James Comey, dead man walking

[Belz...]

And yet, when I provide you with a bunch of information about Trump's policy proposals, you ignore it all.

You and I have different definitions of the word "bunch".

There's more than one measure of unemployment, and they aren't all good

That does seem to confirm what I said. You're selectively accepting numbers.

"trying to screw over women" is a description of malice.

Oh, you can do that unwittingly. The ridiculous, religious-based attempts to squash abortion and contraception may be, for those people, a matter of morality, but the effects are the same: screwing over women.

The kicker is that you can't even recognize it as such.

I have no problem making this very personal if this is what you want.

You moved the goalpost. Your argument wasn't that the problem doesn't justify that particular response, your argument was that it wasn't a significant problem at all.

In the US. That is what we're talking about, here. No goalposts were moved. Just because you think the goal should be somewhere on the pitch doesn't mean it's actually there.

 

[Tony Stark]

He paid for them, so yes, I can call them his. They aren't mine.

He can't even talk about "his" policies without proving what a *********** ignorant moron he is.

Source: I have seen the piece of trash speak lots of times.

 

[Belz...]

Source: I have seen the piece of trash speak lots of times.

Yeah but where have you seen him speak, eh? The MEDIA! You know you can't trust these guys! Come on!

 

[Tony Stark]

Yeah but where have you seen him speak, eh? The MEDIA! You know you can't trust these guys! Come on!

How dare the media air his incoherent rambling. It makes him look bad!

Kind of how Hillary using footage of him saying reprehensible crap in attack ads is unfair.

 

[Belz...]

Kind of how Hillary using footage of him saying reprehensible crap in attack ads is unfair.

Wait... someone said that?

 

[Tony Stark]

Wait... someone said that?

Donald has complained about them in debates. And he even threatened to sue her.

https://www.cnn.com/cnn/2016/10/05/...on-sue/index.html?client=ms-android-sprint-us

 

[Ziggurat]

GOP scum literally want to force women to have kids they don't want/can't afford to take care of.

No they don't. In every single state, parents can give up babies for adoption. Neither party is trying to change that.

 

[dudalb]

Latest in a long line of likely to fail predictions from me.....

Nothing will come of this. If Trump wins the election, Comey will stay in post and indeed may even receive praise for the even-handed way he handled the whole thing. If Hillary gets elected then this, like everything else will become a partisan ****-fest. Anything she tries to do as President will be vehemently opposed by the GOP and any action she is able to take unilaterally will be met with screeching claims of unconstitutionality.

The GOP will attempt to completely paralyse government for the next 4-8 years because they have found that, against all common sense, it makes the President look weak to enough people to keep them in power (and not like the complete asshats that they are). In the face of this, Hillary will need to conserve any political capital she has and not expend it over something like this.

In another thread this same suggestion elicited the response that the media will institute a witch-hunt against Comey to get him removed from position because the media thinks it has been "had". I'm not sure this is the case. This election has taught me that the news media are not the stalwart guardians of the truth (if they ever were), they're simply another part of the entertainment media and are happy as long as they are attracting viewers, readers, subscribers and so on. Viewed this way the latest email kerfuffle has been good for them because it has kept the controversy alive.

So I think Comey will stay in post and will not be significantly weakened and indeed the GOP will continue to look to him for yet more ways to attack Hillary's legitimacy if she is President.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/james-comey-criticized-republicans-democrats-230893

When the leadership of both parties turns on you, you are toast.
What's assume for a moment this was politically motivated and not just CYA (Cover Your A--) gone horribly wrong: The Dems hates your guts,and the GOP thinks you handled it incredibly ineptly.
I also doubt it would take much Political Capital of fire Comey;I doubt the GOP is in much of a mood to defend him.
And he serves at the President's pleasure;FBI chief has to be approved by Congress but ,like cabinent post,the President can fire him whenever he pleases.

 

[Stacko]

He can't even talk about "his" policies without proving what a *********** ignorant moron he is.

Source: I have seen the piece of trash speak lots of times.

He also can't even advertise about "his" policies without proving he doesn't give two ***** about them.

Trump Ad Credits Tax Plan He Doesn't Support.

Donald Trump's new $10 million TV ad cites two contradictory tax plans -- one that Trump has explicitly ruled out and another that he has yet to endorse -- raising more questions about what policies the GOP presidential nominee supports.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No they don't. In every single state, parents can give up babies for adoption. Neither party is trying to change that.

Yes keep it real, they want to make it legal for hospitals to refuse to treat women and let them die from ectopic pregnancies because treating that is an abortion and those are never acceptable. As is carrying a fetus that has no chance of living and is killing the mother. Those things one can not try to say they are not doing. IT is a foundation of their modern political ideology.

 

[Tony Stark]

No they don't. In every single state, parents can give up babies for adoption. Neither party is trying to change that.

And to do this they would be forced against their will to carry the fetus to term. By the party of small government.

 

[ponderingturtle]

And to do this they would be forced against their will to carry the fetus to term. By the party of small government.

Regardless of if the baby can even live outside the uterus.

 

[Ziggurat]

You and I have different definitions of the word "bunch".

You tried to characterize pages of material with a catchphrase.

That does seem to confirm what I said. You're selectively accepting numbers.

You have that backwards. You're trying to be selective in your numbers. I'm the one pointing out that it's not so simple.

Oh, you can do that unwittingly.

No, you cannot try to do something unwittingly.

In the US. That is what we're talking about, here. No goalposts were moved.

You wanted to confine the consideration of terrorism to US soil, even though it's completely reasonable for voters to be concerned about terrorism that happens abroad because it still affects us here. That was illogical of you, but that wasn't how you moved the goalpost. You moved the goalpost from claiming terrorism wasn't important to claiming that it didn't justify a specific policy response. That absolutely was a goalpost move.

 

[jakesteele]

My guess is that he most likely be fired by Killary. If it wasn't for the extremely high profile and basically a whole lot of treasonous and evil behavior, he would stay on a whipped little bitch like that puke Podesta.

God Save the Queen
and: God please save America before it's way too late(The Rubicon)

 

[dudalb]

My guess is that he most likely be fired by Killary. If it wasn't for the extremely high profile and basically a whole lot of treasonous and evil behavior, he would stay on a whipped little bitch like that puke Podesta.

God Save the Queen
and: God please save America before it's way too late(The Rubicon)

I will do my part to save America by voting for Hillary tomorrow. She is flawed,very flawed, and a long way from being my first choice but compared to Trump........no contest.

 

[Belz...]

You tried to characterize pages of material with a catchphrase.

Oh, quit it. Either make a point or argument, or stop posting.

You have that backwards. You're trying to be selective in your numbers. I'm the one pointing out that it's not so simple.

That is a dodge. You're being deliberately vague so as to avoid being pinned down on exactly what numbers you select.

No, you cannot try to do something unwittingly.

Now you're just playing word games. I know you're smart enough to understand what I'm saying.

You wanted to confine the consideration of terrorism to US soil, even though it's completely reasonable for voters to be concerned about terrorism that happens abroad because it still affects us here.

If we're talking about immigration and how to deal with terrorism here, yes.

That was illogical of you

You're using that word wrong.

You moved the goalpost from claiming terrorism wasn't important to claiming that it didn't justify a specific policy response.

Now, that is a lie. I never said it wasn't important, and it was always about policy response.

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh, quit it. Either make a point or argument, or stop posting.

You said Trump has no positions. That was a ridiculous claim, which I disproved. And yet, you want to cling to it. Why?

That is a dodge. You're being deliberately vague so as to avoid being pinned down on exactly what numbers you select.

Wrong again. I've pointed specifically to two numbers already (violent crime rate and labor participation rate). The reason I'm not obsessing about them is because my position isn't simply an inverse of yours. I'm not claiming everything is terrible like you're claiming everything is great.

Now you're just playing word games. I know you're smart enough to understand what I'm saying.

I know exactly what you said.

Now, that is a lie. I never said it wasn't important, and it was always about policy response.

Let's go back and see:

If you wanted to stop illegal immigration, that meant you were a racist. If you're worried about Islamic terrorism, you're an Islamophobe, which really just means you're a racist. If you think that the collapse of marriage in the black community is a major factor in inner city crime, then you're a racist. But making a position illegitimate doesn't actually make the problem it's responding to go away.

What problems are those? Is illegal immigration or even terrorism such a big problem on US soil?

Note that I described no policy response to terrorism. Neither did you in this response. You only introduced the policy objection later, as part of your subsequent goalpost move. But it played no part in your initial goalpost placement, which was absolutely about its lack of importance. So no, I didn't lie at all.

 

[Craig4]

I don't see a way forward for him. No friends on The Hill, no friends in the new administration. The only way to salvage his legacy is to leave gracefully.

 

[ddt]

If he wanted to influence the election, why not wait until after Tuesday to announce that nothing changed? It's not like he doesn't have a good excuse on hand, namely that it takes a lot of time to sort through that many emails.

To give himself a semblance of impartiality? In the meantime, the damage has been done.

 

[Ranb]

Hopefully he will have the common courtesy to just resign.

Is it my imagination or were people here singing his praises a while back when he recommended no charges for Clinton?

Ranb