yep, too long to read, but you STEPPED into it in the first or second sentence - so I don’t have to.
Actually, you and I agree that Hillary may well not be the nominee - BUT BUT - and this is important because you really struggle with context - Juan is assuming she WILL be - and she almost certainly will run - thus at this point, any discussion of Clinton IS RELATED TO 2016. Will it be relevant in say, August of 2016? Maybe, maybe not. But it is now.
Google context, proportionality, and study on those concepts.
Oh yeah, Obama. He skims through things as well. He rightly calls ISIS a.k.a. ISIL a.k.a. Islamic State, terrorists while flatly denying that they are Islamic. Even though they are following the Koran precisely as written. I guess Obama deserves at least a half a kudo since he was half right.
We don't agree. I stated flat out that she will not be the democratic nominee, while you are sitting on the fence with may or may not be. It's easy to be right when one picks both sides of the coin, just as it's easier to have loose convictions.
To appease you I will google those words:
context: the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.
Yep just as I thought. Edgar3 added an additional statement so that it could be fully understood and assessed, and I agreed with him.
proportionality
1. Forming a relationship with other parts or quantities; being in proportion.
2. Properly related in size, degree, or other measurable characteristics; corresponding:
3. Mathematics Having the same or a constant ratio.
Again Edgar3's statement meets the requirements of proportionality (a relationship with other parts. Properly related by other measurable characteristics, Having the same ratio). So I still support Edgar3's statement.
Not sure what point you had hoped to prove by that exercise, but I played along.
About the only thing I can agree with you on is the fact that Hillary will indeed run. She hungers for power, but that is so obvious.
Let's assume Juan's epiphany vis-à-vis Clinton is related to 2016, is he really such an influential person that it will sway multitudes of voters? Or will it have little-to-no affect? My guess is the latter.
There I go again, writing a mini novel for you to not read fully.
P.S. Love your caps on for dramatic effect.