|
Post by thwhtguardian on Nov 6, 2016 17:28:43 GMT -5
LOL So it took Comey a year to go through 600k emails...yet he then reviews 650k emails in a span of 4 days? Yep, nothin fishy about that at all... It seemed fishier that it took a year to go over the last batch than it does 4 days for this to me, though I suppose that may mean that this latest investigation had to do with far less serious material.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Nov 6, 2016 17:31:09 GMT -5
It couldn't be at all fishy that he made a big splashy announcement about absolutely nothing two weeks before the election.
Nope. Nothing fishy about that at all.
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Nov 6, 2016 17:44:39 GMT -5
So they are not going to tell us about all those crotch-shot photos Anthony Weiner sent Hillary? What else were those two chatting about?
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Nov 6, 2016 17:56:07 GMT -5
No game playing. I'm not jumping through hoops for you. You don't get to launch an attack a candidate you don't like, refuse to support your arguments, than portray me as irrational for rational on-point remarks - and then demand I leave the topic and dance to your tune. Good faith begets good faith. So I will answer your NRA question if you either: a) admit you have no basis for your position and apologize for writing that I was being silly OR b) present some evidence that Hillary wants to prevent you from owning a gun. Not the NRA's fact-free ad. Something from her, her campaign, even a Wikileaks email of questionable provenance. My time is finite. Debates with people I disagree with have to involve real good faith efforts to seek the truth. I don't want to waste my time on a rituatlized, pre-programmed dance. You can answer however the hell you like but I won't waste further time responding to someone whose preamble above is so patently foolish. This sounds so unlike you, jez.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 6, 2016 18:10:39 GMT -5
Regarding the email thing: I wouldn't be surprised if Comey took to heart the comments of the many voices (including many Republicans') who pointed out that interfering with an election is illegal. I can imagine him putting his little elves to work, asking them "is there anything obviously actionable in that pile of emails?" and realizing that since there wasn't really anything immediately obvious, he had more to lose than to win with the whole deal.
Not that I think it will have much of an influence on the election, one way or the other. Electors thinking using a private server is on par with the Watergate scandal and more important than the Iraq war are not going to be swayed by the FBI director suddenly saying"nothing to see here, folks".
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Nov 6, 2016 19:51:05 GMT -5
No game playing. I'm not jumping through hoops for you. You don't get to launch an attack a candidate you don't like, refuse to support your arguments, than portray me as irrational for rational on-point remarks - and then demand I leave the topic and dance to your tune. Good faith begets good faith. So I will answer your NRA question if you either: a) admit you have no basis for your position and apologize for writing that I was being silly OR b) present some evidence that Hillary wants to prevent you from owning a gun. Not the NRA's fact-free ad. Something from her, her campaign, even a Wikileaks email of questionable provenance. My time is finite. Debates with people I disagree with have to involve real good faith efforts to seek the truth. I don't want to waste my time on a rituatlized, pre-programmed dance. You are now laying out demands? Wtf? Simply put, as recent as the last debate, did she not reiterate her position that the supreme court was wrong in its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v Heller, which overturned Washington DC’s ban on handgun ownership? When you want to make repeated comments questioning a key US supreme court decision on gun ownership, it does put your position on the second amendment under closer scrutiny. If Hillary wins, can she not make appointments to the Supreme Court which can overturn Heller? Gun associations and groups do not trust this woman. You can answer however the hell you like but I won't waste further time responding to someone whose preamble above is so patently foolish. I was demanding that you adhere to the most basic standards of civility and rationality. You lobbed personal insults because I dared to disagree with you. Mocked me for giving reasons while you refused to give reasons. And then demanded that I address a different subject, when you refused to defend your strawman. I think it was fair. And frankly it pressured you to be disciplined in your thinking and/or research, because this is best argument you've made. I disagree with you, because I don't think Hillary has ever argued that law-abiding citizens should be banned totally from owning firearms. Her positions was that localities should be able to pass certain gun laws, like the D.C. safe storage law that was invalidated in Heller. We were already a gun-saturated culture prior to Heller, so I don't think reversing justifies The Turner Diaries scenarios the gun lobby is trying to sell. I appreciate the effort despite the insult at the end, so I'm going to answer your question. I certainly don't think the NRA is motivated by promoting a fair, rational understanding of the positions of politicians on guns. The NRA actually supported gun control laws decades ago. It agreed with the pre-Heller understanding that the 2nd Amendment was linked to the militia and collective defense. Then, around the 1970s, the NRA began to change its position. I believe that's either due to an understanding that creating paranoia about gun grabbing would be helpful to promote the organization and the gun industry. It may also reflect some ideological evolution, but a rational person shouldn't then denounce politicians who the NRA would've agreed with prior to the 1970s as evil totalitarianism. That smells of fear-mongering. The NRA opposes just about any gun regulation one can come up with. But since some proposal, like closing the gun show loophole, are extremely popular even among gun owners, they made the strategic decision to portray politicians who propose any gun control as enthusiastic diving down a slippery slope to massive confiscation.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,759
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 6, 2016 19:54:16 GMT -5
LOL So it took Comey a year to go through 600k emails...yet he then reviews 650k emails in a span of 4 days? Yep, nothin fishy about that at all... No one was actually reading through all the e-mails. They used a program and search feature to comb through the e-mails, determining what wasn't a duplicate of the ones they'd already investigated and then searched for keywords. So it really would have been a faster process this time. But if someone had put a political gun to Comey's back and forced him to say there was nothing suspicious, wouldn't they have forced him to make a more public statement about it? Maybe even apologize for causing this stir? I don't think there's a hidden agenda on this one. I think they searched quickly so that they could provide a smoking gun against Clinton two days before the election if there was one, but that Comey was at least honest enough to admit when he didn't find one.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Nov 6, 2016 20:49:13 GMT -5
It's also unquestionable that 5 million people is statistically insignificant in a country of 325 million people (roughly 1.5%). The only reason they're able to push their agenda is the massive amounts of money they spend on lobbyists and political contributions. In 2012, Obama got 65,915,795 votes. Romney got 60,933,504. A difference of just under 5 million. Whoever wins this election will also win by a margin of maybe 6-8 million and how this is distributed in the electoral college. In that scenario, having a potential bank of 5 million NRA votes in your corner is quite significant indeed. Romney's 60 million no doubt included the 5 million NRA votes. Back to American Politics 101 for you, jez.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Nov 6, 2016 20:50:45 GMT -5
This is why we have so much political gridlock. I deliver a cogent, rational response to your baseless innuendo [snip] Have you bothered to say why the NRA distances itself from Hillary in spite of your so-called cogent, rational gibberish or are you more interested in windy verbose preambles? Spoon wasn't insulting you, jez. He took the time to make a respectful, logical argument. You're better than this.
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Nov 6, 2016 21:09:15 GMT -5
Let's not get personal people.
Facts are facts; everyone has an opinion.
Despite differing beliefs, we're not going to take the low road attacking and name calling.
We're all mature adults here.
Consider this a warning.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,759
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 6, 2016 22:18:59 GMT -5
So, in non-U.S. news, did anything interesting happen in the UK for Guy Fawkes Day -- Brexit and all?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2016 23:44:10 GMT -5
LOL So it took Comey a year to go through 600k emails...yet he then reviews 650k emails in a span of 4 days? Yep, nothin fishy about that at all... Comey did not say the investigation is closed...it can be reopened again just as it was a couple weeks ago. Would be nice if it can be turned over to someone who's really independent. Comey has lost credibility on both sides of the political fence...
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Nov 7, 2016 2:38:11 GMT -5
So, in non-U.S. news, did anything interesting happen in the UK for Guy Fawkes Day -- Brexit and all? Very little seems to be happening as regards Brexit, and it's becoming deeply irritating to those on both sides of the fence. The EU says no negotiations can begin until the British government has triggered Article 50. The courts have ruled that this cannot be done without a full consultation with Parliament. Theresa May is appealing against this decision and says she intends to stick to her original plan to begin the process by next March no matter what, but it's hard to see how she can. We are in limbo. Lincolnshire MP Stephen Phillips resigned on Friday over the government's handling of the situation.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,759
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 7, 2016 7:38:09 GMT -5
Comey has lost credibility on both sides of the political fence... When someone loses credibility on both sides, they either have no integrity or all the integrity in the world. With Comey, it remains to be seen.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 7, 2016 15:32:10 GMT -5
Since he serves at the president's pleasure, I really wonder what will happen to him when the next one gets into the oval office. Will it be a case of "YOU BACK-STABBED ME AT THE LAST MINUTE!!! YOU'RE FIRED!!!" or "We're not going to hurt each other's career, now, are we young man?"
|
|