The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[Goatnapper'96]

You guys haven't given democrats an acceptable alternative. I'd take Kasich or even Rubio over Hillary any day and that is taking to account a GOP congress. I'm not thrilled about her.

I'm surprised people are more fired up after Comey's presser. It was obvious Hillary was careless with classified material and lied about it. We all knew that before Comey said anything. I think the Bengazi investigation was embarrassing. That much money and time just to dig up dirt on an opponent sets a bad precedent.

From my perspective neither of the two major party candidates should be President. From what I can tell many Republicans are abandoning their Party's candidate because he is unqualified and would be a bad President. They are doing this despite the fact that most find the Democrat candidate to also be a very bad candidate who will be a bad President. I just find it odd that Democrats seem very willing to vote for someone who should not President just because of Donald Trump. There are more than two candidates on the ballot. From where I sit Republicans seem to put a higher value on character than unity for powers sake. Easy to do, however, when the candidate is highly likely to lose. But whatever the motivation it seems very different, and far more values based, to me than the approach Democrats are taking.

[Goatnapper'96]

That's an all too facile explanation and conclusion. Even though not charged with a crime, she acted in a way that would normally cause someone to at least lose a security clearance. Think about that. This person, who was the secretary of state, who was entrusted with the most important security information that this nation has, and who now seeks the very highest office in the land, comported herself while she was in possession of that information in a manner that would disqualify her from having further access to it. And because some writer at Slate thinks we should just move along that makes it all OK? Hardly.

The Slate article's conclusion is a feeble effort to whitewash her conduct and that conclusion, constituted of nothing more than a groundless imperative, simply underscores just how indefensible her conduct is. Thus, if it was almost ANYONE but Trump, she would be immediately disqualified, in my mind. And even though the spectre of a Trump presidency may end up driving many reasonable people to Clinton, it doesn't mean that she should be forgiven, or that her misdeeds should be ignored. So I might end up voting her, but I will not move along. Instead, I want this example of her perfidy to hamstring her in her presidency and I will hope that we endure the next four years and then move on to someone of whom we can all at least be proud.

Reading that I feel like Hermann Munster in "My Cousin Vinny." Counselor, That was a logical, coherent and well articulated objection - OVERRULED!

I will not vote for her, but I totally agree with you. Benghazi and this demonstrate to me that she is not qualified to be the President of the US. She will get it because her opponent might be even less qualified, and an even bigger asshole than she is, but I cannot understand why more Democrats are not refusing to stand by her because of her indefensible actions as Secretary of State.

[YOhio]

And here is an article from the other side attempting to debunk the various accusations:

http://mediamatters.org/research/201...g-about/211344

This is a sufficiently technical issue that most Americans don't have the legal background or experience to fully and properly analyze what really happened and how egregious it is. Therefore, it seems that everyone is just drawn to sources and analysts that confirm their biases. In the end, I doubt this moves the needle much in the election. Trump is not the right candidate to exploit it.

I have the legal and technical expertise to fully and properly analyze what happened and how egregious it was. You're right that Trump is not the right candidate to exploit Hillary's malfeasance, but that's fully independent of the fact that her actions were illegal and her explanations dishonest.

[YOhio]

From my perspective neither of the two major party candidates should be President. From what I can tell many Republicans are abandoning their Party's candidate because he is unqualified and would be a bad President. They are doing this despite the fact that most find the Democrat candidate to also be a very bad candidate who will be a bad President. I just find it odd that Democrats seem very willing to vote for someone who should not President just because of Donald Trump. There are more than two candidates on the ballot. From where I sit Republicans seem to put a higher value on character than unity for powers sake. Easy to do, however, when the candidate is highly likely to lose. But whatever the motivation it seems very different, and far more values based, to me than the approach Democrats are taking.

YES!!!! More evidence that we're so much better than the asshole Dems.

[creekster]

I think I have explained it in rather simple terms. If you disagree, that is fine. I have zero interest in debating it with you.

That speaks volumes. VOLUMES!

[Pelado]

As I sat in my law office watching CNN's coverage of FBI Director James Comey's statement, where he outlined his department's much-awaited decision regarding the Hillary Clinton email scandal and all but concluded that Clinton had broken the law but would not be indicted, his words merely confirmed what I have always known as a former prosecutor and a current criminal defense attorney: Our nation maintains a separate and unequal criminal justice system that is stratified according to wealth and power.

Now, in full disclosure, before you think that this is a Clinton-bashing article, I endorsed Clinton for president last month after it was clear that my preferred candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), had been defeated in the Democratic primary. As such, my analysis of this issue has less to a with my personal politics and more to do with concerns I share with millions of Americans that the justice system is entirely corrupt.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...-dont-apply-to

[Jeff Lebowski]

I have the legal and technical expertise to fully and properly analyze what happened and how egregious it was. You're right that Trump is not the right candidate to exploit Hillary's malfeasance, but that's fully independent of the fact that her actions were illegal and her explanations dishonest.

Thanks. I was curious where you stood on the issue. You have been quite reticent this election!

[Topper]

Reading that I feel like Hermann Munster in "My Cousin Vinny." Counselor, That was a logical, coherent and well articulated objection - OVERRULED!

I will not vote for her, but I totally agree with you. Benghazi and this demonstrate to me that she is not qualified to be the President of the US. She will get it because her opponent might be even less qualified, and an even bigger asshole than she is, but I cannot understand why more Democrats are not refusing to stand by her because of her indefensible actions as Secretary of State.

Dems seem to be better at attacking another but do tend to close ranks and to keep their dirty laundry hidden. Maybe it's tied to Dems more likely being collectivists or universalists and GOP voters tending to be individualists and therefore not as concerned with social harmony for their in-group.

[YOhio]

Thanks. I was curious where you stood on the issue. You have been quite reticent this election!

Sorry. It's not like I was counsel for a small biz that billeted and sponsored hundreds of TS/SCI clearances a year, negotiated contracts with most of the IC member agencies, and maintained a 40K sq ft SCIF with classified comms. Maybe someone who did that would have a pretty good idea about how awful Hillary Clinton is.

Spoiler: I was all those things so I know my shit! Time for you and PAC to stop reading dumb articles to make you feel better for voting for Crooked Hillary and write in Mitt with me and mbn.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Sorry. It's not like I was counsel for a small biz that billeted and sponsored hundreds of TS/SCI clearances a year, negotiated contracts with most of the IC member agencies, and maintained a 40K sq ft SCIF with classified comms. Maybe someone who did that would have a pretty good idea about how awful Hillary Clinton is.

Spoiler: I was all those things so I know my shit! Time for you and PAC to stop reading dumb articles to make you feel better for voting for Crooked Hillary and write in Mitt with me and mbn.

Writing in Mitt sounds like a super cool and satisfying thing to do, but it is a throw-away vote. I would rather do what little I can to help prevent a Trump presidency.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Independence is starting to get to YO.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Topper]

Sorry. It's not like I was counsel for a small biz that billeted and sponsored hundreds of TS/SCI clearances a year, negotiated contracts with most of the IC member agencies, and maintained a 40K sq ft SCIF with classified comms. Maybe someone who did that would have a pretty good idea about how awful Hillary Clinton is.

Spoiler: I was all those things so I know my shit! Time for you and PAC to stop reading dumb articles to make you feel better for voting for Crooked Hillary and write in Mitt with me and mbn.

Ding, ding, ding. Only a few really get how awful she is. You may still vote third party, but otherwise you are spot on. Voting for Hillary is to ignore her abominations.

[frank ryan]

From my perspective neither of the two major party candidates should be President. From what I can tell many Republicans are abandoning their Party's candidate because he is unqualified and would be a bad President. They are doing this despite the fact that most find the Democrat candidate to also be a very bad candidate who will be a bad President. I just find it odd that Democrats seem very willing to vote for someone who should not President just because of Donald Trump. There are more than two candidates on the ballot. From where I sit Republicans seem to put a higher value on character than unity for powers sake. Easy to do, however, when the candidate is highly likely to lose. But whatever the motivation it seems very different, and far more values based, to me than the approach Democrats are taking.

It is because Trump scares people. He's racist and so are the people leading the charge. No one is excited about Hillary on the left but Trump has a rotten demographic energized. I worry about Trump cozying up to Putin and his campaign manager's connections to the Kremlin. Trump sounds eager to roll back freedoms, he wants to change libel laws so he can sue reporters he disagrees with. He's encouraged violence at his rallies and mocks disabled reporters. He is worse than Hillary and he will damage foreign affairs greatly.

And as George Will said, Trump with a permissive GOP congress would be more disastrous than a Hillary presidency.

[frank ryan]

This is partisan theater, but Representative Gowdy (a former federal prosecutor himself) does lay out the case an aggressive prosecutor would make:

What a depressing circus this election year has become.

Gowdy is an asshole, he used that Bengazi inquiry to damage Hillary and little else. He and Chaffetz set an awful standard. Hold exhaustive and expensive investigations into your political opponents until you find something damning. He can take his aggressive partisan posturing and shove up his self-important ass. Comey deserved more respect.

[YOhio]

Writing in Mitt sounds like a super cool and satisfying thing to do, but it is a throw-away vote. I would rather do what little I can to help prevent a Trump presidency.

I am doing what little I can do to prevent both a Trump and Clinton presidency. There is no lesser of two evils here. Its like Evil and Awful had sex and Trump and Clinton were the twin babies.