>>>>> HRC, despite her issues (which are no where near as bad as Trumps)
>>>
>>>Did Trump ever vote to start a war that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people?
>>>Name any ten things that Trump did that match outright slaughter.
>>
>
>>No - because he didn't have a chance to vote on it -
>Yes, but she did. And she voted for it.
>That's the record.
>The most monumental blunder in modern US history and she was all in on it

Yes - along with pretty much everyone else due to the lies and bad information they were told. Can't make a proper decisions if you're basing that decision on a bad information can you? Put the blame where it belongs. And I would say it's safe to say that Vietnam was the most monumental blunder in modern US history in terms of costs of lives and such.

>>>>> has experience that at least makes able to perform the functions of the job, whereas Trump has no such experience at all.
>>>
>>>What experience did Obama have?
>>
>>You mean besides community organizer, civil-rights lawyer, being elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996 and to the U.S. Senate in 2004.?? It's a rather substantial amount of political experience. I do not understand why people seem to have this notion he didn't have any.Just look into it for like 20 seconds and you'll see a vast amount of experience.


..no comment here so I guess that's settled.


>>>Finally.. if you had a teenage daughter, would you leave her alone in a room with Bill Clinton?

>>Bill Clinton is not running for president.
>>
>You're begging the question.
>Do you want that pervert back in the White House?

...and you're missing (and omitting) my point....which was:

...If you don't want a womanizer in the White House, then picking the guy with multiple failed marriages to Russian supermodel trophy-wifes he trades in for a younger model every few years seems REALLY REALLY stupid, especially considering the fact that they guy you're complaining about isn't even running for office - and Trump is. There is no logic to your argument here.

...so if you think Trump is better than HRC due to the fact that Bill (who is not even running for office) is a perv/womanizer, and you'd rather have the womanizer Trump (who actually IS running for office) be in the white-house??? Surely you understand the flaw here. You don't want someone who is running because of actions of someone who is not running, but the one that is running with the bad actions is ok. So it boils down to which do you want. A) Womanizer as president or B) Womanizer who is married to the actual president. Again - which is the lesser of two evils? To answer your question - I would rather have Bill in the white house than Trump in the oval office. As I said, your logic doesn't hold up if womanizing is your beef here.

..and finally - BILL CLINTON IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. goood gawwd.