reub wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:The media is really dramatizing this. It's bad. I'm wondering where the polls will be in like 5 days. I have no idea how bad it is but I wouldn't be shocked if Trump ends up ahead of Clinton.

So you're changing your vote then?

No, not at all. The way Republican Comey handled this is inappropriate in my opinion. I gave Hillary a donation as soon as this news came out.

Funny, Democrats were in love with Comey just yesterday!

Actually they didn't like his qualifying statements after saying that he wasn't going to charge Hillary with anything. He took the unprecedented step of giving his own personal characterization of Hillary being careless. That's not what his job requires and they didn't appreciate that even tho they were pleased with the decision. Now this letter was yet another mistake and he knows it would have ramifications. His hand was somewhat forced in this case but the lack of clarity is a problem.

reub wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:The media is really dramatizing this. It's bad. I'm wondering where the polls will be in like 5 days. I have no idea how bad it is but I wouldn't be shocked if Trump ends up ahead of Clinton.

So you're changing your vote then?

No, not at all. The way Republican Comey handled this is inappropriate in my opinion. I gave Hillary a donation as soon as this news came out.

Funny, Democrats were in love with Comey just yesterday!

BRIGGS wrote:New emails found after she said that was it? OMG people she is a fcking "traitor" let alone criminally corrupt. So voting for what could amount to a very serious felon(maybe worse) or a guy who bragged he got some pssy 13 years ago?

He didn't brag that he got some, he bragged that he sexually assaulted women. If he had just gone up to your wife (or mom or sister or daughter) and grabbed her by the p**** would you have still voted for him?

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Does it really take much work to criminalize a person who has openly broken the law?

A conviction often helps.

My favorite is the Quid Pro Quo with the FBI,

Which didn't actually occur.

or perhaps it was the obvious murder, I mean suicide, of Vince Foster. (If not there are another 39 or so unfortunate death suicides to choose from.)

Here's a tip EMS, if your news sources has ominous background music, find better ones.

fishmike wrote:you have already come to that conclusion and eat up anything that supports it. I mean the Vince Foster thing is area 54. If I dont agree Im sheep driven by gov driven media. Its tired.

Of course she serves others. She takes lobby money. The question is will she serve us along the way? History shows a reasonable context that she will. She is not my candidate and doesnt represent the parts of her party that are most important to me, but she is nothing close to what Trump is. You are so focused on being right about her being crooked that have stopped looking at what this all actually means... and that is who will be a better POTUS and who will best serve the people of this country.

Guys -

How many deaths is Hillary responsible for? Iraq? Afghanistan? etc...

Most recently there is Libya, where she actually was one of the largest proponents of and our military commanders strongly were against it.
30,000 DEAD, another 50,000 injured and you want convictions?

Bonn1997 wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:11 days before the election? The timing of this is absurd. Comey is a lifelong Republican and I bet he had this planned all along. It looks like he was playing chess while everyone else was playing checkers.

Yup, the timing means there is no way this could be cleared before the election so the smear sticks- expect them to quietly announce that no further action will be taken a few weeks after the election

Yeah, it's a smear. Comey basically just announced, "Hey guys, I found some e-mails I'm gonna read" but it will look bad to low information voters, especially the way the media is covering it.

Why would Comey let Hillary off the hook and then put her back on the hook? What changed?
Hillary might be looking at prosecution this time around, did she lie about these emails not existing? And what is in them? Just doesn't make sense for Comey to do an about face, right before the vote.

Maybe it is connected to Preet Bharara and NYPD doing an investigation into Weiner. Maybe they found the emails and forced Comey's hand?
(Preet brings down the biggest in the world of corruption.)

We are not being shown all the pieces to this puzzle.

And a LOL, maybe it wasn't Russia after all...

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/792231193978687488

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:11 days before the election? The timing of this is absurd. Comey is a lifelong Republican and I bet he had this planned all along. It looks like he was playing chess while everyone else was playing checkers.

Yup, the timing means there is no way this could be cleared before the election so the smear sticks- expect them to quietly announce that no further action will be taken a few weeks after the election

Yeah, it's a smear. Comey basically just announced, "Hey guys, I found some e-mails I'm gonna read" but it will look bad to low information voters, especially the way the media is covering it.

Why would Comey let Hillary off the hook and then put her back on the hook? What changed?
Hillary might be looking at prosecution this time around, did she lie about these emails not existing? And what is in them? Just doesn't make sense for Comey to do an about face, right before the vote.

Maybe it is connected to Preet Bharara and NYPD doing an investigation into Weiner. Maybe they found the emails and forced Comey's hand?
(Preet brings down the biggest in the world of corruption.)

We are not being shown all the pieces to this puzzle.

And a LOL, maybe it wasn't Russia after all...

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/792231193978687488

gunsnewing wrote:I bet any of the political expects here would make a better candidate

than Hillary or Trump? LOL Trump has a net approval rating around -25 to -30.

smackeddog wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:New emails found after she said that was it? OMG people she is a fcking "traitor" let alone criminally corrupt. So voting for what could amount to a very serious felon(maybe worse) or a guy who bragged he got some pssy 13 years ago?

He didn't brag that he got some, he bragged that he sexually assaulted women. If he had just gone up to your wife (or mom or sister or daughter) and grabbed her by the p**** would you have still voted for him?

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Yeah there is - because you said so. Got it

I also say Breitbart is too.

I don't think it's just because I say so.

I suspect I don't possess that kind of power.

No you didn't assume fairly, you paint a picture about people in your mind based on your own lack of reading comprehension, You take things out of context, draw conclusions about people based on your very limited stereotyped thinking and the put words in people's mouth to complete your spin. Then you cling to anything that validates that POV no matter how tenuous the connection. Only you can think a WSJ article would require a right wing rendition.

I think you linked to an alt right rendition of a WSJ article because you linked to an alt right rendition of a WSJ article and not the right wing WSJ article.

Again, I think the embellishment being the purpose of the link is a fair assumption. If I posted a youtube clip of Lawrence O'Donnell playing and then commenting on a Bill O'Reilly clip, I'd assume people would understand I didn't expect them to ignore everything but the O'Reilly clip.

I can link to anything I damn please.

I never suggested otherwise.

Well yes you did, your post suggested I need to justify my thought process of sharing an article on a message board to a pompous prick.

I asked why'd you just didn't link to the original article.

Any other meaning is your own imagination.

Why would you conflate a critique of something with an argument about your right to do it?

If I critique a game by porzingis do you take that to mean I think he had no right to play in it?

Tell ya what, I'll assume you observe my right to be a pompous prick, and you can assume I observe your right to do what the hell you like.

We good?

Aww precious, this from a guy who goes out of his way to conflate posting a link with right wing agenda - Yeah we good

Bonn1997 wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:11 days before the election? The timing of this is absurd. Comey is a lifelong Republican and I bet he had this planned all along. It looks like he was playing chess while everyone else was playing checkers.

Yup, the timing means there is no way this could be cleared before the election so the smear sticks- expect them to quietly announce that no further action will be taken a few weeks after the election

Yeah, it's a smear. Comey basically just announced, "Hey guys, I found some e-mails I'm gonna read" but it will look bad to low information voters, especially the way the media is covering it.

You are right, that's all he said, but at this point everyone is a low information voter on this issue. Because there is no information available. The bolded part maybe accurate or it maybe a freudian slip that he didn't intend the way it played out. Easy to jump to conclusions. The timing will hurt Hillary, I doubt it will overturn the election though. Even if it was intentional he is playing by the same rules as every scumbag politician does. I doubt Hillary would have acted differently if the roles were reversed. Hillary had more than a year to come completely clean and be transparent about this and put it behind her. She didn't. Not exactly the paragon of virtue.