Considering there's a video from Breitbart and then a video from John Oliver, we have far more one-sided sources than Fox and MSNBC.

There's two things on par with rape. To ignore it or make out it's no big deal and the other is to make false accusations of being raped as that insults every person whom had ever had the tragic experience of it happening to them.

My partner was raped in her bed around 10 years ago, the guy climbed through her window at night time. She told me she beat him by forgiving him as it was no longer weight holding her down, I'm amazed at her strength by being able to do so.

He threw this election away to Trump.

...Wait a minute

Who knows of she's telling the truth. I've heard the claims that Hilary pressured her to remain silent, which is not something I would put beyond her.

Under oath, this woman denied this in 1998.

This "interview" is done by Breitbart, Breitbart's chairman is head of Trump's campaign (O'Bannon), lol, hardly impartial, I wouldn't be surprised if she is being payed rather nicely by the Trump campaign.

This was always going to be the card Trump played anyway if his campaign was going badly down the home stretch, and lo and behold. 

Oh, I'm not addressing them because neither of us are going to convince the other of anything. I find Hillary's incompetence more important of an issue than you do Trump's social ineptitude, and we're not going to say one another no matter how articulate the argument. 

The FBI have recently given special treatment to the Clintons, and I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't the first time. 

The reason it was locked because the Facebook post didn't cite any sources for the claims at the time. Did you cite them after your thread was locked?

But Bill CLinton is in charge of fixing the economy, according to Hillary, so yes in a way

You know nothing of my position if you think my opposition to Trump is based on his "social ineptitude".  This alone illustrates that your perception of our relative positions, and their intractability, is flawed.  I honestly have no idea what you think justifies your claim that Hillary Clinton would be incompetent at being POTUS compared to Trump.  To be fair, though, social ineptitude on Trump's level does factor into his incompetence as POTUS. 

But my objection to your reply isn't even limited to Trump vs. Clinton.  A large segment of my post was talking about their contest in the context of our current electoral system.  I made an argument that I believe applies to any contest between our two major parties in that system given the current state of the minor parties.  You completely ignored this.  You also ignored the question of whether you were going to vote for Trump (versus no-one or a third party), but you've since implied the answer to that one already. 

P.S.  I'd like to address your statement, "I only match levels of convincing, so blame your own argument for that."  This implies that if you were faced with what you saw as a pathetic and foolish argument, you would respond with an equally pathetic and foolish response.  Why?