America....

[Ashlee]

There is no real substance to the false equivalency that Trump and Clinton are on the same level, at all. Clinton has been in the public eye for 30 years. She has been a professional politician. After 2 failed investigations, multiple hearings from an opposition Congress, and millions of dollars she was cleared of any wrongdoing in Benghazi. Any rational claim that she was still at fault is ignorance and blissful disregard for factual findings by an opposition Congress. If Congress had even a shred of evidence, she would have been indicted. Let's put that misguided, bullshit talking point to rest?

Emails. I know it it a play on semantics, but being extremely careless and willfully violated a federal law are about as similar as apples and frogs, legally speaking. And this is a legal issue. Again, she was legally cleared by an opposition agency. And I would point out, an indictment requires probable cause, an EXTREMELY low threshold of proof. And they still did not indict her, after the AG said she would follow the FBI's recommendation. The newest crop of emails have not been vetted, are not verified to have been sent by Clinton or to Clinton, and were no found on her server. This is what we call irrelevant.

Likewise, there is no proof that the Clinton Foundation engaged in quid pro quo with foreign governments.

Let's turn to the other side. What do we know about Trump? He has filed for bankruptcy numerous times, despite having an alleged multi-billion dollar net worth and claiming to be the best business man ever. He is engaged in more lawsuits that ANY presidential candidate ever. Ever. He fosters and encourages violence against his opposition, going so far as to offer to pay for people's legal fees should they be arrested for harming other people. He denounces the legitimacy of a federal judge, born in America, based on his parentage. He labels large swathes of minorities as rapists. He mocks disabled individuals. He encouraged violence against journalists. He threatens any opposition or allegation with a lawsuit. He has no policy positions (as langois pointed out above). He has threatened to jail Clinton after the election (hmmmm sounds like a few tyrannical governments I know of...).

TLDR: there is no rational basis, regarding actual facts, that Clinton is anywhere near as bad as Trump. If you support him, please have the decency to say it's because you don't like Clinton, not because it is a choice between two evils. It objectively is not.

[pial]

Likewise, there is no proof that the Clinton Foundation engaged in quid pro quo with foreign governments.

There might not be proof but to pretend like there aren't conflicts of interest at play is so incredibly intellectually dishonest that when I see people defend it it makes me barf. Trump sucks though.

[Ashlee]

Likewise, there is no proof that the Clinton Foundation engaged in quid pro quo with foreign governments.

There might not be proof but to pretend like there aren't conflicts of interest at play is so incredibly intellectually dishonest that when I see people defend it it makes me barf. Trump sucks though.

Do notice I did not claim that due to the Foundation she is not conflicted, but the allegations are not that she is conflicted they are that she had laundered money or engaged in quid pro quo. Also notice that I did not defend the Foundation's actions. But then again, is she really more conflicted than the numerous members of Congress and state legislatures who are elected from lobbyist money?

[pial]

She's conflicted twice, both in the campaign funding way and in the way that she takes donations to her foundation. My point is that it's a classic strawman, there's a conflict of interest there and who cares if people can't prove there's quid pro quo. Try reading some of Dan Ariely's work on conflicts of interest and you will find out fairly quickly that it is pernicious.

[Shamara]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFOkBnYGfIM
Louis CK on Conan - good stuff

[Ashlee]

I actually did quite a bit of research into Dan Ariely during law school in regards to implicit bias and bounded ethicality. My point being, perhaps inartfuly phrased, the comparison between Trump and Clinton is a false equivalency. I am not putting up a straw man by pointing out that they do not even come close to a similar level. Nor is it a straw man that she hasn't broken a law. If the mere appearance of impropriety triggered federal charges, you would have a slew of indictments against politicians. That is why the Hobbes Act requires quid pro quo.

[Firimei Lang]

The outcome of this is Trump is loud mouthed windbag with no substance and really has no place in society. Let alone in politics.

Please America don't let him or his kind anywhere near anything that requires intelligence and tact.

[pial]

I didn't argue with any of the other stuff because I took no issue with it. And yes, people like to move the argument away from Hillary's multiple angles of conflict of interest so as to down play the concern. I never said she should have indictments against her, nor other politicians for having conflicts of interest. The reason conflicts of interest are bad is that they are hard to prove or see without having studies done on the aggregate effect of them in a variety of cases. This is why campaign finance reform is important and it's also why her foundation is troubling.

[Arkan]

Hasn't she campaigned FOR campaign finance reform and for an amendment to fix Citizens United? Yes. Will she be able to get it done with the current make-up of Congress and state governments? No.

[Relaes]

Many voters are not voting for Trump per se. It's more of a vote to express resentment with current policies and perceived agendas. You're looking at a carbon copy of Germany in the 1930s where people blamed minorities for the downfall of the nation. What followed was restriction of free press and the right for citizens to protest taken away. These things are all true now for some countries. Turkey is a good example. Russia another where anti-Putin journalists are jailed or fired. Certain african also fit this mold. It blows my mind that human beings can be so lacking in world history knowledge as to overlook these glaring similarities to one of the worst ideologies ever.

This lack of a historical perspective is also true for most european nations, sadly. Even countries that were deeply affected by the Nazis. A strong, right wing, gale force wind, one that takes your breath away with its cheap rhetorics, is currently sweeping across the so called "developed world". Science deniers and racists. Front National, Ukip, National Democrats of different countries, Golden Dawn of Greece. Simple solutions to global problems is the name of the game. Build barbed fences to keep refugees out. Build walls to keep immigrants away. If anything, the current state of things is a testament to the monumental failure of our educational system and its ability to produce informed, educated and level headed individuals. Hillary isn't innocent but I do believe she gets treated with a lot more disrespect because she is a woman. Seriously, all bets are off in this election. Even the FBI are getting involved (see Giuliani's "leak").

I, of course, hope for Hillary to be President but I respect people's hopes and dreams of a candidate without ties. Unfortunately, Trump is not without ties and will not do half of what he says he will. Just like Obama before him and the Brexit crowd of the UK. You have a pretty good system of checks and balances, but if you take away all the crazy suggestions from Trump, what is left? The answer to that question is more important than whatever you feel about Hillary for whatever reason. What can Trump offer you at the end of the day, all bullshit aside? You will be shunned by the international community except for the dark, dirty nations whose top 1% thrive as a direct cause of not sharing anything with the people. Russia once was everything America was not. Now you have a facist dictator applauding one of your front runners. When did that last happen and what does it mean?