Englebert

I know it is unrealistic and probably stupid to ask, but do you have any proof to back your assertions?

If you don't want to hear the whining, vote for Trump. On second thought, I (and probably everybody on this board) will still be complaining. Tuesday will just determine who the whining will be directed towards.

From what I have heard, someone said that they were able to eliminate the duplicates by using a computer program, and that the majority were duplicates...thus greatly cutting down the amount of emails the FBI needed to look at. I don't remember who made that statement or where I heard/read it, or if it's from any hint of a reliable source. I have no clue as to how many of Hillary's emails the FBI already possessed, but they would have had to possess more than I thought for this to be plausible.

What's the "Really!" supposed to mean. Really, please explain. Of course you will have to remove your blinders and ear plugs to respond.

1. Beaumont West Brook/Conroe 2. Lufkin/Montgomery 3. Baytown Sterling/Channelview 4. Crosby/New Caney 5. Porter/Barbers Hill 6. Nederland/Port Neches-Groves 7. Port Arthur Memorial/Vidor 8. Bridge City/Huffman Hargrave 9. Little Cypress-Mauriceville/Navasota 10. Madisonville/Tarkington 11. Shepherd/Bellville 12. Hardin-Jefferson/Hamshire-Fannett 13. Coldspring-Oakhurst/Woodville 14. Kirbyville/Buna 15. Anahuac/East Chambers 16. Hitchcock/La Marque 17. Garrison/Corrigan-Camden 18. Groveton/Lovelady 19. Sabine Pass/Evadale 20. Iola/Hull-Daisetta 21. Beaumont Central/Baytown Lee 22. Beaumont Ozen/Livingston 23. Silsbee/Cleveland 24. Diboll/Jasper 25. West Orange-Stark/Orangefield

So somehow it is immoral for each individual to give his opinion. Why are you trying to suppress the rights of people with differing opinions? Are you suggesting implementing a quota system on how many opinions can come from either side of a topic? And do you want to adopt the current quota system in which "too many" can only be one-sided? And why are you the perpetual victim?

To clarify drewlsu's post: If HJ wins they will represent the district as the third place team. If they lose they will be out of the playoffs. If HF wins they will represent the district as the fourth place team. If they lose they will be out of the playoffs.

You said it. Selective outrage at its finest. Liberals own that behavior. Conservatives might want to learn this technique but I don't think their conscious would let them implement the practice.

Such selective and fake outrage. Typical Liberal.

I think this actually illustrates the immigration topic through the eyes of Liberals. Many, if not most, Liberals believe that those against illegal immigration hate the immigrants, when in fact most hate the burden placed on our society. Either way it is definitely funny.

I've been saying for years that the power to pardon and commute sentences should be stripped from Presidents and Governors. I think the President (and Governors) should only have to power to order a new trial, not pardon or commute.

I agree. If it is true that the President can pardon themselves, then that power needs to be stripped immediately. I don't know if it would take a constitutional amendment, but it needs to be gone. And as with any law, a few legal expert's opinions doesn't really mean squat. I would like to hear from the Supreme Court.

I guess people will have different opinions as to where they want Hillary to go.

Trump should use this slogan over and over and over.

I've heard a few legal "experts" say that if Hillary wins the presidency, she can pardon herself. I heard one say she cannot. Anyone with an once of moral fiber would resign, but I don't see Hillary doing that.

I don't know the answer for a fact, but I'm fairly confident that anyone can run while under investigation. The U.S. Justice system is setup as "innocent until proven guilty". Preventing anyone from running for office while under investigation flies in the face of this. Same thing as creating a list to prevent someone from buying a gun that is under investigation. The practice could would be severely abused in short order. For example, if you and I were running for the same office, I could photoshop some photos of you engaging in illegal activity, then present them to law enforcement days before the election (or some other kind of trumped-up evidence that would take a minimum of a few days of investigation.) Even though you would be exonerated, the race would be over. This happens all the time by candidates trying to sway voters opinions, but shouldn't legally prevent someone from running.

And many folks act like he's racist, misogynist, homophobic, deplorable, xenophobic, etc. You have accused Trump of being many of the above mentioned. No one on this site has ever said that Trump is 100% truthful and a saint. I wish I could find one of those brain filters you seem to have. It sure is good at filtering out stuff you don't want to see and letting in information that seems to support your Liberal biased outlook. Do they sell them on Amazon? Or does it just develop over years of reading those secret history books?

If you don't want to see Cheney and Hannity then shut your eyes when you get into bed instead of staring at them on your ceiling. And please elaborate on what you think Cheney did?

You continually post links from Huffington Post and Politifact and all of a sudden you are worried if a site is credible. Did you really just post this or did someone hack your account?

I was wondering myself. I thought I was down by 6 then should be down by 4 after this week. I wasn't complaining though.

If men in this country really wanted to "keep women down", does anyone actually think this would be the route we would take to accomplish that goal? This is one nut-case batty woman. But astonishingly, many will believe her.

And the Russians.

Do you think the speaker was talking metaphorically about the death of Hillary's campaign? Or do you just take the author's biased opinion at face value like a good little sheeple. And why did the author of the article not mention the Vice President declaring his aspirations of causing great physical harm to Trump? Typical Liberal sheeple!

I'm guessing Comey's conscious got the better of him, along with all of the backlash. He knows he initially made the wrong decision (under heavy pressure) and has finally decided to try to absolve his guilt. A second theory is that the Clinton Foundation checked bounced. A third theory is that Obama's hatred for the Clintons boiled back up and he flip-flopped and gave Comey the green light to prosecute Hillary. I doubt this because Obama knows Hillary will carry on his legacy. A fourth theory is that Trump promised Comey a cushy future if he re-opened the investigation. I highly doubt this one, but then again, I used to think the FBI was above reproach. I'm very curious to learn the circumstances involving Anthony Weiner. Huma Abedin has filed for divorce. Did Weiner go to the FBI and tell them he has all of these emails in an effort to retaliate against Huma and Hillary? Did Weiner make a deal with the FBI to hand over this evidence to help him with his own legal troubles? I would not be surprised if it is the former, or possibly even a combination.

You do know that the Whites that burned the Tulsa community were Democrats don't you. Why do you continue to support a political party that has their roots stemmed in the KKK and violent racist acts? You have an awfully convenient and selective way of choosing who flip-flops, who evolves, and who can never change their stripes.