The first question should be. Trump, you have 90 minutes. Could you tell us any actual plans you have?
Aside from the entertainment factor (which has been GREAT this election season), the debates are largely pointless. Despite what the media may claim, I believe there are very few undecideds out there...like 5% tops.
I love how you can compare that saying a few stupid things and being a douche at time like Trump has is anything close to comparable to the complete abuse of power in every sense by the Clintons. We're honestly comparing a few stupid remarks and even aggressively flirting and forward with some beauty queens to someone who basically set up an entire framework and system to raise hundreds of millions while in her political position and used her position in every scenario to help her donors and those paying her and her husband. It's really sad that most people are so shocked by the easy reality tv garbage and can't think deeper about the actions that have defiled the sanctity of our government, the State department and their positions. Just sad.
Specific to this election, I think the undecideds are trying to determine if they'll vote for Hillary or not vote at all. And from that perspective, she needs the debate. From Trump's perspective, I don't think it makes any difference - his voting block is what it is and has been what it is for a long time now. There is no path for him to expand it.
@Rocketman1981. The Foundation (1) pays the Clintons no money, (2) is rated by watchdogs as highly transparent, (3) is reputed to do highly useful charitable work (and (4) is not used as an illegal slush fund to settle the Clintons' for-profit businesses' lawsuits by donating other people's money, like how some foundations are used). So, your allegation here is that she's sold influence in government policy in return for charitable donations to help the world's most afflicted people? If that's true (though it sounds a bit outlandish), that'd be bad -- but it would not be the source of personal wealth for the Clintons.
and what is it about trump that makes you think for one iota of a second that he isn't just as corrupt in his dealings, back-dealings, slanderings, etc? just bc he isn't a politician you give him some sort of credence? how stupid is that. just because he "worked" in the private sector doesn't preclude him from being an unadulterated sleezeball (because newsflash: THAT'S WHAT HE'S BEEN HIS WHOLE LIFE). here's the difference - sure HRC is probably deceitful and corrupt, welcome to politics. but she's also an incredibly experienced statesman who understands the law (save your jokes), has well thought out domestic and foreign policy, and has forgotten more about governance than trump has learned in his entire life. trump has NONE of those traits - he's just a corrupt, womanizing, deceitful, blowhard without any of the positive attributes HRC has. stop thinking purely through party association. there's a reason why trump has been bashed by everyone from democrats to republicans to independents to you name it. it isn't because we're all biased - it's because we all know he's a unmitigated walking disaster of candidate and frankly we're all embarrassed for people like you who continue to support that sh!thead. pull your head out of your ass.
This sentence makes no sense from a grammatical perspective - the premise is inherently idiotic, but if you care to restate it a coherent fashion I will give you the courtesy of a reply.
Briefly setting aside the veracity of your accusation, you are aware, lost amidst all the p***y grabbing, that the Trump Foundation is a morally bankrupt charity organization itself, right? As for the Clinton Foundation, no U.S. investigative agency has chosen to go after it in its 15 years of existence and Charity Navigator rated it four out of four stars; it's highest rating. In terms of pay to play, and other accusations, exhaustive, legitimate investigations have found conclusively that donors did not get special access or favor to the secretary and the department as a result of their donations, and that no one connected with the foundation has been proven to have done anything illegal, unethical, or contrary to U.S. interests or administration policy. 88% (which is a tremendous percentage; the Red Cross, for example, is at 90%) of its donations go toward services, including extensive focus on AIDS/HIV treatment/prevention in developing regions; fighting climate change; and poverty - to name just a few. I would love for you to make a similar defense of Trump's foundation - but you won't because you can't. It's as worthless as he is and your only play is to sling unfounded arrows at the Clintons in hopes no one notices.
You are the perfect example of this. You fell for whatever idiot made claims about the Clinton Foundation with no evidence whatsoever and ignored all the evidence to the contrary. Meanwhile, because it wasn't said by a screaming reality star on TV, you ignore all the mounds of lawsuits and demonstrated cases of unethical business activity by Trump. Well done. At least you recognize the sadness of it all, even if you are oblivious that you're referring to yourself.
I'm always flabbergasted when someone who is clearly demonstrating zero intellectual curiosity screams about their intellectual superiority. A quick Google search would've opened up a wealth of Clinton Foundation information with scores of available resources. This isn't hard...
Does their 'foundation' pay for their Private Air Travel? Doesn't have to pay a salary to receive a benefit from it silly.
You're the epitome of an internet *******. You have no desire to discuss anything. I don't often post in internet forums as a comparison to you: 42,000+ Posts here????????????????? You've spent a good portion of your life attempting to school others on politics on a basketball message board with people half your age???? 42,000 means over the last 13 years almost 10 posts a day? Wow. You sir, Are a LOSER!
I know Trump is a buffoon and a bit of a heathen and has a ton of shady dealings. But compared to Hillary Clinton he's a saint.
