So WHAT are you saying?

Back to Subject?

Not so easy is it when you are asked to explain yourself!

No I asked you to explain what you were saying as you seem to see that I misunderstood you. What's so difficult about that?

Not Left, Centre or Right enough for you?

Let's get back to Western Tolerance.

2 competitors for the top job:
1: wants to build a wall
2: likes having a private server in Benghazi & to hell with security

Smart choices.

For a so called teacher, you're not very good at teaching.

When a student cannot see what the teacher is saying, questions arise, your failing to answer them speaks volumes.

Take that anyway you want, I was taught to question if unsure or not understanding.

What I have seen here many times is when you're caught on the back foot it's "off topic/return to topic/back to subject".

...

Wonder how may people believe it.

I personally believe EVERYTHING Hillary or her campaign mouthpieces say.
Why would they make stuff up? She has nothing to hide except for the trail of suspicious deaths and unexpected "suicides" that follow the Clintons.
That doctor should say whatever is healthy for him or her. Truth be damned.

My sarcasm did not come through, I guess.
That's the trouble with written words.

As per requests from other Posters in the PM's, regarding Sirius B: Back to Subject -

TRUMP +5...

http://www.latimes.com/politics/

Good week for Trump?

Or bad week for Hillary?

While the polls have swung in Drumpf's direction, your unerring ability to pick the ones most favorable to that candidate continues to demonstrate your biased selection of poll data. There's also a +5 Clinton poll released today, why not mention that in this thread?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Just another Pot (Europe), calling the Kettle (America), Black.

Who, other that you CLYDE, makes claims about superiority?

History does.

Too many of the old European ruling classes treated their citizens as inferior. The modern rulers think the same - So no change there then.

American Superiority claim over All? Never.

Wouldn't mind have the return of The British Empire. Or a Scandinavian Empire. Or Modern Day Italian Empire (Great Wine and Food) :)

Have just stated this: Which Empire (there are always Empires) would you, in the present world or near future, wish to be Dominant? China? Russia? America?

The Above (The EU don't have the Brute Force Necessary) are the only choices, in the Real World.

Acknowledging that The Left, as The Right, is hopelessly stupid regarding their beliefs of Other's, not Them.

All I have been stating is this:

America, as the Roman Empire was, is the Lesser of Available Evils.

I should have placed a bet that you would chose to respond to Sirius (who was responding to a post of mine), than mine (which was a response to yours). It meant that you did not have to address your use of the word "we". CLYDE, on these boards, you are the master of the 5 Ds.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I am surprised . A lot of you are in the age group of middle to old age and have medical problems .

Walking up stairs like the picture shows looks like lower back problems not hart problems . I'm shore the Doctors would not let a terminally ill person run for POTUS.

And is it really anybody's business to know her personal health problems !!!

The health of the President of the United States is a very VALID public concern in the US. After all, we don't want someone that would collapse if we are attacked and fail to order retaliation... Or worse, someone who might be off their rocker (so to speak) and ORDER a first-strike for Sh*** and Giggles.

The President is a VERY public position, and the President (and to a lesser extent their Spouse) really has no expectation of privacy. The same SHOULD extend to candidates for President (and very frequently does). They are a Public Servant, we are NOT their 'subjects'. They work for US, not the other way around.

Now then, the President frequently can shield their Children from public scrutiny by the news media, and sometimes their Spouse... But Presidents themselves have ZERO right to any sort of a private life. Too much is riding on things to justify it.

So yes, it is EVERYONE's business to know everything about the President, including their health problems.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

But Presidents themselves have ZERO right to any sort of a private life.

So you want to know if they wipe their butt front to back, or back to front?

---

A Gatlin Brothers song that was the title song for Dinesh D'souza's film Hiliary's America.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk_w4fZQXhI

Snappy tune, easy to dance to, I give it a 98!

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Stand Up And Say So.
Yes. Indeed.

But Presidents themselves have ZERO right to any sort of a private life.

So you want to know if they wipe their butt front to back, or back to front?

A former President that I know used to complain that the news media used to (presumably figuratively) 'shove a microscope up his a**'...

But as to the back to front vs. the front to back... IMO that would matter more if the President was of the female gender (front to back being a LOT more hygienic in that case).

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

But Presidents themselves have ZERO right to any sort of a private life.

So you want to know if they wipe their butt front to back, or back to front?

A former President that I know used to complain that the news media used to (presumably figuratively) 'shove a microscope up his a**'...

But as to the back to front vs. the front to back... IMO that would matter more if the President was of the female gender (front to back being a LOT more hygienic in that case).

Everything, with you is about gender, RIGHT?
The anatomy of the human Butt demands a front to back wipe.
The convenience of toilet paper demands a second such wipe after a folding over.
Only the Drumpfs are too stupid to wipe their own butts and rely on "Golden Bidets".

Transparency requires that we have detailed reports on all bowel movements after all we don't want a constipated leader.

---

You are correct. It is "unthinkable" that Hillary would step down for health reasons. She would carry on a sham campaign and die of an illness before allowing someone else the POWER of office she so desperately wants. Lies and deceit to carry on a sham campaign would mean nothing; riding out an illness to be elected is a given for Hillary.
The question, "who would replace her?" is silly. Nobody is the answer.

So you're saying that if she is elected then snuffs it, her VP won't step up?

Suppose the unthinkable took place, and Hillary Clinton was forced for health reasons to step down as the Democratic presidential nominee. Who do Democrats think should take her place?

Too late. Ballots printed.

---

Suppose the unthinkable took place, and Hillary Clinton was forced for health reasons to step down as the Democratic presidential nominee. Who do Democrats think should take her place?

Too late. Ballots printed.

Gary Johnson would have a reasonable shot if Hiliary went down for what ever reason. But Trump would benefit the most.

[edit] And Chicago has a proud tradition of electing dead officials......no wait, that's dead electors electing officials......

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Suppose the unthinkable took place, and Hillary Clinton was forced for health reasons to step down as the Democratic presidential nominee. Who do Democrats think should take her place?

Too late. Ballots printed.

Gary Johnson would have a reasonable shot if Hiliary went down for what ever reason. But Trump would benefit the most.

The opposite. More trump supporters are anti-hillary than hillary supporters are anti-trump.

---