Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate

[MoonShadow]

Trump sucks at managing. He's excellent at marketing his brand. When he managed his projects many failed.

I'm going to stop you right here.  I believe that the exact number of failures was 5.  As I already mentioned, the current number of properties (he is primarily a real estate mogul) owned by Trump's businesses, directly or indirectly, is about 500.  That would make it a 1% failure rate over 30+ years of activity.  Not only is that not bad, that is actually better than the best class of home mortgages over the same time period.  If you really think that is a bad average, please explain your reasoning.  Keep in mind, Apple has admitted that their before-market failure rate on new projects exceeds 50%.

He does not own 500 properties. He licenses his name to other developers and they put his name on the project and pay him $20 million (or whatever) in cash but he has no role or ownership in the project. Show me your source that he *owns* 500 properties.

Fine.  He has business interests in roughly 500 properties.  Does that legal distinction alter my argument?

It totally does. If he's not managing the project, and he's just a compensated endorser, that doesn't say anything positive about his skills as a manager.

Perhaps not.  It would be difficult for me to separate his directly managed deals with those that are managed by others in his name.  I don't agree that it alters my point materially, though.  He gets those deals because of his "brand", and his brand is that he is good at what he does, however you wish to frame what that is.  You can say that is all marketing, but I'd say that there is a lot more too it, and even if not, marketing is how a campaign is won. This sub-thread started because you made the point that he isn't as good at business as he appears, because he has had failures.  I disagree that his failure rate is particularly notable, or otherwise poor.  I think that whatever Trump actually does for these other companies, he is good at whatever that actually is.

[MoonShadow]

Oh the truth, it burns!

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/06/23/cnns-clinton-cash-fact-check-ends-embarrassment-cristina-alesci-laurie-frankel/

Alesci (pictured, right) and Frankel (left) rate the claim as “false” and allege “there’s no hard evidence of a quid pro quo.” The CNN Money “reporters” also conceded that “CNN several times has asked the Clinton Foundation to confirm whether the nine investors who benefited from the deal also contributed to the foundation, but the foundation has yet to respond.”

<snip>

Since Alesci and Frankel appear unable to perform basic journalistic research, here are the names and amounts they are still waiting on the Clinton Foundation to get back to them on:

    Frank Giustra, Canadian mining magnate who created a company that later merged with UraniumOne, gave $31.3 million and a pledge for $100 million to the Clinton Foundation
    Frank Holmes, a shareholder in the deal who donated between $250,000 and $500,000 (the Clinton Foundation doesn’t report exact amounts, only in ranges) and is a Clinton Foundation adviser
    Neil Woodyer, Frank Giustra’s colleague who founded Endeavor Financial and pledged $500,000 as well as promises of “ongoing financial support”
    Robert Disbrow, a Haywood Securities broker, the firm that provided “$58 million in capital to float shares of UrAsia’s private placement,” gave the Clinton’s family foundation between $1 and $5 million, according to Clinton Cash
    Paul Reynolds, a Canaccord Capital Inc., executive who donated between $1 million and $5 million. “The UrAsia deal was the largest in Canaccord’s history,” reports Schweizer
    Robert Cross, a major shareholder who serves as UrAsia Energy Director who pledged portions of his future income to the Clinton Foundation
    Egizio Blanchini, “the Capital Markets vice chair and Global cohead of BMO’s Global Metals and Mining group, had also been an underwriter on the mining deals. BMO paid $600,000 for two tables at the CGS-GI’s March 2008 benefit”
    Sergei Kurzin, the Russian rainmaker involved in the Kazakhstan uranium deal and a shareholder in UrAsia Energy, also pledged $1 million to the Foundation
    Uranium One chairman Ian Telfer committed $2.35 million

Alesci and Frankel claim there’s “no hard evidence of a quid pro quo.” Naturally, they fail to note that the legal standard for conflicts of interest and corruption do not require a quid pro quo. Nor do they note that Hillary Clinton deleted and destroyed over 30,000 emails housed on her secret server—the obvious location of any so-called “smoking guns"

Honesty time here people.  Who here thinks that Hillary could possibly be an unbiased judge of foreign affairs, if any of these guys were involved?

[Gin1984]

No, of course not.  But she was the one person most directly in command over ambassadors & embassies.  Again, Bengazi is the defining crisis, not the decisions debated at length before choosing war over peace.  You can spin all you like, but it is true.

Why do you think Benghazi is so defining for Clinton?

Primarily due to four facts that we now know are true.

1) Ambassador Stevens had previously requested additional security, on several occasions, for whatever real operations they had going on at the embassy annex.  His pleas were ignored.  We don't know why, but Hillary has stated that she doesn't read every requisition request personally. I believe that, but the idea that she didn't read them from the ambassador in the greatest hotspot during her career is either bullshit or incompetence, I don't care which.

2) During the ongoing siege of the annex, for which the regional defense command structure was aware of, the special forces that were on standby were told to "stand down" and wait for orders.  Those orders, if they ever arrived, were too late to matter.

3) Hillary Clinton was asleep during the siege.  (I presume because her assistants had standing orders not to disturb Secretary Clinton) So we know that if orders ever arrived, they didn't come from her.  I could better accept it all if she had actually decided that the life of 4 Americans in the foreign service was not worth risking the lives of a platoon of special forces, because whether I agreed with the decision, it would still be a command perspective I could respect.  Of course, if this is what actually happened, I'd still expect her to own the results.

4) Clinton was a major proponent of the "it was the video" theory, which we now know was bullshit, and that they knew it was bullshit when they promoted it.

I think this all speaks a great deal to how Hillary Clinton would act during a crisis, and I don't like what it is saying.  If you don't think that it's a big deal, just wait till after the Democratic nomination, and see what the new ads have to say about it.

Actually we do know why.  There was no funding for additional security.  And we know why.
"Democrats enacted $1.803 billion for embassy security, construction and maintenance for fiscal 2010, when they still controlled the Senate and House. After Republicans took control of the House and picked up six Senate seats, Congress reduced the enacted budget to $1.616 billion in fiscal 2011, and to $1.537 billion for 2012.
The administration requested $1.801 billion for security, construction and maintenance for fiscal 2012; House Republicans countered with a proposal to cut spending to $1.425 billion. The House agreed to increase it to $1.537 billion after negotiations with the Senate."
There was no evidence that this embassy was more at risk than any other that should could have cut funding from, to add there.  And given that the GOP cut the budget, what did you expect to happen?
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/250237-gop-embassy-security-cuts-draw-democrats-scrutiny

[forummm]

Perhaps not.  It would be difficult for me to separate his directly managed deals with those that are managed by others in his name.  I don't agree that it alters my point materially, though.  He gets those deals because of his "brand", and his brand is that he is good at what he does, however you wish to frame what that is.  You can say that is all marketing, but I'd say that there is a lot more too it, and even if not, marketing is how a campaign is won. This sub-thread started because you made the point that he isn't as good at business as he appears, because he has had failures.  I disagree that his failure rate is particularly notable, or otherwise poor.  I think that whatever Trump actually does for these other companies, he is good at whatever that actually is.

The discussion was whether his amazing management and deal making would be an asset in trade negotiations. Since he doesn't have amazing management skills, the answer is no. Marketing yourself as great doesn't mean you are great. Marketing skills aren't great deal making skills. He may be very good at getting elected. But governing effectively is an entirely different skill set. It's helpful if the president is a good communicator. But I don't think he's that effective at that either. His only message is that he's super awesome, and that other people suck, and certain groups (like Muslims and Mexicans) are terrible. There are a lot of complex policy issues that he doesn't begin to understand, let alone have a good position on, let alone articulate that position effectively.

[forummm]

And why would it make any sense for the Secretary of State to read all the requisitions that come through the Department? That would be an insanely terrible waste of their time. As a leader of a huge organization you need to focus on the big picture--not all the requests for staplers and SUVs.

[MoonShadow]

And why would it make any sense for the Secretary of State to read all the requisitions that come through the Department? That would be an insanely terrible waste of their time. As a leader of a huge organization you need to focus on the big picture--not all the requests for staplers and SUVs.

I do believe the question was why MoonShadow thought that Beng(h)azi was the defining crisis for Hillary Clinton.  Not why Forummm doesn't understand.  Forummm's opinion doesn't matter to MoonShadow's response, or for that matter, to MoonShadow.  If Forummm doesn't understand the concept that a leader is responsible for how her organization anticipates, prepares for, or responds to crisis; then it's doubtful that there is anything more that MoonShadow could say about the topic to help Forummm understand.  Perhaps MoonShadow has come to believe that such concepts are actually beyond Forummm, and not worth discussing with Forummm at all.

[MoonShadow]

The discussion was whether his amazing management and deal making would be an asset in trade negotiations. Since he doesn't have amazing management skills, the answer is no. Marketing yourself as great doesn't mean you are great. Marketing skills aren't great deal making skills. He may be very good at getting elected. But governing effectively is an entirely different skill set. It's helpful if the president is a good communicator. But I don't think he's that effective at that either. His only message is that he's super awesome, and that other people suck, and certain groups (like Muslims and Mexicans) are terrible. There are a lot of complex policy issues that he doesn't begin to understand, let alone have a good position on, let alone articulate that position effectively.

He will get his opportunity to be tested.

[thd7t]

And why would it make any sense for the Secretary of State to read all the requisitions that come through the Department? That would be an insanely terrible waste of their time. As a leader of a huge organization you need to focus on the big picture--not all the requests for staplers and SUVs.

I do believe the question was why MoonShadow thought that Beng(h)azi was the defining crisis for Hillary Clinton.  Not why Forummm doesn't understand.  Forummm's opinion doesn't matter to MoonShadow's response, or for that matter, to MoonShadow.  If Forummm doesn't understand the concept that a leader is responsible for how her organization anticipates, prepares for, or responds to crisis; then it's doubtful that there is anything more that MoonShadow could say about the topic to help Forummm understand.  Perhaps MoonShadow has come to believe that such concepts are actually beyond Forummm, and not worth discussing with Forummm at all.

I guess that part of the reason that I don't see Benghazi as the defining crisis of Clinton's tenure as SoS is that there's still too much popular misinformation about it. For example, you mentioned that she was asleep when it occurred. The event happened at 9:30 pm Libya time. That was 3:30 in the afternoon on the East coast. Clinton made a statement about it, that evening.

[MoonShadow]

And why would it make any sense for the Secretary of State to read all the requisitions that come through the Department? That would be an insanely terrible waste of their time. As a leader of a huge organization you need to focus on the big picture--not all the requests for staplers and SUVs.

I do believe the question was why MoonShadow thought that Beng(h)azi was the defining crisis for Hillary Clinton.  Not why Forummm doesn't understand.  Forummm's opinion doesn't matter to MoonShadow's response, or for that matter, to MoonShadow.  If Forummm doesn't understand the concept that a leader is responsible for how her organization anticipates, prepares for, or responds to crisis; then it's doubtful that there is anything more that MoonShadow could say about the topic to help Forummm understand.  Perhaps MoonShadow has come to believe that such concepts are actually beyond Forummm, and not worth discussing with Forummm at all.

I guess that part of the reason that I don't see Benghazi as the defining crisis of Clinton's tenure as SoS is that there's still too much popular misinformation about it. For example, you mentioned that she was asleep when it occurred. The event happened at 9:30 pm Libya time. That was 3:30 in the afternoon on the East coast. Clinton made a statement about it, that evening.

Is that so?  Well, I can be wrong occasionally.  On the smaller points.

[thd7t]

And why would it make any sense for the Secretary of State to read all the requisitions that come through the Department? That would be an insanely terrible waste of their time. As a leader of a huge organization you need to focus on the big picture--not all the requests for staplers and SUVs.

I do believe the question was why MoonShadow thought that Beng(h)azi was the defining crisis for Hillary Clinton.  Not why Forummm doesn't understand.  Forummm's opinion doesn't matter to MoonShadow's response, or for that matter, to MoonShadow.  If Forummm doesn't understand the concept that a leader is responsible for how her organization anticipates, prepares for, or responds to crisis; then it's doubtful that there is anything more that MoonShadow could say about the topic to help Forummm understand.  Perhaps MoonShadow has come to believe that such concepts are actually beyond Forummm, and not worth discussing with Forummm at all.

I guess that part of the reason that I don't see Benghazi as the defining crisis of Clinton's tenure as SoS is that there's still too much popular misinformation about it. For example, you mentioned that she was asleep when it occurred. The event happened at 9:30 pm Libya time. That was 3:30 in the afternoon on the East coast. Clinton made a statement about it, that evening.

Is that so?  Well, I can be wrong occasionally.  On the smaller points.

Have you checked your other points?
Republicans were the ones who denied security funding for embassies,. Regarding the "stand down" order, 6 investigations have shown it to be fiction (even though Michael Bay put it in a movie).
The only argument that you made that has merit is the video one.

[Cyaphas]

Have you checked your other points?
Republicans were the ones who denied security funding for embassies,. Regarding the "stand down" order, 6 investigations have shown it to be fiction (even though Michael Bay put it in a movie).
The only argument that you made that has merit is the video one.

People can argue details all they want. Those details don't resurrect the dead. They don't change who is responsible or accountable. Those men were left out there all alone and there is no excuse for it. We had resources in place to try to save them and we didn't even do that. I hate both Trump and Clinton, but this, in any administration, is beyond unacceptable.

[MoonShadow]

Have you checked your other points?

After you pointed out my error on #3, I did in fact check the others.  I was incorrect on #3, only because I stated she was already asleep.  The actual accusation is that she went home and went to sleep.  She denies it, and that is a rational denial without further evidence.  But I stand by the other points.  Fact check.org (http://www.factcheck.org/2016/04/trump-on-clintons-3-a-m-call/) says that Clinton states that Obama ordered

do whatever was necessary to support our people in Libya” and to mobilize “all possible resources,”

  That seems credible as well, because it's what I would expect of a president whose ambassador was in jeopardy of life.  Regardless, those resources didn't arrive, on time or at all.  That was still Clinton's agency, even though she didn't make the decision herself at all.  The Repubs will hang that one right around her neck come the general campaign, and I don't blame them.

Republicans were the ones who denied security funding for embassies,

This is a red herring.  I haven't even looked at this bill, but I personally know it's bullshit.  Maybe it was funding for a security system or civilian security guards, but the real security for all our foreign embassies are provided by the United States Marine Corps, and Secretary Clinton could have had just as much of that as she had damn well saw fit.  I did not serve in the Embassy guard myself, but I had my encounters with them, and they were not some traditional show of pomp & circumstance like the palace guards in front of Buckingham Palace, (yes, I know that is not all show either) these boys could bring down the hurt while wearing full dress blues.  In fact, the very fact that the actual ambassador was in the annex with only two marines (IIRC) tells me right away that they were up to something "off book" that we will never learn about.

. Regarding the "stand down" order, 6 investigations have shown it to be fiction (even though Michael Bay put it in a movie).

Like I said above, I can accept that Obama did give the go order, but that didn't get to where it needed to get to in any acceptable period of time.  As SoS, that is most definitely on Clinton.

The only argument that you made that has merit is the video one.

And the video claim isn't even my biggest issue with her performance during a crisis, as I have mentioned.  The video was just an attempt to deflect the blame, and maybe turn attention from "What the hell was Ambassador Stevens doing in that annex with only two marines as guards in a hostile nation?"  Although the Repubs are going to hang that one around her neck as well.  My greatest complaint with Clinton is that I don't believe that she would perform well during a crisis as commander and chief, and the outcomes of Benghazi don't alleviate those concerns.  I don't blame her for contacting the White House, if Obama was quickly available, but why didn't she have a protocol in effect if an ambassador was under threat of life?  It's not like that would have been the first time something similar has happened.  I'm not even sure the murder of Ambassador Stevens could quite be called a black swan, as the protection of our foreign diplomats is one of the core missions of the office of SoS.

[nereo]

No, of course not.  But she was the one person most directly in command over ambassadors & embassies.  Again, Bengazi is the defining crisis, not the decisions debated at length before choosing war over peace.  You can spin all you like, but it is true.

Why do you think Benghazi is so defining for Clinton?

Primarily due to four facts that we now know are true.

1) Ambassador Stevens had previously requested additional security, on several occasions, for whatever real operations they had going on at the embassy annex.  His pleas were ignored.  We don't know why, but Hillary has stated that she doesn't read every requisition request personally.  I believe that, but the idea that she didn't read them from the ambassador in the greatest hotspot during her career is either bullshit or incompetence, I don't care which.

2) During the ongoing siege of the annex, for which the regional defense command structure was aware of, the special forces that were on standby were told to "stand down" and wait for orders.  Those orders, if they ever arrived, were too late to matter.

3) Hillary Clinton was asleep during the siege.  (I presume because her assistants had standing orders not to disturb Secretary Clinton) So we know that if orders ever arrived, they didn't come from her.  I could better accept it all if she had actually decided that the life of 4 Americans in the foreign service was not worth risking the lives of a platoon of special forces, because whether I agreed with the decision, it would still be a command perspective I could respect.  Of course, if this is what actually happened, I'd still expect her to own the results.

4) Clinton was a major proponent of the "it was the video" theory, which we now know was bullshit, and that they knew it was bullshit when they promoted it.

I think this all speaks a great deal to how Hillary Clinton would act during a crisis, and I don't like what it is saying.  If you don't think that it's a big deal, just wait till after the Democratic nomination, and see what the new ads have to say about it.

Your points above (which we'll get to in a minute) still don't address the question I was getting at, so I will rephrase:  what makes the attack on Benghazi so important in an historical sense.  I certainly don't think the attack is nearly as important as the raid that killed Bin Laden. It also doesn't stand out as particularly unusual  (which is a sad statement to make).  A quick check on wikipedia shows there have been at least a dozen attacks with fatalities since 9/11.

As for the points you raised, here are my responses:
1) Gin1984 covered this some, but it appears some funding requests were accepted, some rejected. That didn't cause the attack, nor does it seem unusual.  Every general wants more solders, every researcher wants more funding and every student wants more hours with fewer students.  This does not seem unusual or even blame-worthy to me.

2) The supposed "stand-down" order was brought up during her testimony in front of congress by Rep. Darrel Isaa, and perpetuated by Hollywood.  But it's been debunked.  From the WaPo:
both a report by Republicans on the Armed Services Committee and a bipartisan Senate Intelligence report had found that no allegations of a “stand down” order could be substantiated. Moreover, DOD assets were certainly moved per Panetta’s orders  The response may have been slow and ineffective, but it wasn't because of a "stand-down" order.

3) The idea that Clinton was "asleep" during the siege is absurd.  First, the attacks began at 9:40 time in Benghazi, which was 3:40 in the afternoon, and she was in her office in Washington DC.  She spoke to President Obama a few hours later and made a public statement at 10pm (eastern) and sent out several emails before midnight.  She was certainly an astonishingly productive "asleep" person.  It's odd that Trump keeps saying she was "asleep" when the phone rang at 3am; he's 12 hours off in his timeline.  Furthermore, the SoS, located thousands of miles away, is not the person who coordinates responses to immediate threats on US embassies.

4) Her initial response to the attacks and the video are certainly areas where she should be rightly criticized.  She should have said "we know there's been an attack, and we will spend the next several weeks conducting a thorough and transparent investigation."  Instead they jumped into a political fray and pushed unsupported theories and suggested a narrative which turned out to be false, and she should be roundly criticized for that. But it didn't change what happened one iota, nor would a different response from her have saved any lives.

[Northwestie]

Can you say LANDSLIDE

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-has-a-20-percent-chance-of-becoming-president/

[Glenstache]

Can you say LANDSLIDE

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-has-a-20-percent-chance-of-becoming-president/

20% is too high a chance of him becoming the County Coroner. But yes, a landslide against Trump would be fantastic, and will only happen if people don't get turned off by the election in general and actually show up to vote.

[thd7t]

Can you say LANDSLIDE

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-has-a-20-percent-chance-of-becoming-president/

You should look at Silver's data a little more. He isn't saying it's likely to be a landslide (he puts that at 16.8%). He's projecting probability of a Clinton win.

[nereo]

Can you say LANDSLIDE

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-has-a-20-percent-chance-of-becoming-president/

The chance that someone will win a presidency is different than the likelihood that it will be in a landslide.
The election is also over 4 months away.  Ample time for either candidate to screw up their own chances or increase their support among the voting electorate.

[Northwestie]

I'll take a $10k bet on Clinton - any takers?

[nereo]

I'll take a $10k bet on Clinton - any takers?

Sorry to be a buzz kill, but pretty sure betting in an online forum hosted in the US is both illegal and almost impossible to collect on.  The amount you are suggesting probably makes it a felony if anyone actually took it seriously.

[Northwestie]

I'll take that as a No -- I'm not confident of the guy with orange hair.  Let's circle back to this on November 5th.

[nereo]

I'll take that as a No -- I'm not confident of the guy with orange hair.  Let's circle back to this on November 5th.

Personally, I'm predicting that Clinton will win in November, and I think she will get at least 291 electorial votes.
That doesn't mean that the article you linked predicts a "landslide" (it doesn't) nor that you should be betting random strangers on the internet $10k over an outcome (don't).

[nereo]

Here's something I've found particularly troubling about Trump and his promises to charity:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-promised-millions-to-charity-we-found-less-than-10000-over-7-years/2016/06/28/cbab5d1a-37dd-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html

One case in point was the promise, made in the promotion of “The Art of the Deal,” that Trump would give royalties “to the homeless, to Vietnam veterans, for AIDS, multiple sclerosis.” From 1987 to 1991, Trump gave away $1.9 million of his money through the Donald J. Trump Foundation.

He gave $101,000 to veterans, according to a Post analysis of tax records from that time.
He gave $26,000 to the homeless.
He gave $12,450 to AIDS charities.
He gave $4,250 to multiple-sclerosis research.

The amount for those categories was $143,700, or nearly 8 percent of the total.

Much of the rest went to charities tied to Trump’s life: society galas, his high school, his college, a foundation for indigent real estate brokers. The School of American Ballet, where Ivanka Trump studied from 1989 to 1991, got $16,750.
A private school that educated Trump’s son Eric got $40,000 — more than the homeless and AIDS contributions combined.

When asked, the Trump campaign maintains that Trump gives large amounts to charity but that those are given in private and kept secret.

In other words.... just trust him, and asking for proof of his claims is very unfair to him.

[Midwest]

Here's something I've found particularly troubling about Trump and his promises to charity:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-promised-millions-to-charity-we-found-less-than-10000-over-7-years/2016/06/28/cbab5d1a-37dd-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html

One case in point was the promise, made in the promotion of “The Art of the Deal,” that Trump would give royalties “to the homeless, to Vietnam veterans, for AIDS, multiple sclerosis.” From 1987 to 1991, Trump gave away $1.9 million of his money through the Donald J. Trump Foundation.

He gave $101,000 to veterans, according to a Post analysis of tax records from that time.
He gave $26,000 to the homeless.
He gave $12,450 to AIDS charities.
He gave $4,250 to multiple-sclerosis research.

The amount for those categories was $143,700, or nearly 8 percent of the total.

Much of the rest went to charities tied to Trump’s life: society galas, his high school, his college, a foundation for indigent real estate brokers. The School of American Ballet, where Ivanka Trump studied from 1989 to 1991, got $16,750.
A private school that educated Trump’s son Eric got $40,000 — more than the homeless and AIDS contributions combined.

When asked, the Trump campaign maintains that Trump gives large amounts to charity but that those are given in private and kept secret.

In other words.... just trust him, and asking for proof of his claims is very unfair to him.

Trumps a buffoon, but criticizing him for the "just trust me" line is kind of ironic given his opponent.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/hillary-trust-me-guys-i-got-this/387418/

My hope republican revolt followed by Clinton indictment gets rid of both of these candidates (probably completely unrealistic, but I can dream).

[nereo]

Trumps a buffoon, but criticizing him for the "just trust me" line is kind of ironic given his opponent.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/hillary-trust-me-guys-i-got-this/387418/

My hope republican revolt followed by Clinton indictment gets rid of both of these candidates (probably completely unrealistic, but I can dream).

I wouldn't say it's ironic at all, but an indication that both candidates want the press to simply trust what they are saying at face value.
Where I see differences in these two examples is that Trump frequently brags about how much money he's been giving to various charities, and then he fumes when members of the press ask him how much, to whom and when. He's trying to score points for being a great and model citizen while not backing up his claims.

In contrast, Clinton isn't bragging about her emailing practice, she just wants people to 'get over it' and trust that she did nothing nefarious against her country.  It's still wrong, and Clinton has often stumbled when in front of the press.  It's a big weakness for her as a candidate.

What's interesting in comparing these two issues is that a failure to turn up evidence of charity donations calls into question all of Trump's claims to be giving millions to charity, whereas Clinton has already shown (and later fessed up to) that she skirted regulations, and a failure to find nefarious emails doesn't make the situation worse for her.

[Midwest]

I'll agree with you that Trump is bragging and Clinton is covering.

Of course Clinton wants us to get over it.  If there were a criminal investigation involving me, I'd want it over to.  With regard to her fessing up, any fessing up has been done kicking and screaming.  Meanwhile, she won't even acknowledge the FBI investigation is criminal. 

I'm not sure either of these 2 is fit for office.

[nereo]

Newt Gingrich is said to be one of two* leading candidates for Trump's VP pick.
If this shall come to pass, we shall spend the next four months hearing Gingrich and the Clintons attack each other over marital affairs (both sides) and charges of corruption (both sides)

Why, oh god, why are we doing this again??!  Does no one remember the 90s?? Maybe for good fun we can just shut down the government yet again.

*Christie is said to be the other top pick. So.... no charges of corruption there (sarcasm)

[golden1]

Newt is abrasive at best, and all Hillary has to do to torch Christie is show videos of him tearing down trump during the debates and early campaign as well as the look of terror and shame when he endorsed Trump. 

The GOP convention is going to be a horror show of epic proportions.   The DNC has potential if Bernie's recent oped in the NYT is any indication.   

[MDM]

Can you say LANDSLIDE

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-has-a-20-percent-chance-of-becoming-president/

Moving from land to sea, the tide has turned: White House Watch - Rasmussen Reports™.  At least for this poll this week...:

After trailing Hillary Clinton by five points for the prior two weeks, Donald Trump has now taken a four-point lead.

[nereo]

Can you say LANDSLIDE

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-has-a-20-percent-chance-of-becoming-president/

Moving from land to sea, the tide has turned: White House Watch - Rasmussen Reports™.  At least for this poll this week...:

After trailing Hillary Clinton by five points for the prior two weeks, Donald Trump has now taken a four-point lead.

It is interesting that the Rasmussen Report has shown a 9 point swing in their poll since June 23rd.
Also interesting that 6/7 of the polls released on June 30th show Clinton with an edge (one of those is within the margin of error, so statistically a tie).
Perhaps even more relevant, Clinton holds a slight edge in polls released for voters in the battle-ground states of Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Ohio.  Trump needs to win at least half of those or his chances are toast.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

[Northwestie]

Going down-in-flames.   After the Romney debacle, really?  This is the best the GOP could put forward?

[MDM]

This is the best the GOP could put forward?

A good question, unfortunately apt for the Democrats also.

[HBFIRE]

Trump has already changed the rules of this campaign, and when he wins he will have made those new rules & methods the standard for the next 30 years. 

So if you're this confident Trump is going to win, I presume you have money at stake on his victory?  A lot of money to be made since he is currently the overwhelming underdog. 

Clinton is going to win this in a landslide.

[infogoon]

Wasn't Rasmussen the polling company that predicted a significant win for Governor Romney last time around?

I hope we get another Karl-Rove-stomping-around-in-disbelief moment this year. That was tied with Joe Biden's effortless beatdown of Paul Ryan in the VP debate for my favorite political moments of 2012.

[HBFIRE]

Wasn't Rasmussen the polling company that predicted a significant win for Governor Romney last time around?

I hope we get another Karl-Rove-stomping-around-in-disbelief moment this year. That was tied with Joe Biden's effortless beatdown of Paul Ryan in the VP debate for my favorite political moments of 2012.

I trust bookies odds more than polls.  Whenever $ is involved, accuracy tends to be pretty uncanny.

[Northwestie]

Trump has already changed the rules of this campaign, and when he wins he will have made those new rules & methods the standard for the next 30 years. 

So if you're this confident Trump is going to win, I presume you have money at stake on his victory?  A lot of money to be made since he is currently the overwhelming underdog. 

Clinton is going to win this in a landslide.

Trump is going down in flames.  His followup to his Clinton-Star of David - Money pile tweet will be quotes from Joseph Gobbels.  Can't wait for Don King's speech at the GOP convention.  Gonna have to get the extra big popcorn for this epic fail

[golden1]

Yes, I am having a hard time especially now that Clinton has cleared the indictment hurdle seeing a path to victory for Trump.  My two biggest concerns were the indictment and a terrorist attack.  He failed in his response on Orlando and let the Dems successfully frame it as a gun control issue instead of a terrorist issue (it was both).  Her campaign has also successfully framed him as a lunatic sexist and racist (he made that way too easy).  Now Clinton has clear sailing through the convention with 90% of the dems and 30% of the Republicans supporting her.  Hell, even George Will is going to vote for her.  Ryan keeps having to disavow his party's own nominee.  I never thought I'd see the day. She is polling ahead in the vast majority of battleground states.  Sanders has become a non-issue as well. 

I mean, I suppose anything is possible, particularly in this election, but Trump has had every opportunity and keeps blowing it.   Unless something changes dramatically, I just don't see a win for Trump.  If he did somehow pull it off, it would be astonishing. 

[Northwestie]

Oh, he never had a chance unless the Dems somehow nominated Michael Dukakis again.  Given the post-mortem done on the Romney nosedive one would think that the GOP would try and steer the Titanic.  Instead, we not only get rearrangement of the deck chairs, there isn't even a course correction after the iceberg is sighted.   What a glorious implosion. 

And what will the GOP do once Clinton is president?  What they have been doing the past 7 years  - obstruction and about 63 separate votes for appealing O-care.  You can't make this stuff up.

[nereo]

Oh, he never had a chance unless the Dems somehow nominated Michael Dukakis again.  Given the post-mortem done on the Romney nosedive one would think that the GOP would try and steer the Titanic.  Instead, we not only get rearrangement of the deck chairs, there isn't even a course correction after the iceberg is sighted.   What a glorious implosion. 

And what will the GOP do once Clinton is president?  What they have been doing the past 7 years  - obstruction and about 63 separate votes for appealing O-care.  You can't make this stuff up.

I actually looked that up because I assumed it was hyperbole, but nope - it seems that there has been at least 62 votes to repeal the ACA, all of which have failed.

Ironically both parties have taken measures in an attempt to prevent an outside candidate who doesn't share the party's ideals from driving the titanic (as you put it).  The democrats have super-delegates and the republicans have many "winner-take-all/winner-take-most" awarding of delegates.  Unfortunately for the GOP, no one thought through what would happen if the candidate the party didn't want got into the wheelhouse and effectively locked everyone else out.  The #neverTrump movement is trying to retroactively take control away from the bridge, but the ship's already full steam toward that iceberg and it may already be too late to take evasive action.  Time to start building an even bigger ship?
(was that pushing the analogy too far?)

[Northwestie]

I would agree that Clinton has lawyer baggage and is to clever by half.   BUT - she has a working brain and knows how government works -- Trump?  Figgin' self-absorbed ego maniac with no sense of the world.  Another clown who inherited money and position and thinks that he built up an empire. Race-baiter, misogynist, xenophobic, dumb-as-a-fern dumb.   No comparison.

[ransom132]

As much as I dislike Hilary, I find Drumpf worse...I mean we all know what to expect with Hilary whether its good or bad, but with Drumpf,one day he says one thing and the next day he says the complete opposite. What is worse is that he creates these so called facts based off what he heard someone tell him or what he read on the internet....I mean c'mon, you are running for president and you base facts on stuff "you heard". It is is sad for the American people that the country that produced presidents like Washington,Lincoln, Eisenhower, etc... has now these two candidates to represent the country.

[Glenstache]

As much as I dislike Hilary, I find Drumpf worse...I mean we all know what to expect with Hilary whether its good or bad, but with Drumpf,one day he says one thing and the next day he says the complete opposite. What is worse is that he creates these so called facts based off what he heard someone tell him or what he read on the internet....I mean c'mon, you are running for president and you base facts on stuff "you heard". It is is sad for the American people that the country that produced presidents like Washington,Lincoln, Eisenhower, etc... has now these two candidates to represent the country.

I think this gives him too much credit. He says what he needs to to achieve a goal in that moment without regard for truth. He is a bullshitter, through and through.

[music lover]

The fix was in and Clinton has now been cleared by the FBI. No one is surprised...the US political system is a steaming mass of corruption led by the Clintons. A few days ago FBI's Loretta Lynch met Bill Clinton privately, which is a huge conflict of interest. Today Hillary was cleared by the FBI. Is anyone really surprised? They are so arrogant that they don't even try to hide the corruption anymore.

[Glenstache]

The fix was in and Clinton has now been cleared by the FBI. No one is surprised...the US political system is a steaming mass of corruption led by the Clintons. A few days ago FBI's Loretta Lynch met Bill Clinton privately, which is a huge conflict of interest. Today Hillary was cleared by the FBI. Is anyone really surprised? They are so arrogant that they don't even try to hide the corruption anymore.

What result (if any) would have convinced you that Clinton should not have been recommended for prosecution?

[nereo]

As much as I dislike Hilary, I find Drumpf worse...I mean we all know what to expect with Hilary whether its good or bad, but with Drumpf,one day he says one thing and the next day he says the complete opposite. What is worse is that he creates these so called facts based off what he heard someone tell him or what he read on the internet....I mean c'mon, you are running for president and you base facts on stuff "you heard". It is is sad for the American people that the country that produced presidents like Washington,Lincoln, Eisenhower, etc... has now these two candidates to represent the country.

The longer I watch Trumps campaign the more convinced I am that this is a very deliberate strategy of his.  By saying things like "a lot of people are saying this" or "there's a lot going on we don't know about" he's able to appease segments of the population that want to believe these things (which is in itself the worst kind of confirmation bias - believing in easily disproven 'facts' because they support your opinion and beliefs.  Then Trump gets to walk this line saying "well I'm not saying this, but a lot of people are, a LOT of people are."  People who make a habit of fact-checking statements made by politicians see it as crap.  But for those people who believe these things, well, an easy way to win the support of someone is to appear to validate their beliefs and opinions.  It works even better when that person is someone who feels like they have been mistreated, ridiculed or ignored by society at large.
To an extent all successful politicians try to connect this way, but Trump has taken it to a level typically only seen in groups catering to extremists.

also:  interesting that you chose Eisenhower along with Washington and Lincoln.  It's not often he makes the top 3 of 'greatest presidents'.

[Northwestie]

The fix was in and Clinton has now been cleared by the FBI. No one is surprised...the US political system is a steaming mass of corruption led by the Clintons. A few days ago FBI's Loretta Lynch met Bill Clinton privately, which is a huge conflict of interest. Today Hillary was cleared by the FBI. Is anyone really surprised? They are so arrogant that they don't even try to hide the corruption anymore.

Whoot, whoot!  Last call for the continual Clinton conspiracy train.  All aboard.

[Northwestie]

As much as I dislike Hilary, I find Drumpf worse...I mean we all know what to expect with Hilary whether its good or bad, but with Drumpf,one day he says one thing and the next day he says the complete opposite. What is worse is that he creates these so called facts based off what he heard someone tell him or what he read on the internet....I mean c'mon, you are running for president and you base facts on stuff "you heard". It is is sad for the American people that the country that produced presidents like Washington,Lincoln, Eisenhower, etc... has now these two candidates to represent the country.

This, unfortunately, is the best it seems the GOP can offer.

[nereo]

The fix was in and Clinton has now been cleared by the FBI. No one is surprised...the US political system is a steaming mass of corruption led by the Clintons. A few days ago FBI's Loretta Lynch met Bill Clinton privately, which is a huge conflict of interest. Today Hillary was cleared by the FBI. Is anyone really surprised? They are so arrogant that they don't even try to hide the corruption anymore.

It seemed a pretty strong rebuke to me, and one that certainly will do some damage to Clinton's campaign. The FBI has called her and her team "extremely careless."  Worse, the investigation revealed that there were at least 52 email threads that contained classified information at the time they were sent.
Sure, some people who were hoping she'd get the death-penalty for high treason will be disappointed, but that was a pretty damning 15 minute news conference.

[Northwestie]

As much as I dislike Hilary, I find Drumpf worse...I mean we all know what to expect with Hilary whether its good or bad, but with Drumpf,one day he says one thing and the next day he says the complete opposite. What is worse is that he creates these so called facts based off what he heard someone tell him or what he read on the internet....I mean c'mon, you are running for president and you base facts on stuff "you heard". It is is sad for the American people that the country that produced presidents like Washington,Lincoln, Eisenhower, etc... has now these two candidates to represent the country.

The longer I watch Trumps campaign the more convinced I am that this is a very deliberate strategy of his.  By saying things like "a lot of people are saying this" or "there's a lot going on we don't know about" he's able to appease segments of the population that want to believe these things (which is in itself the worst kind of confirmation bias - believing in easily disproven 'facts' because they support your opinion and beliefs.  Then Trump gets to walk this line saying "well I'm not saying this, but a lot of people are, a LOT of people are."  People who make a habit of fact-checking statements made by politicians see it as crap.  But for those people who believe these things, well, an easy way to win the support of someone is to appear to validate their beliefs and opinions.  It works even better when that person is someone who feels like they have been mistreated, ridiculed or ignored by society at large.
To an extent all successful politicians try to connect this way, but Trump has taken it to a level typically only seen in groups catering to extremists.

Oh dear.  This may say more about the general population than it does about Trump.

[randymarsh]

The fix was in and Clinton has now been cleared by the FBI. No one is surprised...the US political system is a steaming mass of corruption led by the Clintons. A few days ago FBI's Loretta Lynch met Bill Clinton privately, which is a huge conflict of interest. Today Hillary was cleared by the FBI. Is anyone really surprised? They are so arrogant that they don't even try to hide the corruption anymore.

What result (if any) would have convinced you that Clinton should not have been recommended for prosecution?

Can't speak for musiclover, but for many people their mind was already made up and nothing can change it. Just like the Obama birth certificate.

I haven't read much about the email thing so I don't have a fully informed opinion, but I did read she asked for email on her Blackberry and the NSA said no and wouldn't provide a more secure phone. Then she set up the private email server. I don't know if that was the main reason, but it seems plausible.

This is called "shadow IT". Employees in a company set up their own tech stuff that hasn't been approved by IT or management. Usually they do this because whatever tool they're using helps them do their job and they feel like the in house IT takes too long or never comes through. They don't realize the security or other negative consequences (I do think Clinton should be held to a higher standard than the typical office worker).

Don't get me wrong, it's completely possible Clinton set this up to hide stuff and be shady. But it also is completely possible she just wanted to do her job in a more convenient way. Intent appears to be an important distinction for the crime(s) she's been accused of and it might not be there.

[nereo]

As much as I dislike Hilary, I find Drumpf worse...I mean we all know what to expect with Hilary whether its good or bad, but with Drumpf,one day he says one thing and the next day he says the complete opposite. What is worse is that he creates these so called facts based off what he heard someone tell him or what he read on the internet....I mean c'mon, you are running for president and you base facts on stuff "you heard". It is is sad for the American people that the country that produced presidents like Washington,Lincoln, Eisenhower, etc... has now these two candidates to represent the country.

The longer I watch Trumps campaign the more convinced I am that this is a very deliberate strategy of his.  By saying things like "a lot of people are saying this" or "there's a lot going on we don't know about" he's able to appease segments of the population that want to believe these things (which is in itself the worst kind of confirmation bias - believing in easily disproven 'facts' because they support your opinion and beliefs.  Then Trump gets to walk this line saying "well I'm not saying this, but a lot of people are, a LOT of people are."  People who make a habit of fact-checking statements made by politicians see it as crap.  But for those people who believe these things, well, an easy way to win the support of someone is to appear to validate their beliefs and opinions.  It works even better when that person is someone who feels like they have been mistreated, ridiculed or ignored by society at large.
To an extent all successful politicians try to connect this way, but Trump has taken it to a level typically only seen in groups catering to extremists.

Oh dear.  This may say more about the general population than it does about Trump.

...more than that, it's basic psychology.  It's why "good-cop/bad-cop" is such an effective interrogation tool; when people feel like one person is being disrespectful or even hostile towards them they'll naturally respond to the person who says nice things to them.
People want to be told they're right, even when they aren't.  Most people seek certain facts to back up their arguments (confirmation bias), instead of examining all the data to test whether their own argument still holds water.