Trump Voters.... why?

[boy_bye]

Is this what Donald is talking about?

[Kris]

What about if, after the election, Trump supporters who say they voted for him because they are evangelical Christians take up arms and intimidate, wound, or even kill people they perceive as being part of the "rigged" system? I would personally call them Christian terrorists.

If a small number of them committed violent acts here in the name of "Christianity," the vast majority of Christians disapproved and disowned it, and there was another country where fear and hatred of all Christians was being spread, inflammatory rhetoric was being spouted, there was talk of banning all Christians from their country, of deporting the ones there?  I would be against the potential leaders of that country using the phrase "Radical Christian Terrorists" to incite fear and hatred towards all Christians.

Wouldn't you?

Yes, of course. But playing devil's advocate. Because it seems easy for westerners to see "islam" as a monolithic thing, but then to use the "no true Scotsman" argument for Christian terrorists.

[arebelspy]

I love that, madgeylou.  Thanks for sharing it!  :D

[Bicycle_B]

Is this what Donald is talking about?

Ha ha ha ha

[arebelspy]

What about if, after the election, Trump supporters who say they voted for him because they are evangelical Christians take up arms and intimidate, wound, or even kill people they perceive as being part of the "rigged" system? I would personally call them Christian terrorists.

If a small number of them committed violent acts here in the name of "Christianity," the vast majority of Christians disapproved and disowned it, and there was another country where fear and hatred of all Christians was being spread, inflammatory rhetoric was being spouted, there was talk of banning all Christians from their country, of deporting the ones there?  I would be against the potential leaders of that country using the phrase "Radical Christian Terrorists" to incite fear and hatred towards all Christians.

Wouldn't you?

Yes, of course. But playing devil's advocate. Because it seems easy for westerners to see "islam" as a monolithic thing, but then to use the "no true Scotsman" argument for Christian terrorists.

Sure, absolutely.  But we here on the MMM forums are more enlightened, and can be more nuanced than that.  ;)

And thus we can understand why we shouldn't use Radical Islamic Terrorism, rather than something like radical jihadist, because of the both the harm it does to the innocent people being lumped in with it, and the harm done by the fear it creates in those being incited.  :)

[boy_bye]

I love that, madgeylou.  Thanks for sharing it!  :D

I saw that gif years ago and it always runs through my mind when Radical Islam comes up <3

[nereo]

Is this what Donald is talking about?

Absolutely - we simply can't put up with this crap anymore. Radical skateboarding, particularly extreme radical islamic skateboarding will tear our moral fabric apart (or at least their white fabric... how can anyone attempt a 720º in that?)

Well, that should pretty much decide the race (besides all the other things that should have).  Money spent has SUCH a strong correlation to getting elected, it's stupid, and sad.  But that's the country we live in.

Agree, it's sad and stupid, but it's also our system, and ironically the man who's been so good at branding his own name in exchange for money appears to have been woefully outpaced.

[Kris]

What about if, after the election, Trump supporters who say they voted for him because they are evangelical Christians take up arms and intimidate, wound, or even kill people they perceive as being part of the "rigged" system? I would personally call them Christian terrorists.

If a small number of them committed violent acts here in the name of "Christianity," the vast majority of Christians disapproved and disowned it, and there was another country where fear and hatred of all Christians was being spread, inflammatory rhetoric was being spouted, there was talk of banning all Christians from their country, of deporting the ones there?  I would be against the potential leaders of that country using the phrase "Radical Christian Terrorists" to incite fear and hatred towards all Christians.

Wouldn't you?

Yes, of course. But playing devil's advocate. Because it seems easy for westerners to see "islam" as a monolithic thing, but then to use the "no true Scotsman" argument for Christian terrorists.

Sure, absolutely.  But we here on the MMM forums are more enlightened, and can be more nuanced than that.  ;)

And thus we can understand why we shouldn't use Radical Islamic Terrorism, rather than something like radical jihadist, because of the both the harm it does to the innocent people being lumped in with it, and the harm done by the fear it creates in those being incited.  :)

Yes. I very much wish that were true.

[Jrr85]

I support Trump because even with all his faults I do not believe he is tied to our current corrupt government that has been exposed by Wikileaks.  Every so often the chicken coop needs to be cleaned out because of rot.  I think it is about time.  :)

...

I actually get this sentiment.  Part of me even shares it.  However, when I try to list what things bother me about the current political lifers I keep concluding that Trump also shares those same faults -  but often amplified.  Lack of transparency? Check. Sex scandals? Check. A history of violating the law for personal gain? Check. Says blatantly untrue things to generate support of the base? Yup. Tries to divide instead of include? Yes..

Pigpen doesn't seem to be the guy to clean out your coop.

Pigpen isn't teh guy to clean out your coop, but at least people will recognize Pigpen as a problem.  If something unexpected happens and Trump gets elected, we will actually have a legislative and judicial branch interested in checks and balances and separation of powers again.  You'll also have a media suddenly interested in investigative reporting.  He'll actually get impeached if he tries to abuse his power and whether he gets impeached or not, his presidency might actually result in a rolling back (and will at least result in a stalling) of the consistent expansion of executive power that has occurred over the past few decades.

If Hillary gets elected, we get the current corruption continued on a grander scale, and no chance of accountability. 

[Metric Mouse]

Yes. I very much wish that were true.

+1

[dividendman]

Pigpen isn't teh guy to clean out your coop, but at least people will recognize Pigpen as a problem.  If something unexpected happens and Trump gets elected, we will actually have a legislative and judicial branch interested in checks and balances and separation of powers again.  You'll also have a media suddenly interested in investigative reporting.  He'll actually get impeached if he tries to abuse his power and whether he gets impeached or not, his presidency might actually result in a rolling back (and will at least result in a stalling) of the consistent expansion of executive power that has occurred over the past few decades.

If Hillary gets elected, we get the current corruption continued on a grander scale, and no chance of accountability.

Hrm, the bold part is actually a decent reason to want Trump in there that I hadn't considered. I don't believe that the majority of Trump supporters are voting for him to reduce the scope of the Executive branch though. If you REALLY wanted to reduce the scope of the executive branch then electing Ron/Rand Paul would have been the best way for the GOP to go.

I don't agree with your last sentence. I believe the GOP, as they have already stated, will provide as much of a check* on Clinton as they can, especially if they hold the Senate.

* Check is kind of bogus in this case. As we have seen from every Congress in recent history, they are more interested using their investigatory and removal power in political fights to win elections than actually checking the power of the executive or judicial branches. Has any president been impeached for the unauthorized use of force? Illegal/dubious executive actions? (well, Jackson was, but that was 170 years ago)

[nereo]

Pigpen isn't teh guy to clean out your coop, but at least people will recognize Pigpen as a problem.  If something unexpected happens and Trump gets elected, we will actually have a legislative and judicial branch interested in checks and balances and separation of powers again.  You'll also have a media suddenly interested in investigative reporting.  He'll actually get impeached if he tries to abuse his power and whether he gets impeached or not, his presidency might actually result in a rolling back (and will at least result in a stalling) of the consistent expansion of executive power that has occurred over the past few decades.

If Hillary gets elected, we get the current corruption continued on a grander scale, and no chance of accountability.

Hrm, the bold part is actually a decent reason to want Trump in there that I hadn't considered. I don't believe that the majority of Trump supporters are voting for him to reduce the scope of the Executive branch though. If you REALLY wanted to reduce the scope of the executive branch then electing Ron/Rand Paul would have been the best way for the GOP to go.

I don't agree with your last sentence. I believe the GOP, as they have already stated, will provide as much of a check* on Clinton as they can, especially if they hold the Senate.

* Check is kind of bogus in this case. As we have seen from every Congress in recent history, they are more interested using their investigatory and removal power in political fights to win elections than actually checking the power of the executive or judicial branches. Has any president been impeached for the unauthorized use of force? Illegal/dubious executive actions? (well, Jackson was, but that was 170 years ago)

Would it though?  I'm not convinced.  Assuming the GOP retains control of the House (which seems the most likely scenario) I think they'll be far more critical of Clinton than Trump.  He has promised to use executive orders on day 1 to undo all of Obama's executive orders (oh, the irony!!) and start a congressional investigation of Clinton's time as SoS. 
OTOH, GOP house and senate members are already pledging to serve as a "check" against a Clinton administration. One great fear I have going forward is that the gridlock from this election will get worse should Clinton be elected precisely because so many will be dead-set opposed from day 1.

Should Trump prevail and especially if the GOP manages to hold on to a majority of the senate I'd anticipate a rush to pass all the GOP legislation that's been in log-jam for the last 8+ years in a damn-the-consequences fashion. I think in order to placate Trump they'd only ceed even more power to the executive branch just so he keeps signing the bills.

I've never liked it when one party controlls both houses and the white house (either side).

[Glenstache]

Lawsuits don't portend corruption, they are a part of business like it or not.  But to your point he may just as well prove to be another corrupt politician by the end of his term if he is elected.  What I do know from the evidence out there is that the Clinton's are corrupt now with deep tentacles into our current government.  If she is elected the corruption will only deepen and be more difficult to displace down the road.  Again this is just my humble opinion.  You may feel differently which I respect.  It is one of the nice things about presumable living in a democracy which I would like to maintain.

While I agree that many businesses have lawsuits once in a while, I believe that Trump's lawsuits are a strategic business model.  He gets loaded up on debt,  then refuses to pay his suppliers what they are owed, and tells them to go ahead and sue them because that would be more expensive than just taking 70 cents on the dollar.  Then he uses that tax code to claim the phony loss of the debt allowing him to avoid taxes for years.  His Trump university lawsuit is accusing him of fraud - that's clearly corruption.  He often sues people for libel when they say things he doesn't like as an intimidation strategy to keep people silent.  And the accusations of sexual assault are also a character issue.  When you add it all up it sounds like a mafiaso.

I'm still mystified as to why the accusations against the Clinton's about their foundation are such a big deal.  So they got some rich foreigners to invest in a charity that helps people - what's the problem with that?

Don't forget about paying off the FL attorney general (Bondi) using supposedly charitable funds in the Trump U case.

Apparently a bunch of FL newspapers also agree that there is some traction to this:
http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/09/09/florida-newspapers-call-forinvestigation-trump-bondi-connection/212963

[Free_at_50]

I wasn't going to comment again but hey why not.  With all due respect what you indicate are beliefs, not facts.  I don't know the average number of lawsuits a normal corporation deals with each year, the number of vendors paid vs not paid, nor the average tax loss due to depreciation, etc a normal corporation claims each year (which by the way the IRS would thoroughly review) but none of what you describe is illegal if done according to law.  And yes the democratic attorney general of New York has filed a civil fraud charge against Trump University which has yet to be tried so those charges remain to be seen (which by the way I am sure Trump could have settled those claims many many months ago if he wanted to).  What I do know is that the FBI just today reopened their email investigation of Clinton based on new evidence they have found.  And what I know via Wikileaks is that the Clinton's have used their so called charitable foundation to enrich themselves and their donors by helping them out with political favors (i.e. the Swiss company Ericsson being allowed to sell Iran technology during the time there were supposed to be UN sanctions against such activities, Clinton's brother getting the first gold mining contract in Haiti in 50 years).  If you really want to get a sense for the Clinton's just check out the video of the group of American Haitians speaking to Trump last month.  Very eye opening.  None of them seemed to happy with what the Clinton's have done to Haiti in the years since the earthquake struck those poor people.  The only people who made out were the "Friends of Bill" and the Clinton's.  Again it is my opinion that the Clinton's are a criminal organization that has infiltrated all levels of our government based on the evidence coming out from Wikileaks, the project Veritas videos, State Department emails, etc.  When I compare these actions against the Trump activities you mention I see no comparison.  But once again this is a free country and people have the right to believe what they want to believe.  I encourage everyone to do their research and decide for themselves.

[NoStacheOhio]

With all due respect what you indicate are beliefs, not facts.

Something something something pot something something kettle.

A large portion of Trump's statements are 100% fact-free.

[Free_at_50]

What you say may be true but I encourage you to review what is coming out of the sources I refer to in my last post.  It is quite illuminating and I assume most voters have little idea about what is truly going on with the Clinton's.

[NoStacheOhio]

What you say may be true but I encourage you to review what is coming out of the sources I refer to in my last post.  It is quite illuminating and I assume most voters have little idea about what is truly going on with the Clinton's.

I'm not defending Clinton. I'm beyond irritated that any government official feels it's appropriate not to use their .gov email address for official business. Full stop.

That said, Trump just makes up blatant nonsense. He's a bully who doesn't respect the law any more than you're saying Clinton doesn't.

[Free_at_50]

Well its funny you say that because I used to also laugh at a lot of his criticisms as blatant nonsense but the more I read Podesta's emails and other sources the more I realize he is more accurate than even he knew.  The DNC/Clinton campaign paid people to instigate violence at his rallies, at last count I think 16 mainstream members of the press have been shown to be in the bag for Clinton from day one (including going to dinners with members of her team and asking for stories to be reviewed to see if they were good enough), as well as Clinton's desire for open borders, saying she has one position for her donors and another for us little people.  In any normal political cycle she would be done.  It is certainly a testament to how bad a candidate Trump is that he is not winning by a landslide with all these things floating around.  But again in my case if you don't want to proliferate criminal activity our only option is to vote for a solution.  I may be voting for a democrat 4 years from now based on what Trump does if he is elected.  We'll see.

[sol]

This is my new favorite thread on the forum.

[Free_at_50]

Haha mine too.  Funniest thing is I love the House of Cards show and always say that you can't make this stuff up.  Reading the Podesta emails is even better than watching the House of Cards and now I know where they get their material!  That show is done now!  lol

[nereo]

This is my new favorite thread on the forum.

Really?  moreso that then "talking over each other..." thread?

It has been entertaining.

[cube.37]

Fun times

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/fbi-reopens-clinton-email-server-investigation-230454

"The FBI on Friday dropped a bombshell on Hillary Clinton’s campaign less than two weeks before Election Day, with director James Comey telling lawmakers that the agency is reviewing new evidence in its investigation into her use of a private email server as secretary of state."

[nereo]

A year ago I never thought this could seriously happen, but now I wonder if both candidates will find themselves in legal trouble by early next year.
Oy!

[Telecaster]

So how can I say "this is not Islamic terrorism?"

You and I are free to say what we like.  The issue is if it is a good idea for our government to say it.  The answer to that question is clearly no.  It would be foolish and counter productive to do so. 

Imagine if say, the FBI was investigating the Bundy family as part of their campaign against Christian terrorism.   Christians, especially Mormons, of the non-terrorist variety might be concerned that the real target was Christianity. 

So the FBI doesn't do that, the say they are investigating the Bundy family, or the Aryan Nations or whoever.  In the current situation, in order to blunt Islamic terrorism, we need the help of Muslims.  So it does no one any good to make a blanket statement about Islamic terrorism when we are really talking about ISIS or al-Qaeda.   Since blanket statements only hurt what we are trying to do, we don't make them. 

[former player]

So how can I say "this is not Islamic terrorism?"

You and I are free to say what we like.  The issue is if it is a good idea for our government to say it.  The answer to that question is clearly no.  It would be foolish and counter productive to do so. 

Imagine if say, the FBI was investigating the Bundy family as part of their campaign against Christian terrorism.   Christians, especially Mormons, of the non-terrorist variety might be concerned that the real target was Christianity. 

So the FBI doesn't do that, the say they are investigating the Bundy family, or the Aryan Nations or whoever.  In the current situation, in order to blunt Islamic terrorism, we need the help of Muslims.  So it does no one any good to make a blanket statement about Islamic terrorism when we are really talking about ISIS or al-Qaeda.   Since blanket statements only hurt what we are trying to do, we don't make them.

Agree with that.  It's probably best for any US President not to use the "crusade" word either.

[NoStacheOhio]

Well its funny you say that because I used to also laugh at a lot of his criticisms as blatant nonsense but the more I read Podesta's emails and other sources the more I realize he is more accurate than even he knew.  The DNC/Clinton campaign paid people to instigate violence at his rallies, at last count I think 16 mainstream members of the press have been shown to be in the bag for Clinton from day one (including going to dinners with members of her team and asking for stories to be reviewed to see if they were good enough), as well as Clinton's desire for open borders, saying she has one position for her donors and another for us little people.  In any normal political cycle she would be done.  It is certainly a testament to how bad a candidate Trump is that he is not winning by a landslide with all these things floating around.  But again in my case if you don't want to proliferate criminal activity our only option is to vote for a solution.  I may be voting for a democrat 4 years from now based on what Trump does if he is elected.  We'll see.

If you're concerned about not voting for someone who may or may not be indicted in the near future, why vote for Trump?

He has a fraud case and a statutory rape case currently working through the judicial system.

[Free_at_50]

They are both civil cases and the rape case was already thrown out in May of this year when it was filed in California.  It was then refiled in New York.  Hillary on the other hand could be behind bars sooner rather than later given the FBI just reopened the investigation.  My understanding is the only way they would do that is if they found indisputable evidence of wrong doing but we will see.

[NoStacheOhio]

They are both civil cases and the rape case was already thrown out in May of this year when it was filed in California.  It was then refiled in New York.  Hillary on the other hand could be behind bars sooner rather than later given the FBI just reopened the investigation.  My understanding is the only way they would do that is if they found indisputable evidence of wrong doing but we will see.

Judges ruled that both cases could proceed, which is a lot farther than any legal action against Clinton has gone. Trump was also found to be committing housing discrimination in the 70s. He brags about sexual misconduct, then threatens people who agree with him.

The FBI didn't reopen anything. They're looking at new emails they came across while digging through Anthony Weiner's dirty laundry. The letter said there's no information yet, they're simply checking into them. The director was obligated to inform Congress since he testified on the matter under oath, and new they came across new information.

[Free_at_50]

Again thank goodness we live in a free country where each person gets to decide for themselves who to vote for. 

[radram]

Yes and no. Yes because they will then discuss the validity of said idea. No because people have not actually agreed with trump, they simply have reframed what they are debating, taking the attention off of whatever issue they wanted to discuss in favor of Trumps. When was the last time we discussed free college education? at least since the democratic primary and not much toward the end.

Cruz only did so well in the primary because one, he was very analytical about how he could get so far and because he knew how to change the paradigm of the debate, (he was in a debate club in college and pretty good) the problem was trump is just so much better.

You ask why does he say stupid stuff like against the khans which would seem to open himself up to attack? His general strategy I believe is well tuned just he as found he can be a little sloppy and still get the desired result. The Khans went to the DNC and said on national TV they don't like trump, that makes them a fair target, despite being the parents of a fallen soldier. Trump turned it around by having that press conference with angel mothers(I think thats what they're called, their kids killed by illegal immigrants, ehm undocumented) he didn't quite get the press he needed but IIRC HRC camp still said something making itself self like jerks. The other thing is Trump does not want to seem slick and sloppy is the opposite of slick, that's what the elite HRC camp is. Slick is bad for his imagine, he is already a billionaire he does not need that imagine anymore. Starting to get away from my ARS quote quote so that's it for now.

Latest episode of This American Life ("Seriously?") is really interesting. They analyze the basis of the assumptions behind the current hot topics, particularly immigration/the wall. Someone from the Cato Institute (Libertarian, Koch-funded) talked about how illegal immigration is net zero (departures offset new arrivals), and has been since at least 2009.

I heard some of that episode.  Very interesting interview with his own Uncle.  One part I found most interesting was a Rush Limbaugh clip.  In it, Rush said fact checking is merely used to push a liberal agenda.  Not a specific organization that checks facts mind you, but the act of checking facts contains an inherent liberal bias.

you can hear the episode here. 
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/599/seriously
 

[arebelspy]

Again it is my opinion that the Clinton's are a criminal organization that has infiltrated all levels of our government

Wow.

I actively dislike Hillary Clinton; I think she's corrupt and I wouldn't vote for her (I'd vote third party; though I'd vote for her before Trump, I wouldn't vote for either).

But... really?  I mean... REALLY?

[sol]

Again it is my opinion that the Clinton's are a criminal organization that has infiltrated all levels of our government

Wow.
... REALLY?

I called this like ten pages ago, and you thought I was kidding.  Some people genuinely believe Hillary Clinton is a criminal mastermind, because that's what alt-right media has been telling them for decades.  The complete lack of evidence doesn't disprove the assertion, as long as they repeat it often enough.

[Glenstache]

Again it is my opinion that the Clinton's are a criminal organization that has infiltrated all levels of our government

Wow.
... REALLY?

I called this like ten pages ago, and you thought I was kidding.  Some people genuinely believe Hillary Clinton is a criminal mastermind, because that's what alt-right media has been telling them for decades.  The complete lack of evidence doesn't disprove the assertion, as long as they repeat it often enough.

I think Borowitz called this in 2015:
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/scientists-earth-endangered-by-new-strain-of-fact-resistant-humans

[arebelspy]

Again it is my opinion that the Clinton's are a criminal organization that has infiltrated all levels of our government

Wow.
... REALLY?

I called this like ten pages ago, and you thought I was kidding.  Some people genuinely believe Hillary Clinton is a criminal mastermind, because that's what alt-right media has been telling them for decades.  The complete lack of evidence doesn't disprove the assertion, as long as they repeat it often enough.

Yes.  I thought it was absurd then, and still do now.

I just didn't think we'd have someone actually coming on here and saying that.

She's terrible in plenty of ways, but the head of a criminal organization?

What a wonderful world we live in.  :)

[Metric Mouse]

Fun times

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/fbi-reopens-clinton-email-server-investigation-230454

"The FBI on Friday dropped a bombshell on Hillary Clinton’s campaign less than two weeks before Election Day, with director James Comey telling lawmakers that the agency is reviewing new evidence in its investigation into her use of a private email server as secretary of state."

Quite interested to see how this shakes out.  Such an interesting race this year, every bit of dirt is magnified.

[Tyson]

I called this like ten pages ago, and you thought I was kidding.  Some people genuinely believe Hillary Clinton is a criminal mastermind, because that's what alt-right media has been telling them for decades.  The complete lack of evidence doesn't disprove the assertion, as long as they repeat it often enough.

I'm sorry, you are wrong sol.  The complete lack of evidence is actually absolute proof of what an amazing criminal mastermind she is.  I mean, after all, what kind of mastermind leaves evidence lying around?  Hahahaha.

[davisgang90]

This truly is a historic election.  Clinton has been under FBI investigation twice this season.  Glass ceilings breaking everywhere!  #Dickileaks.

[Free_at_50]

Sadly yes that is the conclusion I have come up with.  I believe the Clinton's are corrupt and based on the expansiveness of it you can consider it an organization.  They made it impossible for Bernie to win by controlling the DNC.  They have what appears to be quite a bit of influence over the media.  They were behind sending agitators to Trump's rallies. The attorney general was first brought into politics by Bill and apparently was giving her campaign insights during the "investigation"..  The State Department has been covering.  The FBI sure seemed to be covering but we'll see now that they have found "new" evidence.  Even their own daughter didn't trust what was happening with their foundation and had an independent audit done which indicated conflicts of interest.  Even some of their own campaign people are questioning what is going on.  I'll admit my comment about them being in all levels of government is over reaching so I'll retract that but they sure appear to have their bases covered.  As far as alt right goes I never even heard of that term until they brought it up.  It may be an extreme position but I developed it from reading Podesta's emails.  It's out there if you want to take the time to read them.  Enjoy.

[Kris]

Sadly yes that is the conclusion I have come up with.  I believe the Clinton's are corrupt and based on the expansiveness of it you can consider it an organization.  They made it impossible for Bernie to win by controlling the DNC.  They have what appears to be quite a bit of influence over the media.  They were behind sending agitators to Trump's rallies. The attorney general was first brought into politics by Bill and apparently was giving her campaign insights during the "investigation"..  The State Department has been covering.  The FBI sure seemed to be covering but we'll see now that they have found "new" evidence.  Even their own daughter didn't trust what was happening with their foundation and had an independent audit done which indicated conflicts of interest.  Even some of their own campaign people are questioning what is going on.  I'll admit my comment about them being in all levels of government is over reaching so I'll retract that but they sure appear to have their bases covered.  As far as alt right goes I never even heard of that term until they brought it up.  It may be an extreme position but I developed it from reading Podesta's emails.  It's out there if you want to take the time to read them.  Enjoy.

This is sad. But not for the reasons you probably think it is.

[todthedog]

As an interested Brit.

Do I detect similarities between Mr Trump and Mr Putin?

Mind you if you look at the mess the UK finds itself in who am I to pass comment. 

[nereo]

As an interested Brit.

Do I detect similarities between Mr Trump and Mr Putin?

Mind you if you look at the mess the UK finds itself in who am I to pass comment.

THat's a bit too broad to really answer "yes" or "no".  Certainly Trump and Putin have said favorable things about one another.
What similarities do you see between the two?

[sol]

Do I detect similarities between Mr Trump and Mr Putin?

Putin wins elections, and thus has power.  Trump is still just a reality TV personality with zero political experience or influence.

I believe the Clinton's are corrupt and based on the expansiveness of it you can consider it an organization.

Free_at_50, does this means you're voting for Trump solely because you think Clinton is a criminal?  Does Trump represent any of your values or positions on actual policy issues?  For example, how do you feel about gay marriage, abortion access, free trade, gun control measures, and tax rates?

I ask because the pattern I've observed with some Trump voters is that the whole Clinton conspiracy thing is just a cover for supporting their personal beliefs about issues like these.  They're not thrilled that Trump is such an obviously flawed candidate but they still want to vote for his policy positions, and rather than just come out and say that, they instead try to rationalize Clinton as being a more deeply flawed candidate than Trump is.

If you like Trump's positions on the issues more than Clinton's, then I think it's fine to just come out and say "I'm voting for him because I oppose gun control" or "I'm voting for him because I want to outlaw abortion" or whatever.  That's a rational position.  I think lots of folks are reluctant to do that because Trump has had so much bad publicity for his personal problems that they feel they need to address those as their primary decision criteria, and the only way they can defend those problems is to find worse ones with the opposition.

This election would be a lot simpler if people would just vote for the person who promises to support the policies they want to see enacted.   

[Tyson]

Because Trump is a fascist.  Don't believe me?  Check out this Forbes article (hardly a liberal rag):

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/05/31/yes-a-trump-presidency-would-bring-fascism-to-america/

[MDM]

Because Trump is a fascist.  Don't believe me?  Check out this Forbes article (hardly a liberal rag):

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/05/31/yes-a-trump-presidency-would-bring-fascism-to-america/

As that article concludes (emphasis added),

I am not suggesting that what is happening in the United States replicates in every sense what happened in Italy and Germany. Were a kind of fascism to come to America, it would not look like Italian fascism any more than Italian fascism looked like German fascism.

What I worry about is the moment when Trump, with an angry following that has no allegiance to anyone or anything but him, takes over the extraordinary powers of the American presidency. I worry that at that point our democracy will be in danger in a way that it has not been before. It will be fascism American-style. Or perhaps it will deserve a name of its own. But whatever word one chooses, it will constitute a threat to our democratic institutions.

That threat to the existing power structure seems exactly why many support Trump.  They think "he will likely be better, but at least how could it be any worse?" than what Clinton would bring.

[Free_at_50]

Hi Sol.  There are some policy positions that I agree with republicans on and some I agree with democrats on.  But as others have stated on this chain our laws are handled by Congress so regardless of what the president wants Congress has to make happen.  Based on what I see I feel pretty strongly about stopping the Clinton's from gaining power again even if that means voting for Trump.  Voting for a third party will not stop them.  I am curious to those that think my position is extreme or sad.  Have any of you reviewed the Podesta emails from Wikileaks and if so what do you take from them? 

[nereo]

Hi Sol.  There are some policy positions that I agree with republicans on and some I agree with democrats on.  But as others have stated on this chain our laws are handled by Congress so regardless of what the president wants Congress has to make happen.  Based on what I see I feel pretty strongly about stopping the Clinton's from gaining power again even if that means voting for Trump.  Voting for a third party will not stop them.  I am curious to those that think my position is extreme or sad.  Have any of you reviewed the Podesta emails from Wikileaks and if so what do you take from them?

It wasn't just Sol who jumped when you mentioned you thought Clinton was a criminal mastermind
There is a big difference between political corruption and criminal mastermind, IMO. Conflict of interest is even lighter on the spectrum.  It seems well established that the Clintons have put themselves in positions where they have conflicts of interest (though Trump is certainly wading deep into these waters as well). Accusations of corruption are still that - much as you say accusations of Trump U have yet to be proven.  But the jump to criminal mastermind is so comical to me that I can only chop it up to conspiracy theorists and those that don't care about he truth. 

It's also helpful to look around gain perspective on this corruption.  Both in an historical sense and compared to many other countries the things that are being seriously alleged (regardless of whether they turn out to be true) are little league stuff. I don't count crackpot ideas like Vince Fosters death here, but stuff like the email server and Benghazi and the Clinton foundation.  Laws may have been broken, things were botched, and the has been arrogance with the explainations.  But it's no Mafia, it's no Madoff, it's not even Teapot Dome.

[Free_at_50]

I don't think I ever said they were criminal masterminds.  I believe I said they were a criminal organization that have enough other political cronies involved that they can pretty much get away with breaking the law (at least so far).  Look up the definition of criminal organization and tell me I'm wrong.  At least 5 of their mob have taken the 5th amendment and/or were given immunity so they couldn't be prosecuted.  Also you didn't mention if you have taken any time to review what is being divulged via Wikileaks because I sure know CNN isn't covering it.  The Clinton's leveraged her power as SOS to enrich themselves by selling access/political favors to whoever was willing to pay for it which resulted in at least some of those entities making tons of dough along with the Clinton's at the expense of everyone else.  Exposing classified information on her server is bad enough but the cover up which followed shows just how much collusion exists today.  Finally I'm pretty sure their political activities are criminal including illegally colluding with various PACs, hiring people to cause violence at their opponents rallies, to taking money from anyone willing to give it to them for political favors regardless of laws broken. That's just some highlights for you.  You know I answered the post because I wrongly assumed the poster and this forum was looking for honest debate as my experience had been that this forum was about tolerance given all the mainstream media ridicule MMM has taken over the years for his beliefs.  For you or anyone else to disparage/ridicule my opinion or anyone else's who may decide to vote for someone is in my humble opinion a very extreme right - wing, authoritarian, and intolerant view/practice which is what you accuse Trump of being.   It's also interesting how you are willing to rationalize what I assume is your agreement with me that they are corrupt but not corrupt enough for you?  lol  I agree with one poster who said my post was sad but not for the reason I think.  There are now a lot of reasons why the posts tied to my opinion are sad.  Good luck to you all.

[sol]

The Clinton's leveraged her power as SOS to enrich themselves by selling access/political favors to whoever was willing to pay for it which resulted in at least some of those entities making tons of dough along with the Clinton's at the expense of everyone else.

You keep saying this as if it were an established fact, but it's just another allegation lacking any evidence at all.  It's just another unfounded accusation.

I agree the optics are bad.  When a former US President gets paid for public speaking (which is common, and not at all illegal) while running a charitable organization (also common, and not at all illegal) nobody has any problems because they are supposedly done with the halls of the power.  When the President's spouse then re-enters active politics, it can create the illusion that former charity work or public speaking engagements may have come with strings attached.  But no such strings have been documented.  No charges have even been brought.  It's all just speculation by her political rivals who WANT it to be true, but who are motivated by partisan bickering and not any quest for truth.  It's the same reason why the Republican House voted to impeach Bill Clinton.  He didn't actually commit treason, but they voted to impeach anyway because they really disagreed with his politics and they didn't have the votes to stop him any other way.

I'm pretty sure their political activities are criminal

It doesn't really matter how sure you are.  It matters whether or not a court finds them guilty of a specific crime, and so far there isn't enough evidence to even take that question in front of a judge.

I wrongly assumed the poster and this forum was looking for honest debate

Repeating allegations that are either unproven, or have been proven false, is not "honest debate".

[nereo]

I don't think I ever said they were criminal masterminds. 

Except that you did:

Again it is my opinion that the Clinton's are a criminal organization that has infiltrated all levels of our government

Ok, you said "criminal organization" instead of mastermind, but it shares the same sentiment.

[Free_at_50]

Podesta email:

I wanted to throw a few more discussion points out there to think about pre-call:

1: the new twist on CGI since we last polled is the lack of transparency that was always a big defense for the Clintons. That has evaporated with the Canadian/Sweden/etc situations. We need to probe on whether voters are aware and also introduce it and get reactions.

2: The other new CGI issue is the article outlining all the foreign countries who got the red light from the State Dept. for arms sales who also gave to CGI. This total about $150 billion in arms sales, including a lot of middle eastern countries.