If it's your position that Hillary Clinton's emails are not pertinent to this thread, you could have said so then, or just ignored us.

I think I've said that at least twice, maybe three times, that this is a discussion about Jeb Bush. And not only that, that the reason this issue came up is because about a week ago Jeb Bush was found to have failed to follow security and to have caused dire consequences to other people.

You chose to join the conversation about Hillary Clinton's emails, not by saying "this isn't about Hillary, it's about Jeb", but to defend Hillary what Hillary did.

I chose to defend the original post and to stop the false equivalency that was being attempted in what you call your "conversation." This is also a conversation: false equivalency is not reason. It's a defense mechanism.

Because the post is not about Hillary's email and it is indefensible to constantly come into a post that is about Jeb Bush and try to defend him by changing the subject, over and over. If the post had been about Hillary and you changed it to Jeb Bush it would be the exact same thing.

I notice some people do this all the time and it seems to come from a demented way of thinking that I first noticed from George W. Bush supporters which goes something like this: In defending George W. Bush on his 16 words they might say "Clinton lied.. why can't Bush?" "Clinton believed Sadam had chemical weapons 8 years ago... why can't Bush?"

Despite the fact that weapons inspectors pointed out that chemical weapons deteriorate over time and were according to them impotent by 2002, when Bush brought them up calling them Frank Lutz's name "weapons of mass destruction" to hide the fact that they were talking about chemical weapons that deteriorate.

The fact is George W. Bush claimed there were numerous live, potent weapons that Iraq had possession of and were trying to seek.

And he lied. The false equivalency "Clinton lied why can't Bush" was used to change the subject from the multi-trillion dollar lies of the Bush administration to an obvious error that Clinton made for which Clinton was severely brought to task.

But Bush shouldn't be? Because Clinton did? That is the Republican position. It has nothing to do with justice or the intelligence necessary to lead a nation and everything to do with allowing an incompetent to take charge, and if he does something wrong finding yet another way to repeat the same age old petulance "she did it... why can't Bush?"