It conflicts with the country's interests. If you are president, the country's interests come before your own. If he is in a situation as president where a decision he could make in regards to foreign policy could benefit him financially, that is a clear conflict of interest. He has foreign ties all over the world.

For example in South Korea where Trump Organization is partnered with Daewoo Engineering and Construction. Now Trump could very well be put in a situation where he has to make a decision about how to aid South Korea. Does he continue to provide American support or does he pull back and encourage them to develop their own military, including nuclear weapons? Well, wouldn't you know, Daewoo Engineering and Construction is one of the major companies involved in nuclear energy, so pushing for South Korea to militarize themselves could provide large financial gains to Daewoo, which would directly benefit Trump financially... You can't really get a more clear conflict of interest then that.

Here is a more in depth look into some of the conflicts of interest which arise from Trump's business: http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/donald-trump-foreign-business-deals-national-security-498081.html

So we shouldn't worry about blatant conflicts of interest in one branch because there are two more? That is an extremely dangerous precedent to set my friend. We should do everything in our power to remove such conflicts of interest, and unless Trump and his family pledge to step away from the business personally, we will be tied up with these massive conflicts of interest through the course of his presidency.

Hmm, OMG Trump will lose 9 million dollars from licensing so he should definitely give in give in to the demands of small fry's LOL ... 

FYI, Daewoo E&C's speciality isn't even an arms developer so how would they even begin making weapons let alone a nuclear one ? 

South Korea would have better luck depending on it's own military to make nuclear weapons ... 

If you think 9 million dollars worth (not even all of it) of potential conflict of interest is worse than taking in 165 million dollars in donations for granting special access then I think this discussion has met it's course ... 

Yes, you've definitely convinced me that the Clinton Foundation is worse than The Trump Organization (which makes most of it's foreign money off of licensing or owning some shares) when it comes to conflicts of interests even though 85 people were granted access with the Secretary of State LOL ... 

Wow... these propaganda threads are becoming quite unsightly. Instead of trying to come up with conspiracy theories, how about debating politics?

Even if she had Parkinson's, she could still do her job as president. The disease takes some years to take effect. Swapping her with someone who is incompetent and dangerous is not a way to run a nation, nor is it an alternative. So, stop with this talk, it stinks of the worst kind of desperation.

Well first of all, according to the piece I linked, Trump makes about $8million per year directly from those properties in South Korea. However, beyond that, it also states that Trump Organization is still allied with Daewoo, implying that there are likely more indirect sources of funds. What helps out Daewoo not only would be helping Trump's business partner, but Trump would also likely see indirect gains through their partnership.

Now, you then go on to say that Daewoo isn't an arms manufactures. That is true, but it is also true that nuclear energy is pivotal to developing nuclear weapons. If South Korea did move to developing nuclear weapons, it is highly likely that Daewoo would become involved and make a lot of money off of these changes.

However, as I very clearly stated, that is far from the only issue here. We also have concerns with India, Turkey/Pakistan, Russia, China and other foreign ties. These are very real conflicts of interest involving significant amounts of money which could be pivoting on whether or not America makes certain decisions (not to mention the foreign power that comes with being POTUS).

Now as far as the Clinton Foundation is concerned, yes, I believe that potentially making massive sums of money by making personally favorable decisions in foreign policy is significantly more of a threat than people donating to a charitable organization. The Clintons don't make money fromt he Clinton Foundation (including salary http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-09-16/the-clinton-foundation-vs-the-trump-foundation ). Further, the figure you pulled up (85 people) first of all doesn't say anything about whether the access was granted due to donations, and even if it was, that was 87 people out of thousands (AP decided to skew that figure as much as they could) and if you actually read the details of what was found, there was absolutely nothing untoward about any of those meetings. When the biggest hit you can find on the foundation is that she met with a Nobel Peace Prize winner and spoke to someone who was involved with AIDS charity while running an AIDS charity, you ain't got shit.

But yeah, I can see you have no interest in any actual discussion so I think this discussion has run its course.

sorry but I'd take a semi-sketchy-health Hilary over Donald Trump any day of the week. realize that Presidential candidates have teams behind them, its not as if she'd be operating 100% with no help. and worse case scenario someone will step up if she were to die in office, the VP. its just what happens

for the record I think Clinton is a bit of a bought and paid for name however Donald Trump is egotistical, racist, cannot relate to the average person at all, and dangerous in terms of international policy.

He won't win the election and things like constantly discussing Hilary's health are just desperate ploys to try and give him a chance. Sorry but the average American doesn't trust a racist billionaire to do the job. Maybe either candidate would be poor choices, but at least Hilary doesn't spout out with racist comments every 5 minutes

I hope you don t actually beleive this-  When i see outrageosly wrogn coments i typically give the poster the benifit of th edoubt assuming he/she is slinging mud and not acually weak enough to beleive them -  Either way there is nothng constructive about posting comments you know are wrong even if you don t beleive them

See above explanations.

PS: Saying "No, youre wrong" without any explanation to everybody who disagrees with you isn't exactly constructive either.

Gary Johnson, unfortunately. 

using the "racist" lable as a means to disparage a candidate you do not support is one of the 1st signals to me that that person really has no idea and they are just following somoeon else lead-  be your own person -  don t go straight to th eHC campagn talking points - come up w something that might be true, helpful acurate???  

I am saying i don t thnk you actually beleive what you are saying-  Kind of like a used car salesman selling a car they know is burnt-  It just sounds like the obligatory throw away lines/talking points