Can you honestly tell me that what Hilary "did" was worse than what Chump is doing right now? If you haven't realized by now that there is no comparison between facts and make-believe, there's no hope for you or people like you. BTW, the one thing I've learned since Chump became President is that arguing with a Chump enabler is a foolish endeavor. So don't expect a lot out of me concerning this subject.
This post was edited by Zack at June 3, 2018 10:44 AM MDT
But this is not a comparison or a zero-sum game. If warranted, Clinton and Trump could both be found guilty on different charges and each sentenced independently of the other. It's not clear, however, that either has done anything that rises to such a level.
Sounds like a pretty good plan to me. The treasonous and malevolent Clinton should by rights be under a jail somewhere. There's too many in high places running interference for her for any kind of justice to be done.
It would be nice if you could correct all errors instead of just the ones involving grammar or syntax.
This post was edited by tom jackson at June 3, 2018 10:44 AM MDT
"The fac that it's a plural subject, the word 'are' should be used." As a budding grammer-ite, learned at the foot of your good self, shouldn't this be, "The fact that it's a plural means that the word, 'are' should be used.
I think that's perhaps the difference between UK and US? I have noted that in a sentence where, say there is a list, 'apples, bananas, cherries and pears.' You guys, or so I am told, would generally add another comma before the and? We wouldn't. I did also feel that the syntax didn't flow, or wasn't quite right in the sentence you gave originally? I suggested an alternative.
Not exactly. Your original sentence was, "should only be used when the subject is singular. The fac that it's a plural subject, the word 'are' should be used." My suggestion for better syntax was, "The fact that it's a plural means that the word, 'are' should be used." So, as you see, there was no problem, I felt, with the word subject, or indeed, with anything before the next sentence. I felt hat to make it more readable and correct, perhaps the word 'means' would be helpful after the part about, 'the fact that... ' as it didn't read quite correctly. You could, alternatively, have said, 'because it's a plural subject, the word 'are' should be used. Hopefully, you see what I mean now? It was, indeed, a minor point; I am just aiming for the high standards you yourself inspire.
Quoting The Horn News as a credible source? Seriously? The same site that ran the headline, "Warning from God Found in Human DNA" as well as one about President Obama facing jail time. You do realize that this is on a similarly reliable level as the National Enquirer, don't you?
I did want to go look at the link, mainly so I could analyse it critically - but my computer said it's an insecure site... However, what's the betting that it does NOT say or give any details about what Hilary C is supposed to have done that warrants a jail sentence.. And that's the crux of it really isn't it... that the Strumpet supporters, who. lets face it do often seem to be right wing - along with websites and news outlets that are known to be right wing, tending towards extremist views do just sit and shout anti Hilary things but never offer anything to back it up.
Just saying someone is a crook doesn't make them a crook and that's more than likely what's happened here.. Breitbart is a known extremist right wing platform.. but even they could at least try to offer some information on what she's done.. but I bet they don't.. so it amounts to just slagging someone off because it suits their agenda...
I am no Hilary supporter... well I don't get to support anyone American, so that means I can sit back and analyse what I see - if I see evidence that contradicts what I originially thought then I am prepared to change my views.. let's face it I have no allegiance to any party there, but so far I have seen nothing except Strumpet supporters SAYING Hilary is a crook and bad.. Perhaps I have missed something, that's entirely possible but so far all I have seen is a) her husband is accused of molesting, possibly raping women.. OK ... that's bad.. but when you remember this is NOT Hilary herself and Trump HIMSELF is accused of the same.. that makes one point for Hilary.. b) Hilary was accused of helping a child abuser get off jail.. Now that would be bad.. but when you look into the evidence she was a lawyer, doing her job, a job millions do every day - defending her client and she didn't get him off and never did she say it's ok to molest children.. c) there was the email saga.. not smart at all but it was properly investigated and there was no charge.. On the other hand we DO know that it was the Russians who instigated the second investigation. This happened at a critical time in Hilary's campaign.. those who say it did not affect the result have NO evidence to support that.. truth is we don't know and it's likely it DID. especially in conjunction with the loud smear campaign on Trump's side continually calling her a crook.. Trumped up evidence which clearly was dismissed but it damaged her.. The fact that Russians were allowed to interfere to that level is appalling. .if that happened here I would expect the election to be re-run as interfering in the election process, the base of democracy should never be tolerated.. and nothing has been done, one can only conclude that the reason for this is that it suits those who wanted Strumpet in power.
Aside from that I know of NOTHING that Hilary has done, ever to warrant an arrest.. I say that objectively, rationally and sanely as someone who has distance on their side.. I have no need to support either party.. I find it utterly bewildering people's behaviour in this.. their willingness to support and worse, defend, a known liar, a nasty, unpleasant man who has NO manners, tweets like an imbecile and who discredits your nation. And I also don't get the willingness to believe un-factual biased twaddle... It makes no sense to me.. I find it gorily fascinating but also alarming..
I realize that we can't all be up-to-the-second on the news, but I would have thought you had already heard that Clinton did not win the election, ergo, she is not in the White House.
Zack 