Why are you telling me that he wasn’t a known pedo at the time? When you rebut someone’s assessment, do you just routinely assume that they have not considered even the most fundamental points of the case? Why would you present such a simple point as ‘evidence’ against my assessment? My assessment is in spite of this point, obviously. So the fact the she married a pedo is still an undisputed point against her being appropriate for ‘running for office’.

The ‘running our lives’ comment by me was in response to someone suggesting she run for office. I don’t see how that’s a leap, seeing as people if office effectively ‘run our lives’ to some degree at this point in time.