>>'But let's begin by noting that never in history have voters in the US or any developed western country chosen a candidate to the their leader who boasted on camera about violating women, was accused by ten women of abusing them, swaggered about minimising his tax payments and exploiting bankruptcy laws, threatened to put his opponent in jail, warned he might not respect the result of the election, and promised policies that to many look racist.'
>
>Let's think for a minute about what you just wrote.
>
>In 2004 the US electorate chose a man who had willfully ordered the needless slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's. We knew that, and still elected him.
>However, as far as we know, he never did any of those awful things you mention above.
>
>So, are you still sure that what you posted makes sense?

????

So what part of the sentence above is not true?