Sorry, your reasons are still lacking. In one breath you tell us how the process is too long, then in another you complain certain info was not dealt with.
You complain Cruz and Rubios should have grilled Trump over this but ignore how Sanders let Clinton slide on Benghazi and her email scandal.

The right id complain over these issues but so did the left complain about many of Trumps failings (INCLUDING Trump University). The process is working fine and is working remarkably similarly on both sides. The primary portion was one where opponents chose to make these non-issues. Do you think Clinton will let the University nonsense slip by? Do you think Trump will let Clintons email nonsense slip by? nope, the process is working just fine and dandy and the lengthier the time, the MORE information gets out. Theses complaints are baseless and quite far from even being truthful!

Its getting very tiring seeing such lopsided and partisan postings as well. I think we can all agree on one statement:

why given the luxury of a 9 month process his opponents could not muster an effective use of Trump University? Or his other failings... Wha does it say about the 16 opponents or the Party in general?

Agreed!
But you stop there failing to follow through:

why given the luxury of a 9 month process her opponents could not muster an effective use of Benghazzi and her illegal Email Server? Or her other failings... Wha does it say about the other opponents or the Party in general?

You see, Trump is a bad candidate, please try to stop telling us what we already know (I don't think we have found a solid Trump supporter on these forums yet, have we?) but to ignore the other side, to ignore how bad a candidate Clinton is as well, that's just partisan politics, do you honestly believe Clinton is as pure as the driven snow? That's how you are portraying her, you speak of her "Grace, Intelligence and Patience" ...really? You believe that load of crap? ....Few others do! (and your precious polls assure us this is the case) so please drop the one sided nonsense and post with at least some open mindedness and honesty and stop simply passing along the party lines, have a mind of your own please!

tom

The process is working fine

Really? So you disagree with fate when he says

Fate

It is ridiculous to me that Clinton and Trump are the "best" this country has to offer.

Tom

In one breath you tell us how the process is too long, then in another you complain certain info was not dealt with.

Please do quote me... It may actually help you understand better.
My point is, that in a process so long it should be able to completely ver a candidate - the quality of Trumps opponenets was so poor that he got through the process.

Tom

You complain Cruz and Rubios should have grilled Trump over this but ignore how Sanders let Clinton slide on Benghazi and her email scandal.

I'm not complaining. I'm pointing out their failure. You understand the difference?
As for Sanders and Ben Ghazi. After 13 hearings, run by republicans, there was nothing left to pick at.... not that there was much to start with.
Same thing with emails. The FBI will finish its investigation shortly. That'll end the matter except for the conspiracy theorists.
The problem with going after Clinton with innuendo, conspiracy theories and smears is that they are built on sand. And never go anywhere. Trump even offered up the Internet Zombie lie of Vince Foster. And he'll likely try to revive more zombie lies.. (as he did with vaccines in the debates. And has he has with climate change.) He'll go after Hillary on the Clinton Foundation which will go no where except to prove that Bill has built a pretty effective NGO. And what else? Foreign policy? Since Obama has a very high approval rating, and Hillary's approval ratings when she was Secretary of State were very high, thats a pretty difficult vector. Coming from someone who is largely ignorant of the area.

On the other hand; Trump University and Trumps various other frauds, have a great deal of substantial evidence. Enough for several lawsuits to proceed to trial.
Moreover, his character, his own words and his behaviour are constantly on view.
His defence for bigotry:
"I was misconstrued".

If this election ends up being about about character.... Could we not agree that the republican primary process produced a totally failed candidate?
If thats not a indictment of the process and the participants in the process, what is?
And it totally contradicts you when you say:

The process is working fine

again, you get half way there.
I do agree the Republican process produced a bad candidate
But the Democrats side produced a bad candidate as well.

But bottom line, we got what we wanted
I would never suggest we have our candidates picked for us, Democracy allows us to chose who we want, sometimes it's a bad choice and Republicans and Democrats both picked some bad candidates over the years. We got what we wanted and while I don't care for either, the system is indeed working just fine thank you!

tom

, Democracy allows us to chose who we want, sometimes it's a bad choice and Republicans and Democrats both picked some bad candidates over the years. We got what we wanted and while I don't care for either, the system is indeed working just fine thank you

!
You can't connect poor results with a poor system?
BTW, Neither primary system is all that democratic.
From winner take all delegate results in a state where the winner had only 30% of the vote, to caucuses or conventions that ignore the direct vote (Washington) the connection to actual voting results is pretty slim.

tom

But bottom line, we got what we wanted

You honestly believe that most people want bad candidates?

I honestly believe the people in a party and not the party officials should determine their candidate. Those states that were winner take all decided that was the method they preferred, other states do it differently. Our Republic gives each State a lot of autonomy and the people as well. I do not want some party hack deciding who THEY want to run. What about any democracy, do they always have the "best" candidates running? nope, so I guess your ideal government is Communism? The govt runs all, they decide who will run, etc, you know I really do think that is the liberals preferred system?!

To answer you
YES I certainly can say the system is working even though I happen to think our options both stink. We got what we asked for, therefore it's working!

Hey, let's talk about fraudulent education, shall we?

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-president ... lion-back/

Dude! The Clintons take a backseat to no one!

I am quite upset at how Hillary won. 355 super delegates committing to her before the primaries even begun. That's 14 percent of the vote. That's basically the party establishment saying who they want. And the media saying that Bernie could not win since the early going because of the super delegates. So Bernie would have to try and make up for that 14 percent disadvantage and deal with the fact that Democratic voters are constantly being told by CNN and MSNBC that the race is over by virtue of the fact that Hillary locked up those super delegates early. They wouldn't say it that way--they would that the math is against him because of Hillary's lead in delegates.

This is what Hillary learned from 2008--she did not lock up enough super delegates and Obama was able to overcome her early advantage there. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/ ... arackobama

Here is a discussion as to how the super delegate system started in 1982.
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/15/457181/-

I don't think I will care too much if Trump wins. Just give him the wrong nuclear codes, please...

freeman3 wrote:I am quite upset at how Hillary won. 355 super delegates committing to her before the primaries even begun. That's 14 percent of the vote. That's basically the party establishment saying who they want. And the media saying that Bernie could not win since the early going because of the super delegates. So Bernie would have to try and make up for that 14 percent disadvantage and deal with the fact that Democratic voters are constantly being told by CNN and MSNBC that the race is over by virtue of the fact that Hillary locked up those super delegates early. They wouldn't say it that way--they would that the math is against him because of Hillary's lead in delegates.

This is what Hillary learned from 2008--she did not lock up enough super delegates and Obama was able to overcome her early advantage there. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/ ... arackobama

Here is a discussion as to how the super delegate system started in 1982.
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/15/457181/-

If the GOP had super-delegates, we would have had Jeb! (exclamation point fully intended as a lark) as our candidate. I would have been very upset.

Then again, we have Trump . . . and I'm nauseated.

I don't think I will care too much if Trump wins. Just give him the wrong nuclear codes, please...

I don't *really* think he's that nuts. I just wish he had a modicum of decorum.

I tend to agree with you and I think the responsibilities will sober him up quickly. As long as Trump is nominated, I might sit this one out. Not that I'm for Trump but I don't see him as really being a Republican. If somehow the Republicans ousted Trump then I would have to vote for Hillary. I am not voting for Papaltine unless I have to, though..

freeman3 wrote:I tend to agree with you and I think the responsibilities will sober him up quickly. As long as Trump is nominated, I might sit this one out. Not that I'm not for Trump but I don't see him as really being a Republican. If somehow the Republicans ousted Trump then I would have to vote for Hillary. I am not voting for Papaltine unless I have to, though..

Funny, we're at the same place for the polar opposite reasons.

I think the odds of the GOP ousting Trump are 0.5%.

But if it happens, I'm buying the popcorn--and the beer.

fate

Hey, let's talk about fraudulent education, shall we?

There's a difference between fraudulent and "for profit..."
The financialization of the education system is a disturbing trend, that Laureate is the epitome of.... But go back to their origins at Sylvan learning centres and I suppose there was a role they filled.
They paid slick Willy an exorbitant amount to endorse in the same fashion that Nike pays Lebron....
Like every endorser he should genuinely care about what he is endirsing... I wonder if he did.
But here's a balanced look at the issue...

As an academic, I find both Trump University and Laureate to be deeply troubling stories. Yet, only one has been pursued by the media to any significant degree. I am not suggesting that Laureate as a whole is fraudulent. It clearly is a large for-profit educational company that has far more to show for its work than Trump University. Indeed, this is a huge global company with tremendous financial assets and profits. Moreover, there are distinctions that can be drawn with a university like Trump that is based entirely on the presumptive nominee and his promises in advertising. However, the money given to the Clintons, the involvement of the State Department, and the claims of fraud make this an obviously significant story in my view. The ridiculous amount of money given to Clinton alone raises legitimate questions. This is a company that was expanding exponentially in foreign countries. The association with Clinton was obviously greatly desired by the company. The question is whether the association with the Clintons resulted in any favorable treatment for the company or its affiliates.

https://jonathanturley.org/2016/06/08/t ... -clintons/

Its easy to see how Trump benefitted from his fraudulent claims. Its easy to see how Bill benefitted from his honorary title and endoresement . Its east to see how Laureate may have benefitted from his endoresment in student recruitemnt.
Its very unclear how Laureate would have benefitted from, any State grants.

Various sites have reported that the State Department funneled $55 million in grants during Hillary Clinton’s tenure to groups associated with Laureate’s founder. That would seem a pretty major story but virtually no mainstream media outlet has reported it while running hundreds of stories on the Trump University scandal. The stories on the grants do not name Laureate directly. Accordingly, the company might have not received direct grants (my first column did not make that clear and, in fairness to Laureate, there is no evidence of a quid pro quo arrangement or even direct grants). However, there are references to the International Youth Federation (connected to Laureate chairman Douglas Becker) as receiving USAID funding

.
https://jonathanturley.org/2016/06/08/t ... -clintons/

The Clinton Initiatives aren't a profit making enterprise, nor even an enterpise controlled by the Clinton Foundation

Commitments to Action
Each CGI member develops a Commitment to Action – a plan to take specific action to make the world a better place. Commitments generally fit within one of CGI’s nine tracks: The Built Environment, Education & Workforce Development, Energy, Environmental Stewardship, Girls & Women, Global Health, Market-Based Approaches, Response & Resilience, and Technology.

Commitments must be new, specific, and measurable, but beyond those three criteria, members have wide latitude to determine which actions to take. CGI then monitors the progress and success of these commitments throughout the year. Funding pledged through commitments does not come through CGI, and is not donated to CGI. Rather, organizations commit to raise and distribute money on their own.

Since 2005, CGI members have made more than 3,400 Commitments to Action, which have improved the lives of over 430 million people in more than 180 countries.[36]

CGI University
In 2007, President Clinton launched CGI U, which expanded the successful model of CGI to students, universities, and national youth organizations. CGI U includes two days of plenary sessions and hands-on breakout sessions, followed by a day-long service project.

Since the first meeting in 2008, CGI U members have made more than 2,000 Commitments to Action in the areas of energy and climate change, global health, human rights and peace, and poverty alleviation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_F ... University

By comparsion Trump University was a shabby scam.

Carrying Hillary's water again?

Let's think . . . State Department, headed by Mrs. Bill Clinton, funnels $55M to Laureate's founder. Laureate pays Bill Clinton $16M.

No, no possibility of corruption there!

Nice work.

tom

I honestly believe the people in a party and not the party officials should determine their candidate. Those states that were winner take all decided that was the method they preferred

To be clear Tom, in the States that decided on winner takes all, it was the party officials who made the choice to be a winner take all state.

freeman3

I am quite upset at how Hillary won. 355 super delegates committing to her before the primaries even begun. That's 14 percent of the vote. That's basically the party establishment saying who they want. And the media saying that Bernie could not win since the early going because of the super delegates

A defence, of sorts, for super delegates.
The realities of the American system of governance is that a President needs to work with Congress and the Senate and other levels of govenrment.
One thing the Super delegate system does do is recognize that and help ensure that whomever is elected is capable and has the ability to work within the system to get stuff done. The Super Delegates are these people.
Hillary does have that going for her. She knows how to build a coalition on the Hill.
Sanders isn't really known for his work in the trenches of Washington.
Although I agreed with more of Sanders platform (96% to 94% for Hillary) and I probably would have voted for him, the reality is that - unless he won a super majority in the Senate and a majority in the House to support him - getting stuff done on his agenda would meet resistance.
And maybe even then. Hillary knows how to grease the wheels. (As repugnant as that may sound)
Perhaps the idea of super delegates will go away as Democrats review this process. Or maybe a rule will be entertained tha no public support from a super delegate can be announced till after their state primary or caucus.
But the notion that Super Delgates gamed the system belies the evidence that Clinton won 3 million more votes, more states and more states with primaries than Bernie.
She did win.

Fate

State Department, headed by Mrs. Bill Clinton, funnels $55M to Laureate's founder

Except thats not what it did.

the State Department funneled $55 million in grants during Hillary Clinton’s tenure to groups associated with Laureate’s founder.

Those grants went to the International Youth Foundation.
The International Yourth Foundation was established by President H.W. Bush and received millions in government grants well before Hillary became secretary of state and Bill became honorary chancellor of Laureate.
There's no evidence Laureate benefitted in any way from ay of the State Grants before during or after Clinton was at State.
https://www.truthorfiction.com/claims-b ... niversity/

Fate

Carrying Hillary's water again?

Believing everything you read on Breitbart, uncritically? Again?

Ricky, the super delegates mechanism did not really become an issue until 2008 when Hillary tried to get early commitment from a lot of them. Even then there was a lot of pressure for the super delegates to switch if the state went to the other side. The important point is that Hillary in 2008 used the super delegate system in a way it had not been used before. Yes, the system was anti-democratic but at least before the super delegates were supposed to remain independent so they could jump in to stop a candidate who the party thought could not win. The reason you put in is not the reason for it. But the Clintons first tried to do in 2008 that had not been done as a strategy before was to line up early support in order to create a momentum that could not be stopped. The super delegate system was definitely was not initially designed to get a front-runner anointed so that Democratic voters would have no real say in the matter.

This time Hillary went even further into securing that support. You're saying she really won Ricky? Yes, but without those superdelegates she could not have convinced the media that the election was over and to not give him as much media coverage. Every primary no matter the result CNN and MSNBC would say there is no chance that Sanders would win. So how could you say Hillary "won" when the process was so distorted in her favor? She won but it wasn't fair. And if they don't change the superdelegate system there are going to be a lot of Democratic voters who say why bother voting in a primary--it's as rigged now as it used to be when election were decided by back-room deals.