Quote:
Originally Posted by Grapesoda
Saying the person who won the popular vote by 3 million votes, is a failed candidate, is a flawed premise don't you think - only because of the huge strip city areas of NYC and LA... so it's really hard to say. should 2 cities decide for a country? the rest of your arguments decides yes, 2 metropolitan areas should chose for a country.
His analysis of giving security to voters is interesting. Voters feeling of security with Clinton was damaged when Comey broke protocol and said they were re-opening an investigation on her. Even though he later said it was all about nothing, he already pierced that vale of voted security, and he knew what he was doing and he did it to save his ass with Republicans in congress because they were starting to investigate him and called emergency hearings , etc. where he had to testify - On this I had read that Clinton had an off camera 'chance' meeting with comeys boss at an airport while traveling. which A is sketchy and B comey had to cover his ass due to appearance of impropriety. I have a separate personal opinion.. .
thoughts?
|
Ok now you're being partisan and using straw man right wing arguments.
I read your loooooong ass right wing cut and paste.
Comey knew that he was influencing the election by sending a public letter to congress instead of a classified letter. Comey was told by Lynch not to send a public letter, he did anyway.
I was the only one to reply on topic, and thoughtfully, and your reply is the bullshit 2 cities choosing the president crap? Whatever waste of time cheers
