#NeverHillary

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I asked (what I thought was) a pretty simple yes or no question.

And I responded to you with a clear analogy directly designed to answer your question.

So after all this, what is your own opinion of the answer to your question?

Yes?
No?
Too complex for a simple yes/no answer?

[ShockdaWorld]

And I responded to you with a clear analogy directly designed to answer your question.

So after all this, what is your own opinion of the answer to your question?

Yes?
No?
Too complex for a simple yes/no answer?

My opinion to your answer is that it was way too complex for a yes/no question. My answer to the question, is that yes, it bears the same result. What he sad and "They found nothing" yield the same result. They are finished with their investigation and came to the same decision they made before this round.

Tell me again how I was "pushing so hard for a discussion of its results." I still missed that part.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

My opinion to your answer is that it was way too complex for a yes/no question. My answer to the question, is that yes, it bears the same result. What he sad and "They found nothing" yield the same result. They are finished with their investigation and came to the same decision they made before this round.

Tell me again how I was "pushing so hard for a discussion of its results." I still missed that part.

I complained that @SB Shock totally twisted Comey's words.
Apparently you didn't even have a clue what Comey had said. Rather than ask, or google it yourself, you asked a question about the FBI results being the same.
I answered you with an analogy to say "yes, same results, but you are completely ignoring the nuance of my post".
You ignored that my analogy answered your question and pushed for a direct "yes/no" answer instead.
I gave you what you wanted, a direct "yes/no", with a detailed explanation, and then repeated that you were still sidestepping my original point and killing the nuance of my criticism.

You got your answer (twice), and then you complained that I answered you harshly. If my responses seemed harsh, it is because I assumed you had at least a base understanding of what had happened (what Comey had said). I probably would have answered differently if I knew you needed filled in on the basics. With that said, I find it incredibly frustrating that no matter how many times, via how many different responses, I point out that "yes, the FBI would have concluded the same thing, nobody disagrees about that, but that misses my point", it seems that is the only thing being talked about. We are rambling back and forth about something we totally agree on, and I cannot get you to move on to discuss the actual heart of the issue that I originally brought up.

[ShockingButTrue]

The purposeful elimination of nuance when re-stating other people's opinions is killing political discourse in this country.

I'll give you credit this one time Bloviate: Purposeful elimination of subject matter does indeed destroy "nuance". Your comprehension of scientific principles never ceases to amaze me.

And no, this didn't come from Facebook, Twitter, or Drudge either.

[ShockingButTrue]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

or for contrast,

[ShockdaWorld]

I complained that @SB Shock totally twisted Comey's words.
Apparently you didn't even have a clue what Comey had said. Rather than ask, or google it yourself, you asked a question about the FBI results being the same.
I answered you with an analogy to say "yes, same results, but you are completely ignoring the nuance of my post".
You ignored that my analogy answered your question and pushed for a direct "yes/no" answer instead.
I gave you what you wanted, a direct "yes/no", with a detailed explanation, and then repeated that you were still sidestepping my original point and killing the nuance of my criticism.

You got your answer (twice), and then you complained that I answered you harshly. If my responses seemed harsh, it is because I assumed you had at least a base understanding of what had happened (what Comey had said). I probably would have answered differently if I knew you needed filled in on the basics. With that said, I find it incredibly frustrating that no matter how many times, via how many different responses, I point out that "yes, the FBI would have concluded the same thing, nobody disagrees about that, but that misses my point", it seems that is the only thing being talked about. We are rambling back and forth about something we totally agree on, and I cannot get you to move on to discuss the actual heart of the issue that I originally brought up.

Haha. Because I didn't care enough to look up what he said. And I didn't read back into the thread to see what had been said between you and SB. I just wanted to know if the result was the same as if he'd said those exact words. If the answer was NO, I'd have looked into it more deeply. I'm sorry if that frustrates you, but not that I asked the question.

[SB Shock]

I complained that @SB Shock totally twisted Comey's words..

I didn't twist - just repeating what some chatter head on MSNBC said.

[ShockdaWorld]

Social media makes it look like the reports of voting machine "malfunctions" are already pouring in fast and furious.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I didn't twist - just repeating what some chatter head on MSNBC said.

So you let them do the twisting, and then you repeat it. That's not really an excuse.

[SB Shock]

So you let them do the twisting, and then you repeat it. That's not really an excuse.

True - but this would not be shockernet if we took everything serious. In these days u just have to have a sense of humor about it all. Need more cowbell.

[WstateU]

Need more cowbell.

But not too much...

[ShockingButTrue]

[ShockingButTrue]

Sorry guys. I could only withstand so much name calling. Tell the truth. Shame the devil.

[pinstripers]

hide and watch

https://www.yahoo.com/news/maryland-executive-indicted-uranium-one-121958857.html

[SB Shock]

hide and watch

https://www.yahoo.com/news/maryland-executive-indicted-uranium-one-121958857.html

Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.

They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.