In this particular case, you did defend her. I didn't mean for that to be an attack on you... I originally said it in passing.
Side issue. If you understood the main point, you wouldn't even have offered it.
I hope our dear readers are getting a chuckle out of this... I had a rebuttal to Hillary's plan to take the oil profits and put them in a strategic reserve. You disagreed with my rebuttal. I've been sticking to the point and I've been following you into the weeds.
No, you cherry-picked part of my argument and you have been pounding on it ever since in an effort to avoid answering the main topic. Hillary's plan is a silly side road that I let you drag me off on. Stick to the main point.
Here's where I believe we can reach common ground on this issue: If Hillary proposes bringing back that tax, I believe she will have that tax in the 90-100% range. With that, we can both say we are right. :-)
Maybe this is why outside the Beltway, Republicans are soured by our choice of candidates next year. There's nobody there to get excited about. I do like Newt Gingrich... Duncan Hunter is another possibility.
You actually addressed the main point, although it was a glancing blow. It almost sounds like you agree with it, which makes me wonder why this thread has gone on for so long. But you still didn't score a direct hit. You are addressing the effect of the situation I was addressing. The Republican mainstream and its attendant punditry are stuck on stupid (to borrow a phrase). They are still using the same old tactics to fight a candidate who has a machine that will chew them up and spit them out. The end result will be that Hillary will walk into the Oval Office with ease because conservatives and libertarians will vote with their butts. In the dust-up that follows, the GOP True Believers will blame the libertarians and the conservatives instead of examining themselves. That behavior is what will doom the GOP to irrelevance, if not outright extinction.