Not great, let me tell you. More than any election in my life this one is a clear case of "they all suck, so let's just mitigate the damage."

It wasn’t hard.

Does there need to be anything more? Blatantly lying for the purpose of getting votes displays an egregious lack of integrity, regardless of how tactically sound it may be. I don't understand your comment at all....like, how much more dishonesty do you need?

You don't understand how telling a blatant lie to woo voters is dishonest? Are you being serious?

I didn't mean my advice to be condescending. I meant it sincerely. I also live far away from family, but I find there are other ways to communicate with them that don't expose me to a constant stream of annoyance and stupidity. As a means of communication, I found Facebook to be more noise than actual information.

1: The article explains very clearly where Nancy had opportunities to help both individuals with HIV and the gay community as a whole, and in all cases she decided to turn her back on them (including her “friend” Rock Hudson). Helping any of those people, if it was in her power (as it was) would have been the right…

No, you continue to miss the point (intentionally?). I’m not saying Nancy Reagan could have stopped AIDS. I’m saying Nancy Reagan didn’t even try, and Hillary Clinton says she not only tried, but she succeeded in starting the national conversation. That’s a blatant lie, and that lie is what is being discussed here.…

Those are bright people. Those are liars trying to sound like bright people.

I’m not saying you’re making it up. I’m saying as a Bernie supporter myself, I haven’t heard any other Bernie supporters say they’d vote Trump over Hillary. But I try not to associate with morons, so....

A bright person wouldn't have tried to fake it without knowledge. That's not what smart people do. Literally nothing about what she said makes her look in any way intelligent. Every part of this is blatantly dishonest and stupid.

I'd say Reagan's views and failures on the subject of AIDS are relevant given Clinton's obvious attempt to use the issue here to woo Reagan-loving moderate Republicans.

No, this is the kind of awkwardness you get from dishonest people who are doing their best to tell whatever audience is in front of them what they want to hear.

Did I say “just say no” worked? Of course not. But everyone in the country knew the slogan. Everyone in the country knew about the drug problem and was talking about it. And that’s largely due to Nancy Reagan pushing the conversation into the limelight. Had she been willing to do that with the AIDS problem, how much…

Wise or not, it displays a complete lack of integrity, and confirms the accepted perception of her as cold, calculating, and dishonest.

There's nothing smart about anything she said here.

Her lack of authority didn't slow down the "just say no" campaign, did it? If she'd advocated for AIDS awareness half as hard as she did for her anti-drug campaign think of how much more quickly the conversation could have become productive and how much sooner actual progress could have been made.

Because they think it will draw moderate republicans who hate the idea of Donald Trump representing their party.

No, this article points out that what Hillary said about Nancy Reagan starting a dialogue on AIDS prevention in America is, in fact, a bald-faced lie. It's not the least bit true in any way, shape, or form. It is the opposite of truth.

She’s trolling, all right. Trolling for moderate Republican votes. This is some of the most cynical, dishonest pandering I’ve seen since...well, since the last time I saw Donald Trump on television.

Ah, there's your problem.