Do you accept though that the mainstream media in the US (perhaps discounting Fox) are heavily in favour of Hillary, in which case they wouldn't run any of the linked stories? They are still legitimate articles, regardless of who publishes them.

The thing that bothers me, is how unshakeable Clinton supporters/anti-Trump people are to the exploits of Hillary Clinton.

For example, it surely it can't be claimed that ALL the people mentioned in the list here [Link] under the heading 'The Notorious Clinton Body Count List' died coincidentally.

The same allegations were levelled at her husband more or less.

Also, if your someone, their age, its not surprising that you can find 50 or so people associated with them who have died in the last 25 years.

Her husband was a President of the US for 8 years, and a senator for god knows how long, and both have been in high profile public roles for decades. Their circle of associations must be tens upon tens of thousands of people, per year, as first and second step connections. So you'd expect a number of deaths each year, including accidents.

Probably synchronicity, the linking of two unrelated factors, by the perception of the significance to the witness.

F**k me, I probably don't 'know' more than 400 people, and I know seven people who died last year.

Precisely.

When a candidate's (Trump's) main media newspaper endorsement comes from the National Enquirer (sort of like the Daily Star but more stupid), that should tell the voters something. Furthermore, when staunch Republican newspapers, of the type who have never endorsed anything other than a Republican in their entire history (some going back to the 1860's), have not endorsed Trump but instead invited readers to vote Libertarian or Democrat that too should tell us something about his candidacy.

lots of willfully ignorant people. those things only strengthen their argument that he's an outsider, anti-establishment. solid 40% of people who are just angry and they like him being angry with them. it's 100% emotion. expecting or hoping for reason is a waste of energy.

Precisely.

When a candidate's (Trump's) main media newspaper endorsement comes from the National Enquirer (sort of like the Daily Star but more stupid), that should tell the voters something. Furthermore, when staunch Republican newspapers, of the type who have never endorsed anything other than a Republican in their entire history (some going back to the 1860's), have not endorsed Trump but instead invited readers to vote Libertarian or Democrat that too should tell us something about his candidacy.