You do not appear to be expressing yourself as well as you think. A one sentence reply isn't ceding much information. Perhaps in the future try to explicate your thoughts instead of making rather ambiguous comments that could be taken a great many ways.

if you are talking about my post above that you are quoting,  it is pretty simple- not sure whst i can add but il try:

I respect peoples opinion, differing or not if  they seem to have some sincerety attached to them-  if their opinions seem to be their own, not just parroting the crowd/someone else, if the basis of their opinion does not seem to be built on a foundation of headlines, talking points and lableing and if they seem to have the willingness and desire to think critically/independently 

If you are refering to something else, let me know

I guess we shouldn t  forget Hillary s "vast right wing conspiracy"  that she used to talk about so much  or her campaigns "birther" conspiracy they initiated and made popular when she was running against Obamah-   Over her Pol career she seemed to have an affinity for them

Nope, not all of it is circumstantial! There's an email from George Soros that instructed how the Secretary of State at the time (Clinton) was to deal with the unrest in Albania and she followed. Although I wish I knew what exactly was going on in that billionaire's mind ... 

Muhammad Yunus (Clinton Foundation donor) was granted $13 million dollars from the former Secretary of State and then she intervened with the Bangladesh government on behalf of Muhammad during an investigation against him. A massive and blatant example of conflict of interest due to cronyism if you ask me ... 

Depending on your definition of "a lot", his income from licensing his name isn't even in the double digit by the millions!

I'd be more inclined to believe your proposal that LARGE conflict's of interests would arise with him if well y'know these foreign partnerships ACTUALLY made a substantial portion of Trump's income instead of a VANISHING portion ... 

Pam Bondi is the one who had her interests changed, not Trump ... 

It's the GOVERNMENT who should try and guard their interests, not the citizens ... 

Keep shit like this mind also if you are going to vote. This man lives in la la land.
http://thehill.com/regulation/healthcare/296152-trump-says-he-would-eliminate-food-safety-regulations

Such nonsense.

Maybe you do have a point of some kind, but it's nothing new. The RNC would be doing exactly the same thing if they actually liked Trump in any way.

I've read mountains of stuff on Hillary and Donald. As far as I'm concerned, Hillary is the most picked over, exposed, and public politician in the whole of the United States. She's been getting first rate investigations into her background for TWENTY FOUR YEARS... For that time, you have a shaky email investigation that was cleared by a REPUBLICAN. Some sex scandals of her husbands (So what, she stayed with him to help her political career. Just means she's a politician.) and from what I can tell, a MOUNTAIN of exaggerated claims and misleading facts which even the republicans apologize for.

So the sum total of negatives against her are 1) she's a politician... 2) She circumvents security rules for her own convenience.

There's a reason republicans news stations aren't bringing this garbage up. They've made themselves look bad dozens of times now poking into every poorly thought out conspiracy theory and people don't trust them anymore.

All you have to do is look at the liberal comments on this thread. No one other than hardcore republicans are even taking any of this seriously. You've lost all credibility.

Exactly. The confirmation bias is strong on this post.

Seriously why do people wanna blind themselves on purpose? 

I can acknowledge some incompetent things Hillary has done.

But people are just so desperate to defend Trump. Really laughable.  

Like...someone said, when you are Secretary of State, everyone wants to get involved. There is no evidence that any decisions were made due to this email. Again, this is the definition of circumstancial. Again, I agree that there are conflicts of interest involved with the Clinton Foundation, but there isn't direct evidence of quid pro quo.

Now, speaking about Trump for a second, I have already posted that Trump receives $8million per year from his South Korean deal. Now, your sources indicate that Soros provided the Clinton Foundation (again, this money goes to charity, not into Clinton's pockets) $7mil during the election cycle, so any way you slice it, Trump is making more money from a single source than Clinton is here. The fact that Clinton recieves more money total really only implies that she has more sources of income for her foundation and that there are more interests involved (meaning that the interests of her donors would be more likely to conflict). 

Also, you are acting like Trump licensing his name isn't central to his business strategy, when that has been his business strategy for years now (and its very worth noting that the federal disclosure form is far from complete due to it not exactly being written for someone like Trump).  Additionally, there are and have been many other deals involving this licensing, so if the South Korean deal is anything to go by, factoring in an increase in Trump's name power as president, it wouldn't be unlikely that future licensing deals which he could directly affect as President would make him over $10million per year each.

I'm not really sure why we are arguing anymore. This has become a pissing contest. Both of them have clear, undeniable conflicts of interest. Theres no two ways about it.

However, worth noting that Hillary has already made it clear that Bill and several other members will step away from the foundation (Hillary has already stepped away), it will go independent, and donations would only be accepted from US citizens if she were to become president. Trump on the other hand has said that his kids would be in charge of his business, which doesn't separate him any where near far enough from the conflict of interest imo.

Well if you've read the article ever since that $43 billion dollar accounting fraud, Daewoo E&C made revisions to the contract. You say he's getting $8 million dollars but his financial disclosure form says otherwise ... 

You're convinced that the Clinton Foundation is a charity but on what grounds do you have to really substantiate that claim ? Furthermore, why exactly does the Clinton Foundation have so many insiders as their top staff when a practice of good governance is that board members are to have term limits ? 

Even if his name does rise to fame, how likely do you think he'll be able to break the low double digit barrier for licensing ?