People on the interwebs tend to offer all kinds of "theories" that have zero basis in the law and that otherwise make no sense.

And honestly, the protestations against Clinton are largely based upon hysteria. I'm not her biggest fan, but she is obviously intelligent, capable of leading a staff and a competent administrator. She's not exactly a charismatic figure and her public speaking voice is a bit painful, but elections are not supposed to be beauty contests.

I may not approve of all of a candidate's stated policies, but still can like them or trust them. My own opinion is compared to the current Presidential candidates, both Ryan and Sanders are more likeable and more trustworthy.

Just day dreaming about unworkable solution of re-starting the primaries as it seems to me quite ridiculous the choice is between two candidates that the majority of people think are both untrustworthy.

Ryan failed miserably, Sanders came in a distant second.

Again, I find the anti-Clinton rhetoric to be shrill and absurd, and I don't even care much for her myself. I haven't heard one substantive reason why she's supposedly the devil incarnate (and no, "I don't trust her" without anything factual to back it up really doesn't count as an answer.) Some people are just whingers.

If I were Obama I'd tell them where to shove an extra year as President but the Speaker does in fact become President if the President and Vice-President were to die or both become incapacitated to the extent they could no longer function

I agree that Clinton is intelligent, has had experience leading a staff, and as far as I know competent as an administrator. That does not mean she has the philosophy and strategic sense to lead the country. I do not believe she has the slightest clue about economics. Plus there is the trustworthy issue.

Trump obviously has experience running a business, and as such has experiencing in managing people, and I doubt his public persona expresses how he ran his businesses. However even the rabid supporter or never-Clinton voter must be troubled whether he has the knowledge to establish and implement his "stated" policies.

Two very poor choices.

And this has precisely what to do with replacing the current candidates for president

I have no idea what that actually means. And I'm frankly not confident that you are in a position to judge, given your own comments about economics.

That's what it comes down to. You have this gut feeling about her that is visceral and based upon nothing. You've been told for 20+ years that she's terrible, so it just "feels right" not to trust her even though you don't have a logical reason for it.

If disliking her feels good, then do it. Unbelievable.

So you want the president to violate the constitution.

Come on, folks, these are just not reasonable ideas. This is mental masturbation with an anti-climax. Enough already.

Two-term senator and Secretary of State. I'd say she's better qualified than recent presidents have been, including her husband and Obama.

How Ryan or Sanders did in the primaries doesn't for me influence whether they were likeable or sincere. I believe they are both sincere in their beliefs compared to Clinton or Trump.

As far as Clinton her handling of the emails I believe is sufficient to determine whether one can trust her. But Nixon could often be brilliant and decisive, and we know how trustworthy he was. I wish we could stop hearing about the damn emails.

Lots of shrill and absurd rhetoric about both candidates.

No that's not it roadwarrior.

It's politics. I have no doubt that the Clintons both have feces under their fingernails. I also don't doubt that any president, prime minister, head if state anywhere is entirely free of dirt.

It comes down to this. There are some pretty self serving forces in this world. There are also forces which actually aspire to do good. I'd put Obama and Clinton in the latter category. I'd put the likes of Trump and Putin in the former.

If you want to win a rugby match, don't bring the badminton team.

We should always aspire to adhere to our values. But in the nasty global world of politics, to achieve a specific goal often requires playing a little dirty. Getting your hands dirty. Taking personal or professional risks. Certainly our adversaries couldn't give a flying dynamic fark about ethics. And you just can't counter that with perfectly ethical weapons.

The big question is, which candidate(s) exhibit a historical passion for the goals you'd want to achieve? Which of them is committed to solving problems rather than simply personal gain? Bear in mind, that after the fight, none of them will come home with clean hands, so that metric is rather irrelevant, at least in a practical sense.

??

What it probably comes down to is that they don't want to take orders from a woman, in just the same way that they didn't want to take orders from a black man.

Literally everyone in my office wants this to happen.

Hillary against Trump is like the Mafia against a baboon. As self-serving as the Mafia are they are ultimately good at running things, but the baboon just makes a lot of noise and insists you should be impressed by his butt.

Poll after poll have shown the majority of people do not feel she is trustworthy, and to some a reason not to vote for her, and you may be completely correct that 20 plus years of coverage of the issue certainly has influenced people.

Considering his aggressive business record, and inability to articulate clear policies on many issues, I do not think it would be unreasonable to question the trustworthiness of Trump. In fact, and I am unqualified to determine this from any medical knowledge, I have wondered whether Trump may have some early signs of dementia.

I couldn't care less about Clinton's emails in terms of evaluating whether she has policies that I believe will be successful.

This demonization by the right of the left, by the left of the right, has contributed to this silly election season.