After having watched Comey.....

[iceberg]

"It's clear to me that he would be a far, far better POTUS than is the person whom we have in that role. I wouldn't care with which party he runs. The man is clearly erudite, cogent, perspicacious, and politically skilled. Most importantly, the man doesn't say things that he either should not or that he cannot strongly, soundly support.

As an aside, we learned today too that the man has real flair, not that shopworn showy sh*t we've all too much seen from the current POTUS and his ilk. In short and politics be damned, Comey is class act."

that is your post. i would call the prime subject comey.

yes. i would agree.

but the slap to trump? well now he would be the secondary subject you bring into this so you can list up comey by knocking down trump.

as for skilled and all the gifts you put upon comey - anyone that can't tell the president to "back down" isn't worthy of being a president. comey can't even be fbi director effectively as he waffled every chance he could trying to appease too many people and letting the public opinion sway who he got nervous about and who he didn't.

you want to say comey is a good man and you appreciate his skills great. i'd disagree but that would be about comey at least. you want to say the current president "shopworm shoey shit" and his "ilk" you now make them part of the topic. i agree the prime subject is comey and you're backhanded insults to trump are secondary, but trump is still a part of the focus or you'd not feel the need to slap him down in the process.

as for saying things he shouldn't say - both sides would disagree with you there. lynch told him to say "Matter" vs. investigation and he did.

he caved to the powers in charge and caved when a new power came into town.

 

[RadicalRedneck]

It's clear to me that he would be a far, far better POTUS than is the person whom we have in that role. I wouldn't care with which party he runs. The man is clearly erudite, cogent, perspicacious, and politically skilled. Most importantly, the man doesn't say things that he either should not or that he cannot strongly, soundly support.

As an aside, we learned today too that the man has real flair, not that shopworn showy sh*t we've all too much seen from the current POTUS and his ilk. In short and politics be damned, Comey is class act.

Excellent post. But Peewee Herman would make a better president than that piece of shit incompetent boob.

IDIOT!

 

[DigitalDrifter]

It's clear to me that he would be a far, far better POTUS than is the person whom we have in that role. I wouldn't care with which party he runs. The man is clearly erudite, cogent, perspicacious, and politically skilled. Most importantly, the man doesn't say things that he either should not or that he cannot strongly, soundly support.

As an aside, we learned today too that the man has real flair, not that shopworn showy sh*t we've all too much seen from the current POTUS and his ilk. In short and politics be damned, Comey is class act.

He was afraid to report both his former superior & Trump when he felt they crossed the line.

You'd support a coward?

The more Comey talks the more I see why he was fired.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[iceberg]

and yea, as for comey being a good president? please. he was a manipulated little ***** as director of the FBI - what do you think they'd have done to him as president?

 

[martybegan]

Equating gender and race is a no go when it comes to things like this

NO. WRONG. The 14th Amendment provides equal protection and due process to all individuals.

So I should be able to get maternity leave and coverage for pap smears?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Trump trying not to tweet after his day of victory...

What day of victory?

You at least acknowledge that this was a disaster for you fascists, right? Your entire narrative imploded.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Equating gender and race is a no go when it comes to things like this

NO. WRONG. The 14th Amendment provides equal protection and due process to all individuals.

So I should be able to get maternity leave and coverage for pap smears?

Under Obama's fascist care you do.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Having failed today what's next libs, Trump stole White House silverware impeach him?

Trump had two scoops of ice cream.

IMPEACH!!!!!!

 

[usmbguest5318]

Excellent post.

TY

 

[usmbguest5318]

"It's clear to me that he would be a far, far better POTUS than is the person whom we have in that role. I wouldn't care with which party he runs. The man is clearly erudite, cogent, perspicacious, and politically skilled. Most importantly, the man doesn't say things that he either should not or that he cannot strongly, soundly support.

As an aside, we learned today too that the man has real flair, not that shopworn showy sh*t we've all too much seen from the current POTUS and his ilk. In short and politics be damned, Comey is class act."

that is your post. i would call the prime subject comey.

yes. i would agree.

but the slap to trump? well now he would be the secondary subject you bring into this so you can list up comey by knocking down trump.

as for skilled and all the gifts you put upon comey - anyone that can't tell the president to "back down" isn't worthy of being a president. comey can't even be fbi director effectively as he waffled every chance he could trying to appease too many people and letting the public opinion sway who he got nervous about and who he didn't.

you want to say comey is a good man and you appreciate his skills great. i'd disagree but that would be about comey at least. you want to say the current president "shopworm shoey shit" and his "ilk" you now make them part of the topic. i agree the prime subject is comey and you're backhanded insults to trump are secondary, but trump is still a part of the focus or you'd not feel the need to slap him down in the process.

as for saying things he shouldn't say - both sides would disagree with you there. lynch told him to say "Matter" vs. investigation and he did.

he caved to the powers in charge and caved when a new power came into town.

well now [Trump] would be the secondary subject...trump is still a part of the focus

For that to be so, Trump would need to be the subject of at least one independent clause in the post. Trump is the subject of not one independent clause in the whole post, not even the subordinate clause to which you have called attention: "not that shopworn showy sh*t we've all too much seen from the current POTUS and his ilk.

Trump is referenced only in subordinate clauses of my post. There is a reason why that is so and that reason is that my writing (except when I make a typo and/or carelessly fail to proofread and correct them, which is something I do, but didn't for that post), 90-something percent of the time, adheres very tightly to the rules and conventions of English grammar. I write that way on purpose: it allows strong readers -- i.e., people who have mastered English grammar [1] -- to know exactly what is my meaning and intent. Even my decision to, in this paragraph, set off my parenthetical comment with parentheses rather than with commas or em-dashes was purposeful.

you're backhanded insults to trump are secondary

Well, that's a start, and it is "directionally" better than thinking Trump is a topic of the post. When you get to the point that you understand that he is not the subject of anything in the post -- at best he is the object (see also: The comparative and the superlative | English Grammar Guide | EF) of comparison with Comey, not the subject of the comparison or any attestations -- you'll be fully "there."

you're backhanded insults to trump are secondary

What suggests to you that I'd bother with penning a "backhanded" insult of Trump? Have you not looked at the last quote in my signature line? I don't have any motive or will to "sneak in" a derisive comment about Trump, his character, what I think of him as POTUS, etc. The only "backhanding," if you will, I'd care to see relative to Trump is someone taking the back of their hand and slapping some sense and decorum into him, and that's something I'm not going to do or be able to do.


Note:

1. I can say that in my own and my children's experience, none of us, upon completing junior high school, had mastered English grammar, even though by then we had been taught all the rules of English grammar. By the time we'd practiced applying them over the course of high school, however, we had.
   
   I expect that should have been the case for all speakers of English, particularly native speakers, but I know it is not. The thing is that I cannot discern for whom it is or is not until I see how they interpret various passages. Of course, yes, I realize that masterful reading comprehension calls for more than aptly applying grammar conventions, but nothing I wrote in the OP calls for one to use those more advanced techniques to glean that Trump is not a subject of the post.

 

[usmbguest5318]

"never miss an opportunity to bag on trump" posts.

I want to point out that for as much as I abhor that Trump is POTUS, and for as much as I think his character is about as bad as one's can be without one being a violent villain, I still give the man his due when it's possible to do so.

In fairness, I don't believe Trump aims to weaken the U.S.,

In fairness, I know Trump's not a complete idiot.

In the interest of both fairness and completeness, Trump obtains loans from Deutsche Bank.

I'm willing to be fair in my assessments of the man, his words, and deeds. I'm simply not willing to give him that which he has not earned. Some may say that my standards and expectations are too high. Of them I'd ask, "What standards and expectations are too high for a person who would be or is the POTUS?"

 

[OldLady]

"It's clear to me that he would be a far, far better POTUS than is the person whom we have in that role. I wouldn't care with which party he runs. The man is clearly erudite, cogent, perspicacious, and politically skilled. Most importantly, the man doesn't say things that he either should not or that he cannot strongly, soundly support.

As an aside, we learned today too that the man has real flair, not that shopworn showy sh*t we've all too much seen from the current POTUS and his ilk. In short and politics be damned, Comey is class act."

that is your post. i would call the prime subject comey.

yes. i would agree.

but the slap to trump? well now he would be the secondary subject you bring into this so you can list up comey by knocking down trump.

as for skilled and all the gifts you put upon comey - anyone that can't tell the president to "back down" isn't worthy of being a president. comey can't even be fbi director effectively as he waffled every chance he could trying to appease too many people and letting the public opinion sway who he got nervous about and who he didn't.

you want to say comey is a good man and you appreciate his skills great. i'd disagree but that would be about comey at least. you want to say the current president "shopworm shoey shit" and his "ilk" you now make them part of the topic. i agree the prime subject is comey and you're backhanded insults to trump are secondary, but trump is still a part of the focus or you'd not feel the need to slap him down in the process.

as for saying things he shouldn't say - both sides would disagree with you there. lynch told him to say "Matter" vs. investigation and he did.

he caved to the powers in charge and caved when a new power came into town.

You've never worked for anyone, have you?

 

[iceberg]

"It's clear to me that he would be a far, far better POTUS than is the person whom we have in that role. I wouldn't care with which party he runs. The man is clearly erudite, cogent, perspicacious, and politically skilled. Most importantly, the man doesn't say things that he either should not or that he cannot strongly, soundly support.

As an aside, we learned today too that the man has real flair, not that shopworn showy sh*t we've all too much seen from the current POTUS and his ilk. In short and politics be damned, Comey is class act."

that is your post. i would call the prime subject comey.

yes. i would agree.

but the slap to trump? well now he would be the secondary subject you bring into this so you can list up comey by knocking down trump.

as for skilled and all the gifts you put upon comey - anyone that can't tell the president to "back down" isn't worthy of being a president. comey can't even be fbi director effectively as he waffled every chance he could trying to appease too many people and letting the public opinion sway who he got nervous about and who he didn't.

you want to say comey is a good man and you appreciate his skills great. i'd disagree but that would be about comey at least. you want to say the current president "shopworm shoey shit" and his "ilk" you now make them part of the topic. i agree the prime subject is comey and you're backhanded insults to trump are secondary, but trump is still a part of the focus or you'd not feel the need to slap him down in the process.

as for saying things he shouldn't say - both sides would disagree with you there. lynch told him to say "Matter" vs. investigation and he did.

he caved to the powers in charge and caved when a new power came into town.

well now [Trump] would be the secondary subject...trump is still a part of the focus

For that to be so, Trump would need to be the subject of at least one independent clause in the post. Trump is the subject of not one independent clause in the whole post, not even the subordinate clause to which you have called attention: "not that shopworn showy sh*t we've all too much seen from the current POTUS and his ilk.

Trump is referenced only in subordinate clauses of my post. There is a reason why that is so and that reason is that my writing (except when I make a typo and/or carelessly fail to proofread and correct them, which is something I do, but didn't for that post), 90-something percent of the time, adheres very tightly to the rules and conventions of English grammar. I write that way on purpose: it allows strong readers -- i.e., people who have mastered English grammar [1] -- to know exactly what is my meaning and intent. Even my decision to, in this paragraph, set off my parenthetical comment with parentheses rather than with commas or em-dashes was purposeful.

you're backhanded insults to trump are secondary

Well, that's a start, and it is "directionally" better than thinking Trump is a topic of the post. When you get to the point that you understand that he is not the subject of anything in the post -- at best he is the object (see also: The comparative and the superlative | English Grammar Guide | EF) of comparison with Comey, not the subject of the comparison or any attestations -- you'll be fully "there."

you're backhanded insults to trump are secondary

What suggests to you that I'd bother with penning a "backhanded" insult of Trump? Have you not looked at the last quote in my signature line? I don't have any motive or will to "sneak in" a derisive comment about Trump, his character, what I think of him as POTUS, etc. The only "backhanding," if you will, I'd care to see relative to Trump is someone taking the back of their hand and slapping some sense and decorum into him, and that's something I'm not going to do or be able to do.


Note:

1. I can say that in my own and my children's experience, none of us, upon completing junior high school, had mastered English grammar, even though by then we had been taught all the rules of English grammar. By the time we'd practiced applying them over the course of high school, however, we had.
   
   I expect that should have been the case for all speakers of English, particularly native speakers, but I know it is not. The thing is that I cannot discern for whom it is or is not until I see how they interpret various passages. Of course, yes, I realize that masterful reading comprehension calls for more than aptly applying grammar conventions, but nothing I wrote in the OP calls for one to use those more advanced techniques to glean that Trump is not a subject of the post.

so we go from "well thats a start" to "why would i do this???"

later on, hos. while i don't mind reading war and peace at times, not all the time and it at least needs to make sense.

 

[iceberg]

"It's clear to me that he would be a far, far better POTUS than is the person whom we have in that role. I wouldn't care with which party he runs. The man is clearly erudite, cogent, perspicacious, and politically skilled. Most importantly, the man doesn't say things that he either should not or that he cannot strongly, soundly support.

As an aside, we learned today too that the man has real flair, not that shopworn showy sh*t we've all too much seen from the current POTUS and his ilk. In short and politics be damned, Comey is class act."

that is your post. i would call the prime subject comey.

yes. i would agree.

but the slap to trump? well now he would be the secondary subject you bring into this so you can list up comey by knocking down trump.

as for skilled and all the gifts you put upon comey - anyone that can't tell the president to "back down" isn't worthy of being a president. comey can't even be fbi director effectively as he waffled every chance he could trying to appease too many people and letting the public opinion sway who he got nervous about and who he didn't.

you want to say comey is a good man and you appreciate his skills great. i'd disagree but that would be about comey at least. you want to say the current president "shopworm shoey shit" and his "ilk" you now make them part of the topic. i agree the prime subject is comey and you're backhanded insults to trump are secondary, but trump is still a part of the focus or you'd not feel the need to slap him down in the process.

as for saying things he shouldn't say - both sides would disagree with you there. lynch told him to say "Matter" vs. investigation and he did.

he caved to the powers in charge and caved when a new power came into town.

You've never worked for anyone, have you?

only all my life, but sure. you have a point i suppose.

yesterday in a 3 day offsite for where i do work i stood my ground on a point and argued it in return and now get to head up the project of quite a few people.

when things are an "investigation" i don't ask people to phrase it more politely. call it what it is so we're all clear on what we are dealing with. THE ONLY reason to call it something else is to provide room to move and be ambiguous. all this coming from a "words matter!" person such as hillary.

hell yea they matter. she makes them mean whatever she wants. period.

 

[OldLady]

"It's clear to me that he would be a far, far better POTUS than is the person whom we have in that role. I wouldn't care with which party he runs. The man is clearly erudite, cogent, perspicacious, and politically skilled. Most importantly, the man doesn't say things that he either should not or that he cannot strongly, soundly support.

As an aside, we learned today too that the man has real flair, not that shopworn showy sh*t we've all too much seen from the current POTUS and his ilk. In short and politics be damned, Comey is class act."

that is your post. i would call the prime subject comey.

yes. i would agree.

but the slap to trump? well now he would be the secondary subject you bring into this so you can list up comey by knocking down trump.

as for skilled and all the gifts you put upon comey - anyone that can't tell the president to "back down" isn't worthy of being a president. comey can't even be fbi director effectively as he waffled every chance he could trying to appease too many people and letting the public opinion sway who he got nervous about and who he didn't.

you want to say comey is a good man and you appreciate his skills great. i'd disagree but that would be about comey at least. you want to say the current president "shopworm shoey shit" and his "ilk" you now make them part of the topic. i agree the prime subject is comey and you're backhanded insults to trump are secondary, but trump is still a part of the focus or you'd not feel the need to slap him down in the process.

as for saying things he shouldn't say - both sides would disagree with you there. lynch told him to say "Matter" vs. investigation and he did.

he caved to the powers in charge and caved when a new power came into town.

You've never worked for anyone, have you?

only all my life, but sure. you have a point i suppose.

yesterday in a 3 day offsite for where i do work i stood my ground on a point and argued it in return and now get to head up the project of quite a few people.

when things are an "investigation" i don't ask people to phrase it more politely. call it what it is so we're all clear on what we are dealing with. THE ONLY reason to call it something else is to provide room to move and be ambiguous. all this coming from a "words matter!" person such as hillary.

hell yea they matter. she makes them mean whatever she wants. period.

That was a revealing and very negative comment he made about Lynch. You'd expect Clinton to parse words; she was campaigning. Lynch should never have gone there. Comey could have chosen that hill to do battle from, but to him it wasn't a big enough deal to get in a feud with his boss over. I hear ya, with the "Comey's a pansy ass" thing. That's your opinion. I think he was honest enough to pretty much tell the truth regardless of how it made him look, and to me that's not a bad thing.

 

[iceberg]

ive already been dinged for overall saying comey is likely a good dude, this is just not hisxrole if he cant stand up to ether admin.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Firing Comey is a no brainer, Comey should also be prosecuted for leaking. The ******* FBI director is a leak? I am truly stunned. Even if the information is not considered classified, leaking is a felony that carries a minimum one year prison term. You would think the FBI director would know that and avoid testifying that he engaged in a felony before the US Senate.

Well, you would think that the Republican nominee would be able to win an election based on the merits of the ideas and not enlist a foreign power to help. You seem mad that people found out Trump was employing shenanigans, more than you're mad about the shenanigans themselves. If Hillary Clinton had enlisted the help of a foreign power to hack into the RNC, Conservatives' heads would have literally exploded.

"Well, you would think that the Republican nominee would be able to win an election based on the merits of the ideas and not enlist a foreign power to help. You seem mad that people found out Trump was employing shenanigans,..."

1. "Well, you would think that the Republican nominee would be able to win an election based on the merits of the ideas."
This would suggest that you are unaware of the bias instilled by the media and the schools.
Clearly, you're a government school grad.


2. "not enlist a foreign power to help."

The only group associated with a foreign power are the Democrats.


There is zero evidence that of any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

There are scads of evidence of collusion between the media and the DNC, and there is this:
The only folks with a close relationship with the Russians are Democrats.
The names Clinton and Podesta come to mind.

"52% Say Clintons Should Be Part of Russia Probe"
52% Say Clintons Should Be Part of Russia Probe - Rasmussen Reports™


Here's why:
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
The first Republican President


And this:
"Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

...the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

....major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons,...."
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html


And

"Both Hillary Clinton And John Podesta Made Millions From Russia & Putin"
Both Hillary Clinton And John Podesta Made Millions From Russia & Putin » Liberty Alliance

And

"EXCLUSIVE: Dem Super-Lobbyist Podesta Got $170K to End US Sanctions On Russian Bank"
EXCLUSIVE: Dem Super-Lobbyist Podesta Got $170K to End US Sanctions On Russian Bank





You're too stupid to understand this...but the old saying is true: to know what the Left is guilty of, see what they blame the other side of doing.

-----------------------------------------------------------

News anchor highlights all of the known links to Russia

Democrat collusion??????


"Claire McCaskill Used Undisclosed Foundation to Pay for Dinner at Russian Ambassador’s House
Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill (Mo.) used a personal foundation to pay for a dinner she attended at Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak's Washington, D.C., residence. The senator had failed to disclose her role in the foundation until earlier this month.

McCaskill came under fire this March after she told the Washington Post she never had a "call or meeting" with Kislyak even though she had publicly announced both a call and meeting with him. This week, CNN reportedthat McCaskill also attended a black-tie reception at Kislyak's D.C. residence in November 2015.

McCaskill's attendance at the dinner was accompanied by an $873 payment to the American-Russian Cultural Cooperation Foundation, where Kislyak serves on its board of directors as honorary chairman."
Claire McCaskill Used Undisclosed Foundation to Pay for Dinner at Russian Ambassador's House

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Podesta Group retroactively files more DOJ disclosures for pro-Putin work

...the powerful Washington lobbying firm run by Clinton ally Tony Podesta filed a document admitting its work for the pro-Russia European Centre for a Modern Ukraine may have principally benefited a foreign government. New disclosures revealed dozens of previously unreported interactions the firm made with influential government offices, including Hillary Clinton's State Department and the office of former Vice President Joe Biden, while lobbying on behalf of the center. Embattled ex-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort failed to disclose his extensive lobbying efforts on behalf of the center at the time as well."
How do you say 'whoops' in Russian? Podesta Group retroactively files more DOJ disclosures for pro-Putin work