Husker, you're not this ignorant. Mocking universal and simple to understand concepts are often what people on a losing side do.
So, please, continue doing what you are doing. Continue to say that you have faith that Comey made a perfectly legally honest opinion in Hillary's e-mails. Continue to play dumb and not know the difference between a promise and rhetoric. This election showed that self-satisfied mindset and instinct killed Hillary (not literally Husker, but figuratively - just in case you claim to not know the difference).
People don't buy it. In fact it's the opposite approach of what liberals should be doing after making a self-assessment post-election...trying to empathize with the other side. Instead, you're mocking, trolling, sidetracking. You're editorializing and lecturing. Any fool can go to someplace else for that. I come to the West Mall because you might find smart people who debate on substance. Discuss substance, policies, and facts Husker and use facts and logic to support your opinions.
Was I trolling? A little.
I think the line between campaign promise and rhetoric was merely non-existant with Trump. For example, "build a wall" for all of the nearly 2,000 miles is not only impracticable but also abhorrently expensive yet would you consider that a promise or rhetoric? After all, it was the leadoff for nearly every campaign stop? You and I both know that Trump actually promised
very little during his campaign as the depth of his policy proposals were extremely shallow.
As for facts, what we've learned in this campaign cycle is that they do not matter. Rather, it's what we
want them to be that matters. In turn, Trump is a racist and HRC is corrupt. The facts or even what we know may not support those statements but when prompted with facts they are simply discarded like trash because they don't conform to whatever biased source someone was told to believe. Furthermore, slandering your opponent is actually more critical than attacking their argument. Better yet if you have a meme to throw out that's even better. This is politics on the national stage and local stage on this board.
So, am I frustrated when even someone as educated as you can unequivocally claim the fictitious high road while slandering opposing viewpoints when we endured the same security clearance training? Hell yes. I'll happily take the slander from our resident alt-right propagandist and his chearleaders knowing that the facts often don't match the message they are portending. From you, I expected a more civil conversation.
Now, do I trust Comey? Hell yes, again. He has demonstrated that he is one of the most non-political agency heads in our lifetime. The
assumption that he was part of some vast conspiracy borders on lunacy, IMHO. Did he think Hillary violated the letter of the law but they'd be unable to convict? Maybe. As a former US Attorney clearly he needs to assess whether there is
enough evidence to gain a conviction when making that recommendation. Heck, any public prosecutors office does the same thing every day.
I'd have no problem if a special prosecutor had been appointed but that is separate from any discussion around James Comey's integrity.