2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Overheal

oik wrote: »

So far it's a problem for the talking heads in the media. We'll see if it's a problem for the electorate.

This sounds like one of those things that only interests partisans, while independents shrug their shoulders.

You claim to speak for independents now?

Overheal

FISMA. wrote: »

Wrong.

Point of fact, he has paid tens of millions in taxes. Maybe, hundreds of millions over those 15 years and still donated to charity.

He has paid: property tax, sales tax, social security tax, state tax, county tax, and local taxes, to name a few.

That's enough for me.

And no federal income tax, a phrase glaringly left out of his attorneys statement.

InTheTrees

oik wrote: »

So far it's a problem for the talking heads in the media. We'll see if it's a problem for the electorate.

This sounds like one of those things that only interests partisans, while independents shrug their shoulders.

Voters understand who ultimately has to pay for tax breaks given to trump.

Thats the problem. It damaged Romney badly in 2012 when it was revealed he was only paying 12%.

And now it turns out trump isnt paying any at all. And all because he managed to lose 900 million in 1995.

InTheTrees

FISMA. wrote: »

He has paid: property tax, sales tax, social security tax, state tax, county tax, and local taxes, to name a few.

That's enough for me.

Okay. So in your opinion he's paid enough???

I think I've paid enough too.

Trent Houseboat

Billy86 wrote: »

It's definitely a combination of everything, but to suggest that in the current climate of this election (jobs, economy, the whole 99% vs 1% thing more alive than ever, and so on) that the undecideds won't care about someone who claims to have billions bragging about not paying any taxes (then lying about having never said so, right after) is... well I'll be diplomatic and say it's unrealistic.

I just meant that he sounded like a disgrace throughout. Not to imply that he was competent enough to fasten his own oversized suit.

oik

InTheTrees wrote: »

Voters understand who ultimately has to pay for tax breaks given to trump.

Thats the problem. It damaged Romney badly in 2012 when it was revealed he was only paying 12%.

And now it turns out trump isnt paying any at all. And all because he managed to lose 900 million in 1995.

The voters understanding is far less shallow than you're making out.

Trump has maintained from the very beginning that he pays as little tax as legally possible.

We'll have to wait and see how this plays out. This could be another Trump ruse. He might end up releasing the last few years tax returns showing that he did pay tax, and thanks to the Clinton's accusing him of paying zero, expectations will be low so that no matter what rate he pays it will seem like enough.


My guess is, he knew the tax return issue would come up, I find it highly unlikely he didn't plan for it in some way.

oik

Billy86 wrote: »

Have you been paying any attention to the polls this week?

There isn't much polling data to go on, and a Clinton bump was to be expected based on her winning the debate and the post debate spin.

vetinari

FISMA. wrote: »

Wrong.

Point of fact, he has paid tens of millions in taxes. Maybe, hundreds of millions over those 15 years and still donated to charity.

He has paid: property tax, sales tax, social security tax, state tax, county tax, and local taxes, to name a few.

That's enough for me.

Did you get to see his tax returns FISMA?
Odds are he's paid no federal tax for the last decade at least!
No wonder he won't release his tax returns.
He's got to be the biggest chancer that has ever run for president!
Hey vote for me, I'm a billionaire who doesn't pay federal taxes!

Billy86

oik wrote: »

Well, no.

Trump has never destroyed evidence under subpoena and his public and private life are two different things.

If you want to argue that his conduct in regards to his tax returns, which are totally confidential and he is under no obligation to release are indicative of how he would behave in relation to subpoenaed evidence you have an uphill struggle

I know from my perspective, I'm not showing anyone my bank statement or my tax returns or even my boards.ie password no matter what office I'm seeking.

But if I received a warrant or subpoena for any of these things I would comply immediately.

You have to establish why both of these scenarios (obligation/no obligation) are the same.

Sorry but as you said...

oik wrote: »

There's no difference when it comes to matter of principle.

And what public offices have you ran for, out of interest?

Billy86

oik wrote: »

There isn't much polling data to go on, and a Clinton bump was to be expected based on her winning the debate and the post debate spin.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/polls.html
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-the-craziest-end-to-the-2016-campaign-runs-through-new-mexico/
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-whomps-debate-reactions-trumps-unfavorability-edges-poll/story?id=42498052
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/02/poll-clinton-wins-debate-with-more-saying-trump-got-facts-wrong/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/30/fox-news-poll-clinton-ahead-trump-after-debate-fear-motivating-both-sides.html
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-post-debate-polls-228984
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/01/upshot/no-debate-that-hillary-clintons-polling-numbers-are-improving.html
http://www.timesofisrael.com/clinton-resurgent-trump-stalls-in-post-debate-polls/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

There have been plenty of polls, they have been one of the major talking points of the week both on this forum and in the news, even Fox and Rasumussen have her gaining on the back of the first debate. Even supporters of Trump and his advisors have been saying the debate went badly and have hurt him Your denial of reality on this matter is frankly odd, and is fooling nobody.

oik

Billy86 wrote: »

Your denial of reality on this matter is frankly odd, and is fooling nobody.

Look at the post you just quoted. Nice reading comprehension.

Based on the links you just showed me (which you clearly didn't examine yourself), there isn't much post debate polling data out yet. Most polls are conducted at the weekend, so they won't all be out until Monday at the earliest.

oik

Billy86 wrote: »

Sorry but as you said...

I did say that, in relation to a completely different topic and completely different principle.

Overheal

What is your methodology then for deciding which principles are important?

oik

Overheal wrote: »

What is your methodology then for deciding which principles are important?

What makes you think the relative importance of principle is at issue here?

Overheal

oik wrote: »

What makes you think the relative importance of principle is at issue here?

You said it was. You even bolded it.

Billy86

oik wrote: »

Look at the post you just quoted. Nice reading comprehension.

Let me remind you of the conversation to this point...

oik wrote: »

This sounds like one of those things that only interests partisans, while independents shrug their shoulders.

Billy86 wrote: »

Have you been paying any attention to the polls this week?

oik wrote: »

There isn't much polling data to go on, and a Clinton bump was to be expected based on her winning the debate and the post debate spin.

Billy86 wrote: »

<links to polling data>

There have been plenty of polls, they have been one of the major talking points of the week both on this forum and in the news, even Fox and Rasumussen have her gaining on the back of the first debate. Even supporters of Trump and his advisors have been saying the debate went badly and have hurt him Your denial of reality on this matter is frankly odd, and is fooling nobody.

Alright I have to ask... are you on a wind up?



Just saw your bit about there not being many polls in the links... let me make this very simple for you - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

oik

For Billy and Overheal

There is a difference of principle between destroying subpoenaed evidence and not releasing confidential information when you are not legally obliged to.

Please respond s I know you understand.

oik

Billy86 wrote: »

Let me remind you of the conversation to this point...



Alright I have to ask... are you on a wind up?

Just because polls have changed doesn't mean independents care about the one issue you're choosing to emphasise at this point. The debate touched upon a number of issues that could have swayed the polls.

If you're feeling wound up it could be because you're having trouble with reading comprehension.

Billy86

oik wrote: »

For Billy and Overheal

There is a difference of principle between destroying subpoenaed evidence and not releasing confidential information.

Please respond s I know you understand.

Do you understand the difference between 2 dollars and 900 million dollars?

Seriously, you're delving into the land of performance art at this point.

oik

Billy86 wrote: »

Do you understand the difference between 2 dollars and 900 million dollars?

Seriously, you're delving into the land of performance art at this point.

So you accept there is a principled difference between the two concepts and now you're resorting to differences of magnitude we touched upon on a previous unrelated topic as a deflection tactic?

Billy86

oik wrote: »

So you accept there is a principled difference between the two concepts and now you're resorting to differences of magnitude we touched upon on a previous unrelated topic as a deflection tactic?

It's called consistency, you have none. But I think you know that and just want some attention. Bye now.

EDIT: For anyone interested here is oik's posting history. 120-odd posts and every single of them one in this thread or the debate one - http://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?user=818542&sort=newest&date_to=&date_from=&query=%2A%3A%2A&page=1 - how very strange. Probably explains why they are having trouble quoting other posters directly...

oik

Billy86 wrote: »

It's called consistency, you have none. But I think you know that and just want some attention. Bye now.

I've proven consistency of principle here.

Destroying evidence under subpoena is against the law and speaks to a lack of transparency.

Not releasing tax returns which are confidential documents (meaning no one but Trump and the IRS have the right to view them) is entirely different both morally and in principle.

To prove otherwise, I call on you to release your tax returns.

oik

Billy86 wrote: »

Just saw your bit about there not being many polls in the links... let me make this very simple for you - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

These are all the national polls since the debate on RCP






Like I said, not many.

oik

Billy86 wrote: »

It's called consistency, you have none. But I think you know that and just want some attention. Bye now.

EDIT: For anyone interested here is oik's posting history. 120-odd posts and every single of them one in this thread or the debate one - http://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?user=818542&sort=newest&date_to=&date_from=&query=%2A%3A%2A&page=1 - how very strange. Probably explains why they are having trouble quoting other posters directly...

Nice edit! :pac:

I doubt anyone is as interested in my post history as you Bill, as you're the only one getting shafted here!

Overheal

Trump is really taking advantage of those days rallying when he should be prepping - by implying Hillary cheated/cheats on Bill Clinton.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/while-attacking-clintons-loyalty-trump-wonders-out-loud-if-shes-cheated-on-her-husband/

He certainly has the pulse on America: being an uncloseted mysoginist will surely propel him into the White House. I pity the man - he must surely know how unqualified he is for the position, but he can't back down now; he surely has to be trying to tank his own chances. How to get through November without forever being a Loser?

Time to sit back and wonder what the October surprise will be this year. Whatever it ends up being, the odds it will propel this narcissist into being the commander in chief are looking thankfully slimmer by the day.

Overheal

oik wrote: »

These are all the national polls since the debate on RCP

Like I said, not many.

Yes, I suppose it would be too much to consider the state polling..

InTheTrees

oik wrote: »

Not releasing tax returns which are confidential documents (meaning no one but Trump and the IRS have the right to view them) is entirely different both morally and in principle.

At this point we all know why he isn't releasing his returns. He pays no federal income tax.

And he declared bankruptcy in 1995 having lost Nine Hundred Million Dollars.

Overheal

‘Don’t you think a man who has this kind of economic genius is a lot better for the United States than a woman.’ - Rudy Giuliani

http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/10/02/giuliani-snaps-a-man-is-a-lot-better-for-the-u-s-than-a-woman-video/

Trump and his surrogates are giving their opponent all the soundbytes she needs to win on a platter.

He also goes on the interview to suggest that Clinton is a bad choice for 'taking money from countries where women can't drive' etc. without mentioning Trump's ownings in Dubai, his bailout from Saudi Royalty, etc...

Black Swan

conditioned games wrote: »

Mainstream media had Clinton win, these are controlled media corporations owned by wealthy elite people that don't represent the average American.

It's so grand to know that Donald Trump was born to a middle class family, with middle class income, and middle class values, thereby making Trump a representative member of the "average American," and was not born a member of the top 1% pampered "wealthy elite."

ancapailldorcha

Oik will be taking a little break. In the meantime, let's try to have a serious discussion about a very important topic.

Quin_Dub

There's been very little talk about the possible source of this leaked Tax info..

I've only seen one short article discussing that piece in any way

How much more do they have?

Will the "October Surprise" be a further release providing insight into Trumps Charitable contributions or perhaps some more recent tax information?

RobertKK

New York Times have on their front page that Hillary Clinton knew of Bill's affairs and aggressively went after the women to discredit them.

The NYT's say:

"Outwardly she remained stoic and defiant...but privately, she embraced the Clinton's campaign strategy of counterattack: Women who claimed to have had sexual encounters with Mr Clinton would become targets of digging and discrediting - tactics that women's rights advocates frequently denounce"

They say Hillary had a private investigator go after these women. Hillary in 1992 claimed the women simply made these allegations to get their pictures on the newspapers, she called Gennifer Flowers "a failed cabaret singer with not much of a resume to fall back on"

The NYTs say Bill had affairs with dozens of women.

So Hillary attacked Trump over an overweight Miss Universe, but she called a woman who did have an affair with Bill a failure, a no hoper and only doing it to get on the papers. She seems quite petulant behind the scenes...

It does put into question what type of women would stay with a man who cheats on her constantly, and why did she attack Trump over Miss Universe when she did the same thing to Gennifer Flowers and the other women who had affairs with her husband.

Pro Hoc Vice

RobertKK wrote: »

New York Times have on their front page that Hillary Clinton knew of Bill's affairs and aggressively went after the women to discredit them.

The NYT's say:

"Outwardly she remained stoic and defiant...but privately, she embraced the Clinton's campaign strategy of counterattack: Women who claimed to have had sexual encounters with Mr Clinton would become targets of digging and discrediting - tactics that women's rights advocates frequently denounce"

They say Hillary had a private investigator go after these women. Hillary in 1992 claimed the women simply made these allegations to get their pictures on the newspapers, she called Gennifer Flowers "a failed cabaret singer with not much of a resume to fall back on"

The NYTs say Bill had affairs with dozens of women.

So Hillary attacked Trump over an overweight Miss Universe, but she called a woman who did have an affair with Bill a failure, a no hoper and only doing it to get on the papers. She seems quite petulant behind the scenes...

It does put into question what type of women would stay with a man who cheats on her constantly, and why did she attack Trump over Miss Universe when she did the same thing to Gennifer Flowers and the other women who had affairs with her husband.

Well I suppose the wives Trump cheated on dumped his ass!

RobertKK

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Well I suppose the wives Trump cheated on dumped his ass!

In 1992, Hillary claimed she was no Tammy Wynette standing by her man.

The NYT say this is a lie.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/03/us/politics/hillary-bill-clinton-women.html?_r=0

Ms. Flowers, a lounge singer and Arkansas state employee at the time, sold Star magazine her story claiming an affair with Mr. Clinton that had lasted more than 10 years.
In a meeting with aides, the Clintons scripted a unified defense that they delivered in the interview on “60 Minutes.”
With Mrs. Clinton nodding agreement, Mr. Clinton admitted to the TV audience to “causing pain in my marriage,” but denied an affair with Ms. Flowers. Mrs. Clinton professed sympathy for Ms. Flowers, saying she had been caught up in rumors through no fault of her own.
But at a news conference the next day, Ms. Flowers reasserted her claims, playing excerpts from her calls with Mr. Clinton. The two could be heard discussing the attention the rumors were getting, and she joked about his sexual talents.
Glimpsing the news conference in South Dakota, Mrs. Clinton directed an aide to get Mr. Clinton on the phone, Gail Sheehy, a journalist traveling with her, recalled in a recent interview.
“It was a reaction of no surprise, but immediate anger and action,” said Ms. Sheehy, who also described her observations in a Vanity Fair article that year. “Not anger at Bill, but at Flowers, the press and Republicans.”
Back on a plane that night, Mrs. Clinton told Ms. Sheehy that if she were to question Ms. Flowers in front of a jury, “I would crucify her.”

While Mrs. Clinton considered the Lewinsky affair a “personal lapse” by her husband, she gave him credit for trying to break it off and manage someone who was a “narcissistic loony toon,” according to Ms. Blair’s papers.
Soon after, Mrs. Clinton expressed pleasure to her friend that she and her husband were able to drive “their adversaries totally nuts” because they did not appear to be suffering.
Ms. Blair wrote in that entry a direct quotation from Mrs. Clinton: “Most people in this town have no pain threshold.”

Her campaign tune should be 'Stand by your man' by Tammy Wynette.

Skylinehead

RobertKK wrote: »

I mentioned Rice many many weeks ago, is she running for the presidency?

I'm just trying to get my head around your attitude here. Your aversion to Clinton is based on her warmongering, correct? And yet you have openly professed to admiring Rice, who played a huge part in actually instigating the illegal Iraq War that you hate. Why is that? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

InTheTrees

RobertKK wrote: »

So Hillary attacked Trump over an overweight Miss Universe...

Woa. Thats some spinning.

Trump was called out for insulting a woman about her Hispanic heritage and her weight.

He called an american soap opera star "Miss Piggy" and then "Miss Housekeeping" as a dig at her heritage.

RobertKK

InTheTrees wrote: »

Woa. Thats some spinning.

Trump was called out for insulting a woman about her Hispanic heritage and her weight.

He called an american soap opera star "Miss Piggy" and then "Miss Housekeeping" as a dig at her heritage.

Did Trump have his people put out false information that Miss Universe tried to commit suicide to make out she was not mentally well?

The Clinton's did about Gennifer Flowers.
Palladio is the private investigator hired by the Clintons.

The information gathered by Mr. Palladino was given to Betsey Wright, a former chief of staff to Mr. Clinton in Arkansas who, with Mrs. Clinton’s support, was put in charge of dealing with accusations of infidelity.
“Betsey Wright was handling whatever those issues were,” Susan Thomases, a friend of the Clintons who had served in the campaign, told the oral history project. “And it had been very comfortable because Hillary had let her do it.”
Through Ms. Wright, the digging into Ms. Flowers and other women would be passed on to reporters.
Ms. Wright declined to be interviewed, saying in an email, “It is reprehensible that The New York Times is joining The National Enquirer and Donald Trump by dredging up irrelevant slime from the past.”
At the time, Ms. Wright boasted to The Washington Post of Mr. Palladino’s success in countering what she memorably called “bimbo eruptions,” and in defusing two dozen accusations of affairs, which she contended were false.
In the cover story of an issue of Penthouse in which Ms. Flowers posed nude — she would earn at least $500,000 selling her story to media outlets — Ms. Wright pushed allegations about her gathered by Mr. Palladino, including “résumé hype, attempted blackmail, manufacturing a self-styled 12-year affair with Clinton to salvage a flopola singing career.”
Ms. Wright read to the Penthouse reporter a statement, taken by Mr. Palladino, that “when the richest of her many lovers would not leave his wife, or come across with more money, she staged a suicide attempt with wine and Valium.”
Mrs. Clinton herself took aim at Ms. Flowers in a June 1992 appearance on “The Arsenio Hall Show” better remembered for Mr. Clinton’s saxophone playing. Mr. Hall asked Mrs. Clinton about Ms. Flowers: “You know what her problem is?”
“She’s got lots of problems,” Mrs. Clinton said.
Ms. Flowers denied the accusations about her, calling the suicide story, in particular, “false and cruel.”

Just accept, none of these are nice people. Whoever is president will not be nice people.

RobertKK

Skylinehead wrote: »

I'm just trying to get my head around your attitude here. Your aversion to Clinton is based on her warmongering, correct? And yet you have openly professed to admiring Rice, who played a huge part in actually instigating the illegal Iraq War that you hate. Why is that? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Rice was not in power after the Bush administration. Clinton has been in some form of power to vote for the Iraq war onwards, and with the intelligence given on situations she made things far worse which is a record she has not learned from.

This thread is also not about people analysing other people on this thread.
What doesn't make sense to me is why would someone care what I posted a good while back at this stage, it is not relevant to the presidential election.

InTheTrees

Overheal wrote: »

‘Don’t you think a man who has this kind of economic genius is a lot better for the United States than a woman.’ - Rudy Giuliani

Rudy Guilani, the man who married his cousin, then got a papal annulment five years later on the basis that he had no idea she was his cousin.

And who announced his intention to get a divorce from his second wife via a press conference. He was mayor of new york except his wife had thrown him out of the official residence.

Skylinehead

RobertKK wrote: »

Rice was not in power after the Bush administration. Clinton has been in some form of power to vote for the Iraq war onwards, and with the intelligence given on situations she made things far worse which is a record she has not learned from.

This thread is also not about people analysing other people on this thread.
What doesn't make sense to me is why would someone care what I posted a good while back at this stage, it is not relevant to the presidential election.

Whether or not they're running for office isn't exactly relevant here. You admire Rice for doing the same thing (but worse, seeing as she was one of the culprits-in-chief) that you hate Clinto for. What you post is of course useful, your opposition to Clinton is totally hypocritical.

RobertKK

Skylinehead wrote: »

Whether or not they're running for office isn't exactly relevant here. You admire Rice for doing the same thing (but worse, seeing as she was one of the culprits-in-chief) that you hate Clinto for. What you post is of course useful, your opposition to Clinton is totally hypocritical.

Again your post lacks relevance.

I would question anyone in the US government who was behind the Libyan disaster, the support of terrorists against Assad and their ability to be competent if they seem to never learn anything from past experiences.
Since when is the US presidential race thread about me?

InTheTrees

RobertKK wrote: »

Again your post lacks relevance.

I would question anyone in the US government who was behind the Libyan disaster, the support of terrorists against Assad and their ability to be competent if they seem to never learn anything from past experiences.
Since when is the US presidential race thread about me?

Well you seem to think rice deserves a pass which arouses curiosity.

She was the secretary of state responsible for the invasion of Afghanistan, then the invasion of Iraq, Guantanamo prison, the torture renditions, etc etc...

Overheal

InTheTrees wrote: »

Well you seem to think rice deserves a pass which arouses curiosity.

She was the secretary of state responsible for the invasion of Afghanistan, then the invasion of Iraq, Guantanamo prison, the torture renditions, etc etc...

Which is certainly more responsible for the state of current affairs than Libya.

RobertKK

Julian Assange has cancelled his Tuesday balcony event at the Ecuadorian embassy due to 'security concerns'.
Instead he will release a video about Hillary Clinton which in one report is said to be extremely damaging to Clinton.
It will be on the 10th anniversary of the founding of Wikileaks.org.
Assange said: 'In the case of the DNC leaks for example, we pushed as fast as we could to try and get it in before the Democratic Nomination Conference, because obviously people had a right to understand who it is that they're nominating.
'The same is true here for the US electoral process.'

RobertKK

InTheTrees wrote: »

Well you seem to think rice deserves a pass which arouses curiosity.

She was the secretary of state responsible for the invasion of Afghanistan, then the invasion of Iraq, Guantanamo prison, the torture renditions, etc etc...

Since when is Condoleezza Rice running for the presidency

Skylinehead

RobertKK wrote: »

Since when is Condoleezza Rice running for the presidency

That's your argument? So you'd admire Clinton if not for the simple fact that she's running for office?

RobertKK

Skylinehead wrote: »

That's your argument? So you'd admire Clinton if not for the simple fact that she's running for office?

Was Rice secretary of state advising Obama on Libya, Syria, giving a reset button to Russia, contributed to a migrant crisis/terrorism in Europe, accept $25 million from the Saudis' into the Clinton foundation then say she is pro-woman, get a Clinton friend and foundation donor to do building work for Clinton foundation donor Denis O'Brien in Haiti...
So what percentage is Rice in the polls since this is a thread about the Presidential race?

Skylinehead

RobertKK wrote: »

Was Rice secretary of state advising Obama on Libya, Syria, giving a reset button to Russia, contributed to a migrant crisis/terrorism in Europe, accept $25 million from the Saudis' into the Clinton foundation then say she is pro-woman, get a Clinton friend and foundation donor to do building work for Clinton foundation donor Denis O'Brien in Haiti...
So what percentage is Rice in the polls since this is a thread about the Presidential race?

No, she was GWBs National Security Advisor, who heavily pushed the biggest disaster the Middle East has seen this century.

This is directly related to your stance on Hilary Clinton, stop pushing the relevance argument. If you can't back up your stance (because it's totally hypocritical is my guess, and you know it), that's not my problem.

InTheTrees wrote: »

Well you seem to think rice deserves a pass which arouses curiosity.

She was the secretary of state responsible for the invasion of Afghanistan, then the invasion of Iraq, Guantanamo prison, the torture renditions, etc etc...

I believe Colin Powell was SoS at the time. Doesn't absolve Rice obviously, she was still a "chief co-conspirator" in the Iraq War in her role as National Security Advisor.

Overheal

RobertKK wrote: »

Was Rice secretary of state advising Obama on Libya, Syria, giving a reset button to Russia, contributed to a migrant crisis/terrorism in Europe, accept $25 million from the Saudis' into the Clinton foundation then say she is pro-woman, get a Clinton friend and foundation donor to do building work for Clinton foundation donor Denis O'Brien in Haiti...
So what percentage is Rice in the polls since this is a thread about the Presidential race?

No she was Secretary when we went to war in Afghanistan, Iraq, labeled a bunch of countries an Axis of Evil, facilitated deals with the oil and gas industry, contributed to a migrant crisis/terrorism in the middle east, smart-bombed the crap out of civilians, gunned down civilians for holding cameras, gunned downed people for aiding the wounded, irradiated half of Iraq, mutated a generation of children, need I go on?

Your deflection is weak and your doublethink impressive.

RobertKK

Skylinehead wrote: »

No, she was GWBs National Security Advisor, who heavily pushed the biggest disaster the Middle East has seen this century.

This is directly related to your stance on Hilary Clinton, stop pushing the relevance argument. If you can't back up your stance (because it's totally hypocritical is my guess, and you know it), that's not my problem.

Yet, still totally irrelevant to the topic of 'US Presidential race'.

Since when what I said many weeks ago an issue in the US presidential election, will I see it being discussed on CNN, Fox, Sky, MSNBC, CBS, NYT, WP etc?

No because you are discussing something so irrelevant to make it about me and not the election.
I am sure the mods will deal with all this off topic stuff.