US Election: 2016

[Bird_Gunner45]

I had a friend from back home call me tonight to find out if everyone down has gone batpoop.

Obama is the founder of IS IS (shout out to Jim Jefferies). Seriously?

But I blew his mind when I filled him in that the real truth goes deeper, and that it was really Obama that lead the Iranian Revolution.

But the deeper conspiracy is that Obama is the real father of Osama Bin Laden.

My friend just couldn't take it any more.

http://youtu.be/5j2F4VcBmeo

To be fair, Trump's family can't even be honest about their family name...

 

[FJAG]

Hey, I only had to go back 9 years for my post. You counter with something from Watergate.

I was only 6 years old when that happened. You must have been getting your third bar for you CD at that point.  ;D

Seriously though, as I said upthread, people need to research before they go off half cocked.

Zeif-geist
Hillary Clinton was not fired from the House Judiciary Committee's Watergate investigation by Chief Counsel Jerry Zeifman.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp

:goodpost:

Good one, Cupper. When I read the earlier threads raising Zeifman's allegations I also searched his bona fides and came up with numerous conservative repetitions about his allegations as well as a number of "fact checks" which debunks him and which includes the one you quote. For the fun of it, here's one more that talks about Zeifman and whether he really is a "life long democrat" at heart.

The Newsmax Democrat

For a self-proclaimed "lifelong Democrat," Jerry Zeifman sure spends a good chunk of his time bashing his alleged fellow Dems on the ConWeb.

By Terry Krepel
Posted 8/14/2008

One knock against Fox News' claim to be "fair and balanced" is that the Democrats that appear on the network are at best ineffectual advocates for their viewpoint -- or at least not as aggressive as the conservatives Fox News airs -- and, at worst, helping to make whatever argument those conservatives are making. They even have a name -- Fox News Democrats.

Newsmax engages in similar behavior. Its few liberal-leaning writers fall into a similar pattern of ineffective spokesmen. One, regular columnist Susan Estrich, is an actual Fox News Democrat, described by Salon.com as among "the losers, the strategists and politicians who are no longer players in the Democratic Party, at least partially because of their electoral failures." Another regular columnist, former New York City Mayor Ed Koch, an ostensible Democrat who voted for Republican George W. Bush in 2004 and has been highly critical of fellow Democrat Barack Obama, calling support for him "the wrong judgment."

Let's call Estrich and Koch Newsmax Democrats. Which brings us to Jerry Zeifman.

Zeifman's arguably lone claim to fame was that he served as chief counsel of the Democratic-controlled House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate scandal. After that, Zeifman's Democratic bona fides become a little hazy, if not entirely non-existent. Zeifman is the author of a book called "Without Honor: Crimes of Camelot and the Impeachment of President Nixon," in which he claims, according to a 1996 Washington Post review, that "Kennedy loyalists" such as Hillary Rodham obstructed the Nixon impeachment to protect the reputation of John Kennedy. The Post called the book "an unconvincing, if imaginative, tale of intrigue." Right-wingers like Judicial Watch and WorldNetDaily have echoed Zeifman's conspiracy theories; WND's Joseph Farah asserted in 1998 that "No less a distinguished attorney and scholar than Jerome Zeifman, a Democrat and former chief counsel for the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate hearings, sees at least three counts of bribery that should be leveled against Clinton."

WND published numerous commentaries by Zeifman; a June 1999 column appeared to liken Bill Clinton to Slobodan Milosevic, stating that "the defense of our president against impeachment and the support for the war against Yugoslavia is also giving more and more peoples of the world the impression that our commander in chief is mentally deranged or morally flawed -- and in league with the manufacturers of bombs and missiles." Another June 1999 commentary claimed:

Today, some conservatives believe that both ["The Feminine Mystique" author] Betty Friedan and Hillary Clinton are part of a radical left-wing conspiracy. A not-inconsistent theory can also be advanced that both Betty and Carl Friedan were likewise part of a profit-making scheme to over-inflate our economy. They realized that the more women went to work, the more wages would be lowered. Likewise, the more divorces, the greater the demand for separate housing, cars, appliances, etc.

In an April 1999 WND column, Zeifman sounded very much like a Republican when he wrote, "These days there are at least two classes of Americans who remain unprotected by rules of political correctness: conservative Republican women like Laura Ingraham (a former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas); and white 'good ol' boys' like House impeachment manager Lindsey Graham."

Zeifman wrote a 1996 Clinton-bashing commentary for the Wall Street Journal that began with his declaration of being "a life-long Democrat and chief counsel of the House Judiciary Committee." That's a refuge Zeifman regularly takes -- despite the fact there's little actual evidence that Zeifman is the Democrat he claims to be.

Zeifman became a Newsmax Democrat in January 2006, penning an attack on Ted Kennedy for allegedly "misusing his position on the Senate Judiciary Committee to achieve self-serving partisan ends." Not only does "Former Democratic Chief Counsel" appear in the headline, the tagline describes him as a "lifelong Democrat," and Zeifman himself isn't even five words into his commentary before he insists that he is "a Democrat and former chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee." In October 2006, Zeifman praised Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, who had lost the Democratic nomination and was running as an independent to keep his seat. This time, Zeifman managed to hold out until the third paragraph before declaring himself a "life-long Democrat."

In December 2006, Zeifman returned to eulogize the late Republican President Gerald Ford as "the most nonpartisan and ethical president in my life time" and attack "the current left wing of our Democratic Party." Again, Zeifman began by touting his Democratic ties: "When the confirmation of Jerry Ford to be vice president was pending in the House Judiciary Committee I, as a Democrat, was in charge of an investigation that found him highly qualified."

In April 2007, Zeifman bashed Democratic House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, claiming she was engaging in "an unconstitutional abuse of power that warrants her removal by our Democratic caucus." His "lifelong Democrat" declaration slipped to the second paragraph.

Zeifman surfaced once more in 2008 to do more Clinton-bashing. In a Feb. 5 Accuracy in Media column, Zeifman wrote:

I have just seen Hillary Clinton and her former Yale law professor both in tears at a campaign rally here in my home state of Connecticut. Her tearful professor said how proud he was that his former student was likely to become our next President. Hillary responded in tears.

Zeifman, in fact, did not see this. As Media Matters detailed, the photo Zeifman supplied of Clinton purportedly "in tears" was not taken during the introduction by her "tearful professor," as a video of the introduction demonstrates. The original Associated Press caption on the photo described Clinton as "wiping her eye and sipping water to get her cough under control" -- not crying during the introduction.

Zeifman also claimed: "My own reaction was of regret that, when I terminated her employment on the Nixon impeachment staff, I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate bar associations." -- a claim Zeifman repeated in a March 31 column by Dan Calabrese at the right-wing North Star Writers Group. This time, the claim was echoed by NewsBusters' John Stephenson.

But as Media Matters also detailed, this claim contradicts what Zeifman was quoted as saying in a 1998 Scripps Howard News Service article: "If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her."

WorldNetDaily, meanwhile, not only reprinted another Calabrese article based on Zeifman's dubious accusation, it tried to go one step further by claiming in an April 7 article that "Details of Hillary Clinton's firing from the House Judiciary Committee staff for unethical behavior as she helped prepare articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon have been confirmed by the panel's chief Republican counsel."

Except that most of them weren't. The article stated that "Franklin Polk backed up major claims by Jerry Zeifman, the general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee who supervised Clinton's work on the Watergate investigation in 1974." According to the article, "Polk confirmed Clinton wrote a brief arguing Nixon should not be granted legal counsel due to a lack of precedent."

In fact, the article did not claim that Polk backed any of Zeifman's "major claims" -- that Clinton's brief was "fraudulent," that "Clinton deliberately ignored the then-recent case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who was allowed to have a lawyer during the impeachment attempt against him in 1970," that "Clinton bolstered her fraudulent brief by removing all of the Douglas files from public access and storing them at her office, enabling her to argue as if the case never existed," and that "Clinton was collaborating with allies of the Kennedys to block revelation of Kennedy-administration activities that made Watergate 'look like a day at the beach.'"

Indeed, the article states only that "Polk confirmed the Clinton memo ignored the Douglas case, but he could not confirm or dispel the claim that Hillary removed the files," adding that Polk considered Clinton's alleged exclusion of the Douglas precedent "more stupid than sinister."

Neither WND nor NewsBusters have reported on Zeifman's contradictory claims about firing Clinton.

Lacking a Clinton to kick around after Barack Obama clinched the Democratic presidential nomination (and never quite getting around to reconciling his contradictory claims), Zeifman tried to find another issue to glom onto. In a June 10 Accuracy in Media column about former White House press secretary Scott McClellan's unflattering memoir of his years in the Bush White House, Zeifman stated that coverage of McClellan permitted him to indulge in "some painful remembrances of past treasons." Zeifman claimed without evidence that McClellan's book "gives aid and comfort to the enemy" but lamented that "it is unlikely that a jury would find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the felony defined in the U.S. Criminal Code."

While he was doing all this, Zeifman has been doing something else for Newsmax: channeling Eleanor Roosevelt.

A Dec. 19, 2007, column claimed that "Mrs. Roosevelt came to me in a dream, and I questioned her as to her views on the candidates for president in 2008." Unsurprisingly, the words put in Eleanor's mouth sound a lot like Zeifman's -- things like "I am tempted to say, “Anyone but Hillary!” If she wins the nomination I would vote for a conservative Republican. Also, she is by far the easiest candidate for a Republican to beat." And ol' Eleanor seems to keep up with events in the non-spectral world and reading conservative-leaning publications: "As you will recall, during the impeachment of Bill Clinton, former Watergate prosecutor Henry Ruth, a lifelong Democrat, published an article in The Wall Street Journal entitled 'Clinton Has Corrupted His Party's Soul.'"

Zeifman performed this feat again in a July 22 column in which Zeifman -- er, Roosevelt says, "I am dismayed by the recent refusal of the Times to publish an article by Sen. McCain in rebuttal to its prior Op-Ed article by Sen. Obama advocating time tables for troop withdrawals from Iraq. However, I am not surprised." Roosevelt also now "says" that "I now wholeheartedly support Sen. McCain."

Why, Roosevelt even spouts misleading conservative talking points, such as that Obama "was first on the National Journal's approval voting list of doctrinaire Democratic party liners." We suspect that the real Mrs. Roosevelt, unlike Zeifman, would have done some actual research before making such a claim; if so, she would know that National Journal's rankings are based on a subjective listing of votes and that a more comprehensive study of Obama's votes rank him 10th most liberal.

But shoddy research of the words he puts into Mrs. Roosevelt's mouth doesn't keep Zeifman from hauling out the poor woman to spout whatever right-wing talking point he must push that day. He pulls this stunt yet again in an Aug. 6 column to discuss ... oil prices?

Yes, Eleanor appears quite conversant about the history of British Petroleum, including events that happened well after her death: "In 1969, British Petroleum discovered oil on the Alaskan north slope. Soon thereafter it acquired Standard Oil of Ohio (Sohio) and operates in Alaska under that company's name. By 1982 Sohio's American operations provided almost 80 percent of the BP world wide profits." And Zeifman's puppet once again endorses McCain: "I am confident that, as president, John McCain, who proudly describes himself as a 'progressive Theodore Roosevelt Republican,' will have the spine to enter into a nonpartisan coalition to nationalize domestic oil production as a means of preserving our national security and environment."

Any claim that the real Eleanor Roosevelt would hold such views if she were alive today is a specious as Zeifman's claim to be a "lifelong Democrat."

I think that the only thing these numerous internet searches and articles show is that there is absolutely no shortage of commentators, authors, bloggers etc who are more than prepared to fudge the truth and perpetuate previously debunked falsehoods in order to advance their own agendas. (Incidentally, I fact checked Zeifman's "Eleanor Roosevelt" articles and they do in fact exist although one hopes, sincerely, that he doesn't actually believe he really dreamed about Eleanor and is only using an allusion to her to voice his own beliefs.  ;D) One really needs to dig to see which, if any, of these claims have any basis in reality.

:cheers:

 

[cupper]

This may shed some light on the skewed polls narritive up thread.

Who’s Behind A Mysterious Website Saying Polls Are Skewed Against Trump?

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/whos-behind-a-mysterious-website-saying-polls-are-skewed-against-trump/

AUG 11, 2016 AT 2:25 PM

Who’s Behind A Mysterious Website Saying Polls Are Skewed Against Trump?
By Clare Malone

Filed under 2016 Election
If you’re a close reader of political news, the website longroom.com might very well have come to your attention in the last week. The site hosts a polling page that purports to “remove the bias in the polls,” which mostly has the effect of showing Donald Trump up in the presidential race, though most polls show Hillary Clinton leading him by solid single-digit margins. If you’ve been a bit distracted by the Olympics and don’t have a clue what LongRoom is, no harm, no foul. In fact, that’s probably for the better, because the site’s methodology is askew and its purported “staff” has all the appearance of being fictitious.

For instance, the FiveThirtyEight polls-only forecast, which consolidates hundreds of polls, shows Clinton winning the popular vote 48.9 percent to 41.5 percent. The forecast gives her an 86.3 percent chance of winning the election right now. According to the most recent check-in with LongRoom, Trump is leading Clinton by 0.6 percentage points. The site’s methodology page assures readers that “it is a mathematical certainty, that as the election approaches, all of the polls will begin to match the polls here on LongRoom.”

Good to know.

LongRoom has already engendered the ire of my colleague Harry Enten, who took the site to task earlier this week for being, essentially, a novel form of election fan fiction:

“LongRoom claims to “unbias” the polls using “actual state voter registration data from the Secretary of State or Election Division of each state.” The website contends that almost every public poll is biased in favor of Clinton. Think about what that means: The website is saying that a large number of professional pollsters who make their living trying to provide accurate information — and have a good record of doing so — are all deliberately biasing the polls and aren’t correcting for it. Like many conspiracy theories, that seems implausible.

I’d also point out that election offices from different states collect different data. Some states don’t have party registration; other states don’t collect data on a person’s race; some states collect data on neither. There are some companies that try to fill in missing data for each state, though it costs a lot to get that data. Isn’t it more plausible the people who get paid to know what they are doing are right, while some anonymous website on the internet with unclear methodology is wrong?”

The methodology of LongRoom is, in other words, not quite sound. And while fan fiction, it is a particularly elaborate work of fan fiction, making us somewhat curious about its authorship. In 2012, Dean Chambers did much the same thing, “unskewing” the polls that correctly showed Mitt Romney losing, only to admit after the election that he’d been misguided in his efforts — Chambers’s name was out in the press and to his credit, he publicly took stock of his mistakes after the fact. But LongRoom and whoever runs it has gone out of its way to obfuscate its identity. The site has an “about us” page which lists four people associated with the site, but they each seem to be without any semblance of an online paper trail, an odd thing in the age of the internet.

“Michael Ellis,” the man listed as LongRoom’s managing editor, is described in only the vaguest of terms as “an Internet Executive with over 23 years of experience, including general management of mid to large sized publications. He has been involved with internet community management his entire career.” The three other staff members have similarly indistinct bios, and rather than photographed headshots, the staff is depicted in sketches. None of the staff appears to have Twitter accounts, let alone follow the @LongRoomNews account. Searches for the staff on other social networking sites did not lead anywhere and there is no listed point of contact for any of the LongRoom staff members anywhere on the site. FiveThirtyEight reached out to the site’s only point of contact for comment — a support email address — and did not hear back. A public records search for LongRoom yielded no results for the business. (In addition to its “unbiased” polling operation, the site aggregates news stories.)

But an analysis of the site’s IP address showed that in April 2015, LongRoom switched its registration to a domain that for a fee, allows registrants to keep their names private — Domains By Proxy, LLC. The last name associated with the website, as recently as January 2015, is Fred Waid, who listed the site’s associated organization as “American Separatist” based out of New Mexico. FiveThirtyEight reached out to Waid but had not heard back as of publication.

As English majors know, it’s best not to get too bogged down by the authorship question — work must stand on its own at a certain point, which is why everyone should stop obsessing over Elena Ferrante’s true identity — but polling is a business of transparency. It’s not enough to write out your methodology; if one purports to be holding other polling organizations publicly accountable, then isn’t it only fair to be publicly accountable yourself?

If the internet in her infinite wisdom has any more information about who’s behind LongRoom, we’d love to hear more. Please send tips to the email link below.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

I had a friend from back home call me tonight to find out if everyone down has gone batpoop.
Obama is the founder of IS IS (shout out to Jim Jefferies). Seriously?

Oh yeh!  Obama destabilized the Middle East by promoting the Arab Spring dream that turned into a nightmare.  Figuratively speaking Obama was more responsible for the creation of ISIS than anyone.  Not even a debate.  Weaken the stable governments in the Middle East and bail out on Iraq before it achieved stability. 

 

[Remius]

Oh yeh!  Obama destabilized the Middle East by promoting the Arab Spring dream that turned into a nightmare.  Figuratively speaking Obama was more responsible for the creation of ISIS than anyone.  Not even a debate.  Weaken the stable governments in the Middle East and bail out on Iraq before it achieved stability.

Or, or, George Bush who went into there in the first place and destabilised it all...

Both have had their parts to play in that mess.  The founder comment is ridiculous.  I know your a fan but come on.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

Or, or, George Bush who went into there in the first place and destabilised it all...

Both have had their parts to play in that mess.  The founder comment is ridiculous.

Ever heard the term metaphor?  Why when Trump speaks metaphorically is he taken literally and when he speaks literally the MSM assumes metaphor, depending on the preferred slant.

Bush - a bit but if we are into ancient history it was really Mr. Sykes and M. Picot.  When Bush left office the situation was relatively stable.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Ever heard the term metaphor?  Why when Trump speaks metaphorically is he taken literally and when he speaks literally the MSM assumes metaphor, depending on the preferred slant.

Bush - a bit but if we are into ancient history it was really Mr. Sykes and M. Picot.  When Bush left office the situation was relatively stable.

I have heard the term metaphor - and so has Trump:

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/watch-surrogate-sits-in-painful-silence-after-cnn-reads-him-trumps-quote-on-obama-founding-isis/

Donald Trump was given an opportunity to clean up his assertion that President Obama is the “founder of ISIS” on Thursday… and he declined.

Right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt asked Trump on Thursday if he meant that Obama founded ISIS metaphorically — that is, because he pulled out of Iraq, it created a power vacuum that was filled by ISIS.

“No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS,” was Trump’s reply.

You can't have it both ways....

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I don't think Trump would know what a metaphor is if it bit him on the nose.

He meant what he said;
And he said what he meant;
Unless he meant something else;
In which case that something else is what he meant;
You figure it out for yourselves: It's all pretty clear in his mind.

And those are facts;
If they weren't facts, he wouldn't say it;
But he said it so they are facts;
That's what he believes, so it must be true;
And it must be true, cause those are the facts.

 

[Kirkhill]

OGBD - I can't make up my mind if you are channeling R.D. Laing on "experience" or Jean Chretien on "proof".  ;D

 

[cupper]

OGBD - I can't make up my mind if you are channeling R.D. Laing on "experience" or Jean Chretien on "proof".  ;D

Or Sarah Palin on what newspapers she reads.  ;D

 

[tomahawk6]

Guccifer 2.0 leaked the cell numbers of all democrats in the House of Represenatives.Dont worry I believe the numbers arent visible.

http://thesmokinggun.com/buster/democratic-national-committee/guccifer-dccc-hack-645891

In a message today, the hacker branded the U.S. presidential elections a “farce” that is “being settled behind the scenes as it was with Bernie Sanders.” He added, “I wonder what happened to the true democracy, to the equal opportunities, the things we love the United States for. The big money bags are fighting for power today. They are lying constantly and don’t keep their word. The MSM are producing tons of propaganda  hiding the real stuff behind it. But I do believe that people have right to know what’s going on inside the election process in fact.

 

[cupper]

Guccifer 2.0 leaked the cell numbers of all democrats in the House of Represenatives.Dont worry I believe the numbers arent visible.

http://thesmokinggun.com/buster/democratic-national-committee/guccifer-dccc-hack-645891

See. This is why Hill wanted her own server, so no one could get a hold of her e-mail ...  ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

Guccifer is a "Vandal" according to that piece.  He/She hacked the Democrats.

Remind me again:  What were Snowden and Assange called?  And what did they hack?

 

[muskrat89]

Obama is the founder of IS IS (shout out to Jim Jefferies). Seriously?

How about Al Qaeda?

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin910.htm

https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/clinton-admits-we-created-al-qaeda-but-lies-about-why-and-when/

http://yournewswire.com/hillary-clinton-admits-we-created-terrorists-we-funded-them/

https://youtu.be/WnLvzV9xAHA

“We also have a history of kind of moving in and out of Pakistan. Let’s remember here, the people we are fighting today we funded 20 years ago and we did it because we were locked in this struggle with the Soviet Union, they invaded Afghanistan and we did not want to see them control central Asia and we went to work. And it was President Reagan in partnership with the Congress led by democrats who said you know what? Sounds like a pretty good idea. Let’s deal with the ISI and the Pakistani military. Let’s go recruit these Mujaheddin. That’s great let’s get some to come from Saudi Arabia and other places importing their Wahhabi brand of Islam so that we can go beat the Soviet Union. And guess what? They retreated. It cost billions of dollars and it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. And there’s a very strong argument that it wasn’t a bad investment to end the Soviet Union. But let’s be careful what we sow because we will harvest.” Hillary Clinton

 

[muskrat89]

Trump is racist...

https://youtu.be/UacjqluH-Cw

 

[The Bread Guy]

How about Al Qaeda?

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin910.htm

https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/clinton-admits-we-created-al-qaeda-but-lies-about-why-and-when/

http://yournewswire.com/hillary-clinton-admits-we-created-terrorists-we-funded-them/

https://youtu.be/WnLvzV9xAHA

To be fair, if you're looking at who funded anti-Soviets in AFG, some of whom ended up becoming AQ, and who could have dealt with AQ, it was a mix of Democrat & Republican presidents (2 x Dem, 3 x Rep) at the helm between the Soviet invasion and 9-11.*

As for how ISIS grew, believe it or not, this, from Cracked.com (the old Cracked magazine crowd) offers a pretty accessible explanation.

* - And I'm not going into the rabbit hole of "who killed Bin Laden?" because even though president z was at the helm, a whoooooooole lot of work through presidents w, x & y had to be done to get there.

 

[muskrat89]

To be fair, if you're looking at who funded anti-Soviets in AFG, some of whom ended up becoming AQ, and who could have dealt with AQ

To be fair, I'm not looking at anything. Hillary's own words are quoted. And I'm merely pointing out that the stretch to connect isnt as laughable as some say it is. I find it interesting that people can take Trump's comments and twist them into suggesting Hillary be assasinated, but Hillary admitting they fostered Al Qaeda is a stretch

Its just a constant double standard

 

[cupper]

I don't think that there really han't been a lot of doubt that US funding of groups during the Soviet occupation helped put the basis for the creation of AQ in place.

And it is generally accepted that through the concept of blow back the US takes some responsibility in the creation of AQ.

As for the the creation of IS IS, the blame should be laid at the feet of the Bush Administration for failing to plan for the post combat phase of Iraqi Freedom. The aversion to nation building lead to decisions being made that created the conditions for the Sunni uprising, and for AQ in Iraq to come to the fore. IS IS is what remained of AQ in Iraq after Zarquawi met his 72 Virginians in Paradise.

The two key moves that put the trainwreck in motion were Bremmer's edict disbanding the Iraqi Army, and the aggressive de-Ba'athification program. Overnight they tore down the existing machinery to keep the counrty running, and put out of work rthe only people who were capable of running it. By disbanding the Army, they essentially put thousands of trained Officers and NCO's on the streets with nothing to occupy their time, creating the perfect base for an insurgency.

 

[Remius]

The point is that Trump is encouraging and repeating conspiracy talk that is common in Russia and middle eastern media.  Dangerous talk.  I'm all about straight talk and off the cuff demeanour.  But what he's doing is irresponsible and not what you want to have a president saying.  If how a campaign being run is any indication of how someone will run an administration then Trump is in trouble.  The sad thing is that Clinton would likely be way behind anyone else she would be facing. She has truly lucked out.

 

[George Wallace]

The point is that Trump is encouraging and repeating conspiracy talk that is common in Russia and middle eastern media.  Dangerous talk.  I'm all about straight talk and off the cuff demeanour.  But what he's doing is irresponsible and not what you want to have a president saying.  If how a campaign being run is any indication of how someone will run an administration then Trump is in trouble.  The sad thing is that Clinton would likely be way behind anyone else she would be facing. She has truly lucked out.

I would say that not many of the candidates on either side were very outstanding.

However, all we have to judge Trump on are "words".  The opposite is true of Clinton, where she can be judged on her "actions".  She has proven to be all that some have claimed, with her lies/falsehoods about her trip to Bosnia, her actions in reference to Libya and Benghazi, and so on.  All we have on Trump are "words".