Speaking of our thin-skinned president, he’s still talking about the election: in a meeting with Congressional leaders, he spent ten minutes mouthing off that “illegals” cost him the popular vote. His ego won’t tolerate losing, in even the slightest way.
Its kind of forward=leaning, with an eye to the future. If you were to opine about the politics of sixteen-year=old citizens and call them “voters”, that would be technically incorrect, as they are not old enough. But they will be, so there is a nugget of alt=truth there.
By the same token, “Americans” who voted against Trump are not, precisely, “illegal” voters. Yet.
I don’t think anyone knows what you are talking about or trying to say. more importantly I don’t think anyone cares. We have enough long standing liberals who try to mindlessly enforce liberal orthodoxy on this board, we don’t really need another one.
I’m sorry. Can you highlight where he uses the word “imaginary” or anything like it in reference Hillary’s breach of regulations on email use?
And you’re right, the FBI didn’t technically re-open the case, they never technically closed it but for all intents and purposes, they were done,
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/us/politics/comey-clinton-email-justice.html
“the FBI will simply provide the same scrutiny to these newly uncovered emails as it previously applied to the emails it already reviewed when it determined that criminal charges are not warranted”
"By law, though, agents and prosecutors in the Clinton investigation could not immediately read the new emails without court authority.
The authorities decided only recently to seek that approval. They do not know whether the emails contain classified information or, if they do, whether that would change their determination that nobody should be charged with mishandling it."
And that’s the New York Times, the Washington Times call it a reopening or renewing of the investigation.
Why would they get court approval to examine emails on an imaginary issue? I just can’t get that through my think skull. 
Did he say Hillary WOULDN’T be going to prison (Answer: No, although I don’t think any reasonable prosecutor would insist on jail time if Hillary pled to a deal)
Your pedantic differentiation between continuing an ongoing case versus re-opening the case is not very compelling for anyone outside the “Ready for Hillary” bubble.
“On one level, this is a bit of semantic quibbling. Former FBI officials told us “reopening” is an imprecise word choice, but it gets at the gist of the latest development. It is likely that the FBI had not administratively closed the Clinton case, though it was no longer an active investigation.”
So you’re basically engaging in semantic quibbling. But maybe my skull is too think to understand the nuance that you are trying to point out in your semantic quibbling.
This thread has a rather different flavor now that Clothahump has admitted to trolling.
Again, nowhere it was said that Hillary was going to be arrested. Comey had said early that Hillary was not. The last letters were referring to the ongoing investigation that already had told us that they were not going to even recommend an indictment.
And based on what took place, the **supplement **to the whole investigation was referring to the fact that the investigation was not closed but the part of the investigation regarding Hillary was done or not it was not mentioned by the FBI that anything was going to change about what they had concluded already, who else had access to the emails was still an issue.
Well, at least he acknowledges that he [del]cut the tow line[/del] lost the popular vote. That’s progress, of a kind.
I hope the doofus learned that the next time he’s asked anything at all, his best answer is “I need a lawyer.”
But where dos he say that her crimes are imaginary?
Oh wait, I get it now, you think her incarceration is imaginary.
Perhaps you need to read the post that we are both talking about. The one where HotFlungWok says:
“the presidential candidate screaming that he’s going to lock Hillary up for her imaginary crimes”
Do you want to rephrase your comments in light of the fact that we are talking about the imaginary nature of her crimes and not the imaginary nature of her incarceration. I agree that even if she were indicted, she would not serve time in jail.
Some in the Democrat collective are currently suggesting/demanding that the electoral college-style voting be abandoned at the national, and state, level. As a show of good faith, maybe the DNC should change the way they chose their party’s candidate?
Of course, if a popular vote was in place in 2008, that would have meant that Obama would have lost the DNC primary.
Comey referred to rules being broken, not crimes. You still need a cite for what crimes she was in the end accused by the FBI.
Again, finding that a crime was committed leads to recommend an indictment. You need a cite for either.
Trump claimed that a crime was committed even after Comey had said that that was not the case with Hillary.
As we have recently been told by his press secretary, all that is required is that Mr. Trump believes a thing, and then it becomes a fact. He does not need to provide evidence or facts. His word is enough.
Is Hillary the new Emmanuel Goldstein, with references to her pending arrest trotted out whenever Trump feels like inspiring a frenzy of support and/or distracting the public from one of his failures?
Well I’m certainly not going to sit back and let conservatives deflect from their humiliating fate cleaning up behind donnie with a shovel. You try sticking hillary into every conversation, normalizing the plutocrat/thief in chief. Just to gain a little self respect I get it. You have lost at every level, by the public policy debates, and you will lose by demography. And now you have been taken over by the creeping id that was supposed to be under wraps and not spoken aloud.
Of course you don’t understand that. It’s you.
None of this is true, but hey. Whatever you want to believe, pal.
It’s like that in North Korea too. There everyone believes him, not just his 46.1% of the vote.
The evidence in my support is right here in the thread for all to see, buddy.
You do realize that there is a record of your past posts on this board, that once they go off the page, we can still access them, right?
This isn’t a your word vs. his, this is your own words, that you now flatly deny ever having posted.
I guess this is the alternate reality of alternative facts now.
OMG’s behavior is almost…Trumpian.
How do we know it’s not really the big Cheeto himself in blackface?