Like a husband who was president or the fact she (and her husband) are ridiculous corrupt and sell appointments [1]

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/hillary-clinton-donor...

There are also people who believe Obama created Hurricane Matthew to suppress turnout without, using his network of wind farms.

There really are people who believe that.

In fact, depending on where you get your news, you might also believe that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are actual literal demons, who smell of sulfur.

Did you know Obama is going to overturn the constitution and run for a third term?

We ought to acknowledge that the left had that concern at the end of the Bush administration, too. :(

Yep. I just roll my eyes whenever I hear it from either side. I'd like to think that the American public would never let such a thing happen.

I do recall hearing a chant during the convention "Four! More! Years!"

I don't believe I made any outrageous claims. I literally linked to a CNN article (which is usually considered middle to slightly left leaning) regarding a top clinton donor being appointed to a security committee.

I definitely don't think you should disregard others opinions just because,

"There are also people who believe Obama created Hurricane Matthew to suppress turnout without, using his network of wind farms."

That has no weight, and is just a deflection.

The article you linked to does not make the claim you did. Why is your spin more credible than the claim that Clinton is a sulfurous demon who is motivated only by a hatred of Christianity?

But, again! This is an unproductive political argument. If you support Trump, your support for Wikileaks is entirely coherent. I'm not here to argue that people shouldn't support Trump (I hope those arguments are self-evident). I'm here to point out that people who oppose Trump should recognize the role Wikileaks is playing.

The article did make the claim, it was pointing out how one of the largest clinton foundation donors, as well as straight political donors was given a seat on the state departments Intel board, despite not being qualified. Eventually, they had to step down.

Again, what you said has no bearing on what I said... I wasn't even discussing wikileaks - I was responding to the parent, mentioning how nothing sticks.

As for political ideology, again I made no comment. It's fair to call Hilary corrupt because she is, there's no political leaning involved in my comment. She clearly did a bunch of stuff on the edge of what was moral/legal. She clearly makes deals to gain favors - that's basically what politics is. I made zero comments on trump.

Finally, I am not a supporter of either candidate - they both suck and both aren't representative of my views. Nor are either going to improve my quality of life or increase my personal (or family) security.

There are also people who believe exactly what you do politically, but also believe in alien abductions, crop cirles, homeopathy and what have you. You can be sure of it.

Pointing to fringes to discredit the mainstream of said fringe is just a cheap tactic, not something worth doing out of concern for the truth.