernie Sanders policies does resemble alot of what we have here in Canada, so I guess it would be him by default.

I disagree with Sanders on almost everything, but I don't see him as a corrupt or evil person.

I can't say the same for Hillary.  She and her husband represent the WORST in American machine politics. 

Trump is a loose cannon. You are right, I wouldn't know what to expect from the guy.  But I'd take my chances with Trump or Sanders- just vote Libertarian and say "screw you guys, I'm going home! :)"

But if Hillary wins, I'll feel compelled to not only vote, but probably financially support the opposition, because the Clinton's a just so corrupt, self serving, and evil. 

I don't think I'm alone in that feeling.  Nothing will bring people to the Republican Party faster than a Hillary Clinton nomination.  She's despised in a way that Bernie Sanders is not.

That's why I kind of hope Bernie manages to beat the Clinton/DNC machine, so I can just sit on the sidelines and vote Libertarian. 

I don't want to support Trump, but I may have to.

[music lover]

An open question on Hillary Rodham Clinton's ethics, from when she worked on the Watergate investigation:  http://jacksonville.com/reason/fact-check/2014-03-08/story/fact-check-was-hillary-clinton-fired-watergate-investigation

Short version of link: A guy said a thing one time.

Translation: I will pretend that Hillary did nothing wrong, and claim it's all a conspiracy.

[Cressida]

An open question on Hillary Rodham Clinton's ethics, from when she worked on the Watergate investigation:  http://jacksonville.com/reason/fact-check/2014-03-08/story/fact-check-was-hillary-clinton-fired-watergate-investigation

Short version of link: A guy said a thing one time.

Translation: I will pretend that Hillary did nothing wrong, and claim it's all a conspiracy.

That is not an accurate translation. I stand by my assessment.

[2lazy2retire]

An open question on Hillary Rodham Clinton's ethics, from when she worked on the Watergate investigation:  http://jacksonville.com/reason/fact-check/2014-03-08/story/fact-check-was-hillary-clinton-fired-watergate-investigation

Short version of link: A guy said a thing one time.

and that was almost 50 years ago - LOL

[2lazy2retire]

The only real thing you need to worry about when it comes to president is foreign policy and who is going to be making decisions quickly with regard to military operations, and in this area I would prefer Hillary in the hot seat, f@ck knows what Trump or "machine gun bacon" would do.  All the other sh1t gets tied up in congress etc and who the president is makes little difference.

[boy_bye]

Is Hillary Clinton a perfect candidate? No. But I challenge you to find any politician who's been vital and active at the national level for 25 years who *doesn't* have a laundry list of issues that give people pause. I kind of think it's just the nature of being a politician at that level.

I think the hatred of her is much more about sexism than most people who dislike Hillary will admit, just like a lot of Obama hatred is motivated by racism.

[Midwest]

Is Hillary Clinton a perfect candidate? No. But I challenge you to find any politician who's been vital and active at the national level for 25 years who *doesn't* have a laundry list of issues that give people pause. I kind of think it's just the nature of being a politician at that level.

I think the hatred of her is much more about sexism than most people who dislike Hillary will admit, just like a lot of Obama hatred is motivated by racism.

Is the current FBI investigation motivated by sexism?

Most politicians go their entire careers without being linked to an FBI investigation.  The investigation has nothing to do with partisan politics or sexism, it was bad decision making on her part which may or may not be a crime. 

As far as comparisons, Bernie Sanders gives me pause because I don't agree with his policies.  I have no doubts about his character.  Can't say the same about Clinton or Trump.

[boy_bye]

Is Hillary Clinton a perfect candidate? No. But I challenge you to find any politician who's been vital and active at the national level for 25 years who *doesn't* have a laundry list of issues that give people pause. I kind of think it's just the nature of being a politician at that level.

I think the hatred of her is much more about sexism than most people who dislike Hillary will admit, just like a lot of Obama hatred is motivated by racism.

Is the current FBI investigation motivated by sexism?

Most politicians go their entire careers without being linked to an FBI investigation.  The investigation has nothing to do with partisan politics or sexism, it was bad decision making on her part which may or may not be a crime. 

As far as comparisons, Bernie Sanders gives me pause because I don't agree with his policies.  I have no doubts about his character.  Can't say the same about Clinton or Trump.

The hatred that some people have for Clinton is, I believe, largely motivated by sexism, because it seems OUTSIZED compared to her performance as a public servant. I doubt the FBI investigation is motivated by sexism but I don't have any way of knowing that unless I could know for sure how many male politicians have done similar things without being investigated.

[Midwest]

Is Hillary Clinton a perfect candidate? No. But I challenge you to find any politician who's been vital and active at the national level for 25 years who *doesn't* have a laundry list of issues that give people pause. I kind of think it's just the nature of being a politician at that level.

I think the hatred of her is much more about sexism than most people who dislike Hillary will admit, just like a lot of Obama hatred is motivated by racism.

Is the current FBI investigation motivated by sexism?

Most politicians go their entire careers without being linked to an FBI investigation.  The investigation has nothing to do with partisan politics or sexism, it was bad decision making on her part which may or may not be a crime. 

As far as comparisons, Bernie Sanders gives me pause because I don't agree with his policies.  I have no doubts about his character.  Can't say the same about Clinton or Trump.

The hatred that some people have for Clinton is, I believe, largely motivated by sexism, because it seems OUTSIZED compared to her performance as a public servant. I doubt the FBI investigation is motivated by sexism but I don't have any way of knowing that unless I could know for sure how many male politicians have done similar things without being investigated.

Many people hate the Clinton's (plural) because they perceive both of them to be corrupt.  Tough to be sexist against Bill.

You are welcome to blame all of Hillary's problems on sexism, but the real issue is she's a terrible candidate.  If the republican's had a clue, they would get their act together and put Rubio or Kasich up against her.  She's the least bad alternative at this point to many people.

[boy_bye]

Is Hillary Clinton a perfect candidate? No. But I challenge you to find any politician who's been vital and active at the national level for 25 years who *doesn't* have a laundry list of issues that give people pause. I kind of think it's just the nature of being a politician at that level.

I think the hatred of her is much more about sexism than most people who dislike Hillary will admit, just like a lot of Obama hatred is motivated by racism.

Is the current FBI investigation motivated by sexism?

Most politicians go their entire careers without being linked to an FBI investigation.  The investigation has nothing to do with partisan politics or sexism, it was bad decision making on her part which may or may not be a crime. 

As far as comparisons, Bernie Sanders gives me pause because I don't agree with his policies.  I have no doubts about his character.  Can't say the same about Clinton or Trump.

The hatred that some people have for Clinton is, I believe, largely motivated by sexism, because it seems OUTSIZED compared to her performance as a public servant. I doubt the FBI investigation is motivated by sexism but I don't have any way of knowing that unless I could know for sure how many male politicians have done similar things without being investigated.

Many people hate the Clinton's (plural) because they perceive both of them to be corrupt.  Tough to be sexist against Bill.

You are welcome to blame all of Hillary's problems on sexism, but the real issue is she's a terrible candidate.  If the republican's had a clue, they would get their act together and put Rubio or Kasich up against her.  She's the least bad alternative at this point to many people.

I agree with you that she's not a great candidate -- she doesn't seem to be very comfortable being "her real self" on the campaign trail. Same problem Al Gore had. Like him, I think she makes a bad candidate but would be a good president.

Definitely not blaming all her problems on sexism ... but, as I said, I do think it plays a larger role than most people who hate her would ever recognize or admit.

[Midwest]

I agree with you that she's not a great candidate -- she doesn't seem to be very comfortable being "her real self" on the campaign trail. Same problem Al Gore had. Like him, I think she makes a bad candidate but would be a good president.

Definitely not blaming all her problems on sexism ... but, as I said, I do think it plays a larger role than most people who hate her would ever recognize or admit.

Most politicians lie, but she can't even sell the lie. No charisma.  I don't trust Trump and disagree with him, but he is charismatic.

The nice thing about her being president (if she were to win) is the other side keeps the house and senate.  I like split government because the less the politicians achieve the better.

Also, without Trump in the mix she's out in 4 years. 

[Jack]

I think the hatred of her is much more about sexism than most people who dislike Hillary will admit, just like a lot of Obama hatred is motivated by racism.

I doubt that's even slightly true. If Elizabeth Warren were on the ballot instead, the Clinton haters would be fawning over her.

I agree with you that she's not a great candidate -- she doesn't seem to be very comfortable being "her real self" on the campaign trail. Same problem Al Gore had. Like him, I think she makes a bad candidate but would be a good president.

What "real self?" I see no evidence that such a thing exists; with Clinton it's pandering and corruption all the way down.

[boy_bye]

Shrug. Y'all's opinion. Other people -- who actually know her and have worked with her and who have taken the time to read the emails that everyone is so up in arms about -- have different opinions.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/26/why-electing-hillary-in-16-is-more-important-than-electing-obama-in-08.html

[Midwest]

Shrug. Y'all's opinion. Other people -- who actually know her and have worked with her and who have taken the time to read the emails that everyone is so up in arms about -- have different opinions.

The FBI investigation is not BS much as the Clinton machine would like to spin it.  I'm not saying she committed a crime or will be indicted, but I don't believe the FBI would go down this road unless they had something. 

[boy_bye]

I think the hatred of her is much more about sexism than most people who dislike Hillary will admit, just like a lot of Obama hatred is motivated by racism.

I doubt that's even slightly true. If Elizabeth Warren were on the ballot instead, the Clinton haters would be fawning over her.

Really? All the republicans who hate Hillary would flip and fawn over Elizabeth Warren? I highly doubt it.

And just because Elizabeth Warren hasn't experienced the same kind of treatment as Hillary Clinton over the years, doesn't mean that Hillary hasn't faced sexism. Warren hasn't been a player on the national stage; she hasn't had to tackle such a wide variety of issues; she hasn't been involved with foreign policy; details of her husband's sexcapades have not been splashed all over the media for the last quarter century.

So much of the commentary on Hillary is gendered. It's about her perceived warmth or lack of it, her clothes, her hairstyle, her husband's sex life, whether or not she's likable, what do we think about her cankles, why does she look so old, etc. etc.

Many dudes don't see patriarchy because patriarchy doesn't impact their lives in any negative way whatsoever. But, as those of us who get fucked around by it on a daily basis can attest, it still exists, and it still shapes the conversations that we have in extremely gendered ways. If you don't see that, you're not paying attention.

[MandalayVA]

It doesn't really matter who gets in because it's not like Congress will allow either of them to do anything.  Their own parties dislike them, the opposite party loathes them.  Whoever wins will be one and done.

And Cory Booker waits in the wings for 2020 ...

[Jack]

I think the hatred of her is much more about sexism than most people who dislike Hillary will admit, just like a lot of Obama hatred is motivated by racism.

I doubt that's even slightly true. If Elizabeth Warren were on the ballot instead, the Clinton haters would be fawning over her.

Really? All the republicans who hate Hillary would flip and fawn over Elizabeth Warren? I highly doubt it.

No, I was talking about the Democrats who hate her -- and so were you.

Unless you want to claim that you think the only reason Republicans hate her is because of sexism and not, you know, the fact that she's a Democrat?

So much of the commentary on Hillary is gendered. It's about her perceived warmth or lack of it, her clothes, her hairstyle, her husband's sex life, whether or not she's likable, what do we think about her cankles, why does she look so old, etc. etc.

Many dudes don't see patriarchy because patriarchy doesn't impact their lives in any negative way whatsoever. But, as those of us who get fucked around by it on a daily basis can attest, it still exists, and it still shapes the conversations that we have in extremely gendered ways. If you don't see that, you're not paying attention.

I'm not saying sexism doesn't exist. However, claiming that sexism is the only reason -- or even a significant reason -- why people hate Clinton is itself an incredibly sexist argument! I mean, you might as well come out and say "I think Clinton should get a free pass for being a manipulative shitbag sociopath just because she has a vagina!"

[boy_bye]

I think the hatred of her is much more about sexism than most people who dislike Hillary will admit, just like a lot of Obama hatred is motivated by racism.

I doubt that's even slightly true. If Elizabeth Warren were on the ballot instead, the Clinton haters would be fawning over her.

Really? All the republicans who hate Hillary would flip and fawn over Elizabeth Warren? I highly doubt it.

No, I was talking about the Democrats who hate her -- and so were you.

Unless you want to claim that you think the only reason Republicans hate her is because of sexism and not, you know, the fact that she's a Democrat?

So much of the commentary on Hillary is gendered. It's about her perceived warmth or lack of it, her clothes, her hairstyle, her husband's sex life, whether or not she's likable, what do we think about her cankles, why does she look so old, etc. etc.

Many dudes don't see patriarchy because patriarchy doesn't impact their lives in any negative way whatsoever. But, as those of us who get fucked around by it on a daily basis can attest, it still exists, and it still shapes the conversations that we have in extremely gendered ways. If you don't see that, you're not paying attention.

I'm not saying sexism doesn't exist. However, claiming that sexism is the only reason -- or even a significant reason -- why people hate Clinton is itself an incredibly sexist argument! I mean, you might as well come out and say "I think Clinton should get a free pass for being a manipulative shitbag sociopath just because she has a vagina!"

LOL whatever Jack. You have proven to me before that you lack the capacity for subtlety in such arguments so there's not much point in continuing it.

[Cressida]

I agree with you that she's not a great candidate -- she doesn't seem to be very comfortable being "her real self" on the campaign trail. Same problem Al Gore had. Like him, I think she makes a bad candidate but would be a good president.

Note: this comment is directed at miss madge. If anyone else feels compelled to ridicule it, please go eat rocks.

I actually don't see it this way. She strikes me as warm and, yes, genuine on the trail. I didn't feel the same way in '08.

I have a theory that Clinton has always been leftier than some of her votes and statements would suggest. The political climate has changed such that truly progressive politics are now mainstream Democratic positions, much more so than in '08 and far more so than in '00 when Clinton was elected to the Senate. Clinton knows this, and is running leftier than she did in '08. I suspect that her current positions are more in line with her true politics, and that's why she seems more genuine now.

Of course, if this theory is true, it means that Clinton's earlier votes and statements were *not* always genuine. Some of this is politics as usual. For example, everyone knows Obama always supported gay marriage, but he didn't admit it until the climate would allow. For another example, Bill Clinton was never able to come out in favor of a two-state solution, even though it's so obviously the right position that I can't believe it wasn't his.

In Hillary Clinton's case, I imagine that she wanted to have a long political career and didn't want to make any "mistakes"; hence the Iraq vote, for example, to avoid being seen as a softie on foreign affairs. (I'm sure this factored into the yes votes from Biden, Kerry and Edwards as well.)

In any case, thank you for fighting the good fight in this thread. I'm too tired to do it today.

[LeRainDrop]

An open question on Hillary Rodham Clinton's ethics, from when she worked on the Watergate investigation:  http://jacksonville.com/reason/fact-check/2014-03-08/story/fact-check-was-hillary-clinton-fired-watergate-investigation

Short version of link: A guy said a thing one time.

and that was almost 50 years ago - LOL

Uh, 40 years ago, but yes, that's the point.  And I find it super awkward that you seem to be justifying unethical behavior by a lawyer, but anyway . . .  I posted the link as one example in direct response to a comment by someone who wanted to know "out of genuine curiosity . . . what years of corruption and lies" were associated with Hillary Clinton (their comments are pasted below for your reference).  So this article shows possible unethical behavior going back for at least 40 years.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...the ability of Clinton supporters to turn a blind eye to the years of corruption and lies is truly amazing.

Out of genuine curiosity, what "years of corruption and lies" are you referring to? Other than Benghazi (an issue on which even Republican led committees have been unable to actually condemn Clinton on, has become its own political circus [i.e. Email servers] and has even been acknowledged by some Republicans as motivated politically to undermine Clinton's presidential aspirations) and the Lewinsky affair (of which Hillary was obviously one of the victims) I'm generally unaware of anything.

[2lazy2retire]

An open question on Hillary Rodham Clinton's ethics, from when she worked on the Watergate investigation:  http://jacksonville.com/reason/fact-check/2014-03-08/story/fact-check-was-hillary-clinton-fired-watergate-investigation

Short version of link: A guy said a thing one time.

and that was almost 50 years ago - LOL

Uh, 40 years ago, but yes, that's the point.  And I find it super awkward that you seem to be justifying unethical behavior by a lawyer, but anyway . . .  I posted the link as one example in direct response to a comment by someone who wanted to know "out of genuine curiosity . . . what years of corruption and lies" were associated with Hillary Clinton (their comments are pasted below for your reference).  So this article shows possible unethical behavior going back for at least 40 years.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...the ability of Clinton supporters to turn a blind eye to the years of corruption and lies is truly amazing.

Out of genuine curiosity, what "years of corruption and lies" are you referring to? Other than Benghazi (an issue on which even Republican led committees have been unable to actually condemn Clinton on, has become its own political circus [i.e. Email servers] and has even been acknowledged by some Republicans as motivated politically to undermine Clinton's presidential aspirations) and the Lewinsky affair (of which Hillary was obviously one of the victims) I'm generally unaware of anything.

A he said/she said story from 40 years ago is not much better than that Fox News Benghazi BS story that's been doing the rounds.

[LeRainDrop]

An open question on Hillary Rodham Clinton's ethics, from when she worked on the Watergate investigation:  http://jacksonville.com/reason/fact-check/2014-03-08/story/fact-check-was-hillary-clinton-fired-watergate-investigation

Short version of link: A guy said a thing one time.

and that was almost 50 years ago - LOL

Uh, 40 years ago, but yes, that's the point.  And I find it super awkward that you seem to be justifying unethical behavior by a lawyer, but anyway . . .  I posted the link as one example in direct response to a comment by someone who wanted to know "out of genuine curiosity . . . what years of corruption and lies" were associated with Hillary Clinton (their comments are pasted below for your reference).  So this article shows possible unethical behavior going back for at least 40 years.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...the ability of Clinton supporters to turn a blind eye to the years of corruption and lies is truly amazing.

Out of genuine curiosity, what "years of corruption and lies" are you referring to? Other than Benghazi (an issue on which even Republican led committees have been unable to actually condemn Clinton on, has become its own political circus [i.e. Email servers] and has even been acknowledged by some Republicans as motivated politically to undermine Clinton's presidential aspirations) and the Lewinsky affair (of which Hillary was obviously one of the victims) I'm generally unaware of anything.

A he said/she said story from 40 years ago is not much better than that Fox News Benghazi BS story that's been doing the rounds.

I didn't say it spoke to the veracity, just the many years over which questions have been raised.  It seems you're missing the point -- For people asking, why do some people claim "years" of deceitfulness or questionable behavior by Clinton? Or, isn't this just a new thing with Benghazi and her emails?  And the answer is no, questions about her ethics stretch back to basically the beginning of her legal/political career.

[Midwest]

Does this qualify as questionable?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/

[LeRainDrop]

Okay, I'm sorry, I do not like Trump, but he has the right to speak.  When people buy tickets to go see the man to speak, and then they can't because some other people silence him, that is crap.  Why are some people so afraid to let differing viewpoints speak?  Don't they want their own freedom of speech to be protected, or would they be okay with getting silenced, too?  I personally think these angry protests in Chicago are pretty shameful and pathetic.

[sol]

Okay, I'm sorry, I do not like Trump, but he has the right to speak. 

I think you're looking at this situation exactly backwards.  Trump has a right to speak, and these protesters have a right to speak.  Trump wasn't "denied" his free speech by an oppressive government (which is what the 1st amendment is designed to prevent), he voluntarily decided to postpone (not censor) his speech because the people of that community were exercising their rights to free speech, and to assemble, and to protest.

If the local authorities had arrested protesters for nothing more than protesting, THAT would have been a violation of the 1st amendment.  This whole debacle was exactly what the Constitution was written to specifically permit, even encourage.  People are allowed to voice their opinions about our political process without fear of reprisals from the authorities.  That includes Trump.  That includes people protesting Trump.

[LeRainDrop]

Okay, I'm sorry, I do not like Trump, but he has the right to speak. 

I think you're looking at this situation exactly backwards.  Trump has a right to speak, and these protesters have a right to speak.  Trump wasn't "denied" his free speech by an oppressive government (which is what the 1st amendment is designed to prevent), he voluntarily decided to postpone (not censor) his speech because the people of that community were exercising their rights to free speech, and to assemble, and to protest.

If the local authorities had arrested protesters for nothing more than protesting, THAT would have been a violation of the 1st amendment.  This whole debacle was exactly what the Constitution was written to specifically permit, even encourage.  People are allowed to voice their opinions about our political process without fear of reprisals from the authorities.  That includes Trump.  That includes people protesting Trump.

Oh, I understand the First Amendment and fully realize that there is no constitutional violation here.  As you correctly point out, the protest is not government action, and I did not say that Trump had been "denied" his free speech under the amendment.  I'm not alleging the protests are illegal or abridging Trump's freedom, etc.  I'm just saying that I think it's stupid that many people can't stand to listen to other viewpoints anymore, both sides, and can't stand to let people they disagree with listen to the people whom they choose.  Would these protesters here be cool if Bernie were planning a rally here, but then Trump supporters took over with such aggressive protests that Bernie ended up cancelling his rally?  That sucks all around.

[BlueMR2]

I'm not alleging the protests are illegal or abridging Trump's freedom, etc.  I'm just saying that I think it's stupid that many people can't stand to listen to other viewpoints anymore, both sides, and can't stand to let people they disagree with listen to the people whom they choose.  Would these protesters here be cool if Bernie were planning a rally here, but then Trump supporters took over with such aggressive protests that Bernie ended up cancelling his rally?  That sucks all around.

To me it's borderline criminal.  I want the protesters to be heard, but a protest of an event that causes such a security concern that a speaker is shut down causes me grave concern.  As emotional beings, it makes us feel good to see the opposition shutdown, but it's harmful to society as a whole.  When only the loudest voices are heard, then we're nothing more than cattle.  This is my current disgust with both parties as they both insist on engaging in that uncivilized behaviour (and their adherents defend it with religious fervor).

[ender]

There is still part of me that feels like Trump's candidacy is part of a giant joke he is playing.

[boy_bye]

There is still part of me that feels like Trump's candidacy is part of a giant joke he is playing.

I can't imagine he really wants to be president, I mean, it seems like a lot of work, right?

[boy_bye]

I'm not alleging the protests are illegal or abridging Trump's freedom, etc.  I'm just saying that I think it's stupid that many people can't stand to listen to other viewpoints anymore, both sides, and can't stand to let people they disagree with listen to the people whom they choose.  Would these protesters here be cool if Bernie were planning a rally here, but then Trump supporters took over with such aggressive protests that Bernie ended up cancelling his rally?  That sucks all around.

To me it's borderline criminal.  I want the protesters to be heard, but a protest of an event that causes such a security concern that a speaker is shut down causes me grave concern.  As emotional beings, it makes us feel good to see the opposition shutdown, but it's harmful to society as a whole.  When only the loudest voices are heard, then we're nothing more than cattle.  This is my current disgust with both parties as they both insist on engaging in that uncivilized behaviour (and their adherents defend it with religious fervor).

I'm haven't seen or heard any reports of criminal behavior amongst the protesters. All I've seen is a bunch of black people being roughed up as they are ejected from rallies.

Trump cancelled the rally because he's a little bitch, not because of real security concerns. Even the Chicago PD said they didn't advise him to cancel.