Trump and the RNC should just ignore Comey and whatever he has said or might say

[usmbguest5318]

Thread topic:

• The topic: This thread's topic of discussion is how Trump, the RNC (and/or other federal public office holding individuals) should respond or not respond to Comey and/or his book.
• Not the topic: Everything else.

Poll question:

• If you were Trump, which of the following would you do?
  
  1. Ignore Comey and whatever he might have to say or has already said.
     
  2. Engage in argy-bargy with Comey.

My remarks:

Why is the RNC, the WH or Trump even talking about Jim Comey, what he's written in his book, or anything else he's said or done? James Comey is nothing other than a private citizen. There's absolutely no reason for Trump, the RNC, members of Congress or anyone having an actual role as a "player" in national politics and/or public policy making to respond to him and his book at all.

Regardless of what Trump, the RNC (and/or other federal public office holding individuals) think about Comey or his book, there's nothing to gain by dignifying him or his remarks with a refutory response. The man has no actual power; thus there's nothing to defend oneself from with regard to his remarks.

Hell, if Trump and the cabal of conservative media don't talk about it, it'll disappear from everyone's "radar" in a day or less. There's really no alternative but that because the folks who might want to talk about Comey and his book will run out of things to say.

It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to.
-- W.C. Fields​

 

[BlackSand]

.​

Pineapple​

.​

 

[Seawytch]

Trump and his sycophants actually have a lot to gain if they can discredit Comey. His testimony could be key in the obstruction case.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Trump and his sycophants actually have a lot to gain if they can discredit Comey. His testimony could be key in the obstruction case.

And to think, it was all about Russian Collusion....Bwaaahhhhhaaahhhhaaaaa. God you fuckers are stupid.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Since Trump cannot defeat Comey in a war of words or a torrent of tweets, he should just ignore him.

 

[forkup]

Thread topic:

• The topic: This thread's topic of discussion is how Trump, the RNC (and/or other federal public office holding individuals) should respond or not respond to Comey and/or his book.
• Not the topic: Everything else.

Poll question:

• If you were Trump, which of the following would you do?
  1. Ignore Comey and whatever he might have to say or has already said.
     
  2. Engage in argy-bargy with Comey.

My remarks:

Why is the RNC, the WH or Trump even talking about Jim Comey, what he's written in his book, or anything else he's said or done? James Comey is nothing other than a private citizen. There's absolutely no reason for Trump, the RNC, members of Congress or anyone having an actual role as a "player" in national politics and/or public policy making to respond to him and his book at all.

Regardless of what Trump, the RNC (and/or other federal public office holding individuals) think about Comey or his book, there's nothing to gain by dignifying him or his remarks with a refutory response. The man has no actual power; thus there's nothing to defend oneself from with regard to his remarks.

Hell, if Trump and the cabal of conservative media don't talk about it, it'll disappear from everyone's "radar" in a day or less. There's really no alternative but that because the folks who might want to talk about Comey and his book will run out of things to say.

It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to.
-- W.C. Fields​

Don't you think a better question would be, that if even supporters of Trump agree on the inadvisability of engaging in a mud fight, is he mentally suitable for the job ? Or does that fall out of the scope of this OP?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Thread topic:

• The topic: This thread's topic of discussion is how Trump, the RNC (and/or other federal public office holding individuals) should respond or not respond to Comey and/or his book.
• Not the topic: Everything else.

Poll question:

• If you were Trump, which of the following would you do?
  1. Ignore Comey and whatever he might have to say or has already said.
     
  2. Engage in argy-bargy with Comey.

My remarks:

Why is the RNC, the WH or Trump even talking about Jim Comey, what he's written in his book, or anything else he's said or done? James Comey is nothing other than a private citizen. There's absolutely no reason for Trump, the RNC, members of Congress or anyone having an actual role as a "player" in national politics and/or public policy making to respond to him and his book at all.

Regardless of what Trump, the RNC (and/or other federal public office holding individuals) think about Comey or his book, there's nothing to gain by dignifying him or his remarks with a refutory response. The man has no actual power; thus there's nothing to defend oneself from with regard to his remarks.

Hell, if Trump and the cabal of conservative media don't talk about it, it'll disappear from everyone's "radar" in a day or less. There's really no alternative but that because the folks who might want to talk about Comey and his book will run out of things to say.

It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to.
-- W.C. Fields​

Don't you think a better question would be, that if even supporters of Trump agree on the inadvisability of engaging in a mud fight, is he mentally suitable for the job ? Or does that fall out of the scope of this OP?

When Comey took it upon himself to be judge and jury against Hiltery Clinton and her passing of classified information to people who werent cleared for it, anyone else would of been sent to 5 years in jail. Thanks to him, the bitch is still walking free in the 2 tier justice system.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Trump and his sycophants actually have a lot to gain if they can discredit Comey. His testimony could be key in the obstruction case.

Comey's remarks in public are classified as "hearsay." As such they may or may not be useful at trial. There are some 20+ exceptions to the general rule, and one'd have to research precedent to get a sense of whether any of those exceptions would apply to what Comey says. (Click the second link.) Comey's an attorney, so I wouldn't be surprised to find he's been careful about what he's said to constrain its admissibility in court....But who knows?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Camel toe

(I)

 

[DarkFury]

The next book published will be...
The Social Suicide of James Comey

No party will ever want his touch again, nobody!

 

[forkup]

Thread topic:

• The topic: This thread's topic of discussion is how Trump, the RNC (and/or other federal public office holding individuals) should respond or not respond to Comey and/or his book.
• Not the topic: Everything else.

Poll question:

• If you were Trump, which of the following would you do?
  1. Ignore Comey and whatever he might have to say or has already said.
     
  2. Engage in argy-bargy with Comey.

My remarks:

Why is the RNC, the WH or Trump even talking about Jim Comey, what he's written in his book, or anything else he's said or done? James Comey is nothing other than a private citizen. There's absolutely no reason for Trump, the RNC, members of Congress or anyone having an actual role as a "player" in national politics and/or public policy making to respond to him and his book at all.

Regardless of what Trump, the RNC (and/or other federal public office holding individuals) think about Comey or his book, there's nothing to gain by dignifying him or his remarks with a refutory response. The man has no actual power; thus there's nothing to defend oneself from with regard to his remarks.

Hell, if Trump and the cabal of conservative media don't talk about it, it'll disappear from everyone's "radar" in a day or less. There's really no alternative but that because the folks who might want to talk about Comey and his book will run out of things to say.

It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to.
-- W.C. Fields​

Don't you think a better question would be, that if even supporters of Trump agree on the inadvisability of engaging in a mud fight, is he mentally suitable for the job ? Or does that fall out of the scope of this OP?

When Comey took it upon himself to be judge and jury against Hiltery Clinton and her passing of classified information to people who werent cleared for it, anyone else would of been sent to 5 years in jail. Thanks to him, the bitch is still walking free in the 2 tier justice system.

My question might be out of the scope of the OP but this is certainly out of the scope, but I'll play. It's interesting how even while having control of the DOJ and every law enforcement agency, not to mention control of all 3 branches of government the conclusions of the FBI in regards to it haven't been challenged. What do you think is the likely explanation for that? There's a vast conspiracy including people Trump appointed or is allied to? Or Comey's conclusions were right?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Thread topic:

• The topic: This thread's topic of discussion is how Trump, the RNC (and/or other federal public office holding individuals) should respond or not respond to Comey and/or his book.
• Not the topic: Everything else.

Poll question:

• If you were Trump, which of the following would you do?
  1. Ignore Comey and whatever he might have to say or has already said.
     
  2. Engage in argy-bargy with Comey.

My remarks:

Why is the RNC, the WH or Trump even talking about Jim Comey, what he's written in his book, or anything else he's said or done? James Comey is nothing other than a private citizen. There's absolutely no reason for Trump, the RNC, members of Congress or anyone having an actual role as a "player" in national politics and/or public policy making to respond to him and his book at all.

Regardless of what Trump, the RNC (and/or other federal public office holding individuals) think about Comey or his book, there's nothing to gain by dignifying him or his remarks with a refutory response. The man has no actual power; thus there's nothing to defend oneself from with regard to his remarks.

Hell, if Trump and the cabal of conservative media don't talk about it, it'll disappear from everyone's "radar" in a day or less. There's really no alternative but that because the folks who might want to talk about Comey and his book will run out of things to say.

It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to.
-- W.C. Fields​

Don't you think a better question would be, that if even supporters of Trump agree on the inadvisability of engaging in a mud fight, is he mentally suitable for the job ?

No. The question I asked is the question for which I'm interested to know what be people's answers.

Don't you think a better question would be, that if even supporters of Trump agree on the inadvisability of engaging in a mud fight, is he mentally suitable for the job ? Or does that fall out of the scope of this OP?

Trump's "mental suitability for the job" most definitely is out of scope for this thread, OP, etc. If you want the answer to that question, by all means, create a thread and ask it.

 

[forkup]

Thread topic:

• The topic: This thread's topic of discussion is how Trump, the RNC (and/or other federal public office holding individuals) should respond or not respond to Comey and/or his book.
• Not the topic: Everything else.

Poll question:

• If you were Trump, which of the following would you do?
  1. Ignore Comey and whatever he might have to say or has already said.
     
  2. Engage in argy-bargy with Comey.

My remarks:

Why is the RNC, the WH or Trump even talking about Jim Comey, what he's written in his book, or anything else he's said or done? James Comey is nothing other than a private citizen. There's absolutely no reason for Trump, the RNC, members of Congress or anyone having an actual role as a "player" in national politics and/or public policy making to respond to him and his book at all.

Regardless of what Trump, the RNC (and/or other federal public office holding individuals) think about Comey or his book, there's nothing to gain by dignifying him or his remarks with a refutory response. The man has no actual power; thus there's nothing to defend oneself from with regard to his remarks.

Hell, if Trump and the cabal of conservative media don't talk about it, it'll disappear from everyone's "radar" in a day or less. There's really no alternative but that because the folks who might want to talk about Comey and his book will run out of things to say.

It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to.
-- W.C. Fields​

Don't you think a better question would be, that if even supporters of Trump agree on the inadvisability of engaging in a mud fight, is he mentally suitable for the job ?

No. The question I asked is the question for which I'm interested to know what be people's answers.

Don't you think a better question would be, that if even supporters of Trump agree on the inadvisability of engaging in a mud fight, is he mentally suitable for the job ? Or does that fall out of the scope of this OP?

Trump's "mental suitability for the job" most definitely is out of scope for this thread, OP, etc. If you want the answer to that question, by all means, create a thread and ask it.

Ah so you just want to ask the question.But you do not want to discuss the implications of that question? Seems a bit easy but it's your OP.

 

[forkup]

Thread topic:

• The topic: This thread's topic of discussion is how Trump, the RNC (and/or other federal public office holding individuals) should respond or not respond to Comey and/or his book.
• Not the topic: Everything else.

Poll question:

• If you were Trump, which of the following would you do?
  1. Ignore Comey and whatever he might have to say or has already said.
     
  2. Engage in argy-bargy with Comey.

My remarks:

Why is the RNC, the WH or Trump even talking about Jim Comey, what he's written in his book, or anything else he's said or done? James Comey is nothing other than a private citizen. There's absolutely no reason for Trump, the RNC, members of Congress or anyone having an actual role as a "player" in national politics and/or public policy making to respond to him and his book at all.

Regardless of what Trump, the RNC (and/or other federal public office holding individuals) think about Comey or his book, there's nothing to gain by dignifying him or his remarks with a refutory response. The man has no actual power; thus there's nothing to defend oneself from with regard to his remarks.

Hell, if Trump and the cabal of conservative media don't talk about it, it'll disappear from everyone's "radar" in a day or less. There's really no alternative but that because the folks who might want to talk about Comey and his book will run out of things to say.

It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to.
-- W.C. Fields​

Don't you think a better question would be, that if even supporters of Trump agree on the inadvisability of engaging in a mud fight, is he mentally suitable for the job ?

No. The question I asked is the question for which I'm interested to know what be people's answers.

Don't you think a better question would be, that if even supporters of Trump agree on the inadvisability of engaging in a mud fight, is he mentally suitable for the job ? Or does that fall out of the scope of this OP?

Trump's "mental suitability for the job" most definitely is out of scope for this thread, OP, etc. If you want the answer to that question, by all means, create a thread and ask it.

Ah so you just want to ask the question.But you do not want to discuss the implications of that question? Seems a bit easy but it's your OP.

Should he reply, is in the scope, but why does he, isn't?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Thread topic:

• The topic: This thread's topic of discussion is how Trump, the RNC (and/or other federal public office holding individuals) should respond or not respond to Comey and/or his book.
• Not the topic: Everything else.

Poll question:

• If you were Trump, which of the following would you do?
  1. Ignore Comey and whatever he might have to say or has already said.
     
  2. Engage in argy-bargy with Comey.

My remarks:

Why is the RNC, the WH or Trump even talking about Jim Comey, what he's written in his book, or anything else he's said or done? James Comey is nothing other than a private citizen. There's absolutely no reason for Trump, the RNC, members of Congress or anyone having an actual role as a "player" in national politics and/or public policy making to respond to him and his book at all.

Regardless of what Trump, the RNC (and/or other federal public office holding individuals) think about Comey or his book, there's nothing to gain by dignifying him or his remarks with a refutory response. The man has no actual power; thus there's nothing to defend oneself from with regard to his remarks.

Hell, if Trump and the cabal of conservative media don't talk about it, it'll disappear from everyone's "radar" in a day or less. There's really no alternative but that because the folks who might want to talk about Comey and his book will run out of things to say.

It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to.
-- W.C. Fields​

Don't you think a better question would be, that if even supporters of Trump agree on the inadvisability of engaging in a mud fight, is he mentally suitable for the job ?

No. The question I asked is the question for which I'm interested to know what be people's answers.

Don't you think a better question would be, that if even supporters of Trump agree on the inadvisability of engaging in a mud fight, is he mentally suitable for the job ? Or does that fall out of the scope of this OP?

Trump's "mental suitability for the job" most definitely is out of scope for this thread, OP, etc. If you want the answer to that question, by all means, create a thread and ask it.

Ah so you just want to ask the question.But you do not want to discuss the implications of that question? Seems a bit easy but it's your OP.

The thread is about whether one thinks Trump et al should ignore Comey/his book or not. Answer the thread question and, if you feel so inclined, discuss why you think Trump et al should take the course of action you think they should.

I see in the poll you've answered the question. Would you like to share why you think Trump et al should ignore Comey/his book? If so, by all means do so. Quite simply, the thread asks a normative question about a course of action, not a question of any sort about anyone's state of being.

Don't you think a better question would be, that if even supporters of Trump agree on the inadvisability of engaging in a mud fight, is he mentally suitable for the job ?

 

[forkup]

Thread topic:

• The topic: This thread's topic of discussion is how Trump, the RNC (and/or other federal public office holding individuals) should respond or not respond to Comey and/or his book.
• Not the topic: Everything else.

Poll question:

• If you were Trump, which of the following would you do?
  1. Ignore Comey and whatever he might have to say or has already said.
     
  2. Engage in argy-bargy with Comey.

My remarks:

Why is the RNC, the WH or Trump even talking about Jim Comey, what he's written in his book, or anything else he's said or done? James Comey is nothing other than a private citizen. There's absolutely no reason for Trump, the RNC, members of Congress or anyone having an actual role as a "player" in national politics and/or public policy making to respond to him and his book at all.

Regardless of what Trump, the RNC (and/or other federal public office holding individuals) think about Comey or his book, there's nothing to gain by dignifying him or his remarks with a refutory response. The man has no actual power; thus there's nothing to defend oneself from with regard to his remarks.

Hell, if Trump and the cabal of conservative media don't talk about it, it'll disappear from everyone's "radar" in a day or less. There's really no alternative but that because the folks who might want to talk about Comey and his book will run out of things to say.

It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to.
-- W.C. Fields​

Don't you think a better question would be, that if even supporters of Trump agree on the inadvisability of engaging in a mud fight, is he mentally suitable for the job ?

No. The question I asked is the question for which I'm interested to know what be people's answers.

Don't you think a better question would be, that if even supporters of Trump agree on the inadvisability of engaging in a mud fight, is he mentally suitable for the job ? Or does that fall out of the scope of this OP?

Trump's "mental suitability for the job" most definitely is out of scope for this thread, OP, etc. If you want the answer to that question, by all means, create a thread and ask it.

Ah so you just want to ask the question.But you do not want to discuss the implications of that question? Seems a bit easy but it's your OP.

The thread is about whether one thinks Trump et al should ignore Comey/his book or not. Answer the thread question and, if you feel so inclined, discuss why you think Trump et al should take the course of action you think they should.

I see in the poll you've answered the question. Would you like to share why you think Trump et al should ignore Comey/his book? If so, by all means do so. Quite simply, the thread asks a normative question about a course of action, not a question of any sort about anyone's state of being.

Don't you think a better question would be, that if even supporters of Trump agree on the inadvisability of engaging in a mud fight, is he mentally suitable for the job ?

I'll reply, but it'll make for boring conversations if you restrict the topic to such an extent. Nothing is to be gained from engaging Comey. All it will do is extent this news cycle. It's bad politics, not to mention beneath the office he holds.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Thread topic:

• The topic: This thread's topic of discussion is how Trump, the RNC (and/or other federal public office holding individuals) should respond or not respond to Comey and/or his book.
• Not the topic: Everything else.

Poll question:

• If you were Trump, which of the following would you do?
  1. Ignore Comey and whatever he might have to say or has already said.
     
  2. Engage in argy-bargy with Comey.

My remarks:

Why is the RNC, the WH or Trump even talking about Jim Comey, what he's written in his book, or anything else he's said or done? James Comey is nothing other than a private citizen. There's absolutely no reason for Trump, the RNC, members of Congress or anyone having an actual role as a "player" in national politics and/or public policy making to respond to him and his book at all.

Regardless of what Trump, the RNC (and/or other federal public office holding individuals) think about Comey or his book, there's nothing to gain by dignifying him or his remarks with a refutory response. The man has no actual power; thus there's nothing to defend oneself from with regard to his remarks.

Hell, if Trump and the cabal of conservative media don't talk about it, it'll disappear from everyone's "radar" in a day or less. There's really no alternative but that because the folks who might want to talk about Comey and his book will run out of things to say.

It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to.
-- W.C. Fields​

Don't you think a better question would be, that if even supporters of Trump agree on the inadvisability of engaging in a mud fight, is he mentally suitable for the job ?

No. The question I asked is the question for which I'm interested to know what be people's answers.

Don't you think a better question would be, that if even supporters of Trump agree on the inadvisability of engaging in a mud fight, is he mentally suitable for the job ? Or does that fall out of the scope of this OP?

Trump's "mental suitability for the job" most definitely is out of scope for this thread, OP, etc. If you want the answer to that question, by all means, create a thread and ask it.

Ah so you just want to ask the question.But you do not want to discuss the implications of that question? Seems a bit easy but it's your OP.

Should he reply, is in the scope, but why does he, isn't?

Off-topic:

I don't mean what I'm about to write derisively -- I might later if I find myself having to repeat it -- but I don't know how else to get the point across to you.

• In scope --> What should Trump et al do with regard to Comey and his book and why?
• Out of scope --> Is "someone" -- it doesn't even matter who -- mentally fit to for a given job?
  

  Don't you think a better question would be, that if even supporters of Trump agree on the inadvisability of engaging in a mud fight, is he mentally suitable for the job ?

Why am I having to reiterate for you what is the topic of this thread?

• Is the OP not clear enough about it?
• Are you prohibited from creating threads to ask the questions you want answered?
• Do you think me incapable of asking the question I want answered?

 

[forkup]

Thread topic:

• The topic: This thread's topic of discussion is how Trump, the RNC (and/or other federal public office holding individuals) should respond or not respond to Comey and/or his book.
• Not the topic: Everything else.

Poll question:

• If you were Trump, which of the following would you do?
  1. Ignore Comey and whatever he might have to say or has already said.
     
  2. Engage in argy-bargy with Comey.

My remarks:

Why is the RNC, the WH or Trump even talking about Jim Comey, what he's written in his book, or anything else he's said or done? James Comey is nothing other than a private citizen. There's absolutely no reason for Trump, the RNC, members of Congress or anyone having an actual role as a "player" in national politics and/or public policy making to respond to him and his book at all.

Regardless of what Trump, the RNC (and/or other federal public office holding individuals) think about Comey or his book, there's nothing to gain by dignifying him or his remarks with a refutory response. The man has no actual power; thus there's nothing to defend oneself from with regard to his remarks.

Hell, if Trump and the cabal of conservative media don't talk about it, it'll disappear from everyone's "radar" in a day or less. There's really no alternative but that because the folks who might want to talk about Comey and his book will run out of things to say.

It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to.
-- W.C. Fields​

Don't you think a better question would be, that if even supporters of Trump agree on the inadvisability of engaging in a mud fight, is he mentally suitable for the job ?

No. The question I asked is the question for which I'm interested to know what be people's answers.

Don't you think a better question would be, that if even supporters of Trump agree on the inadvisability of engaging in a mud fight, is he mentally suitable for the job ? Or does that fall out of the scope of this OP?

Trump's "mental suitability for the job" most definitely is out of scope for this thread, OP, etc. If you want the answer to that question, by all means, create a thread and ask it.

Ah so you just want to ask the question.But you do not want to discuss the implications of that question? Seems a bit easy but it's your OP.

Should he reply, is in the scope, but why does he, isn't?

Off-topic:

I don't mean what I'm about to write derisively -- I might later if I find myself having to repeat it -- but I don't know how else to get the point across to you.

• In scope --> What should Trump et al do with regard to Comey and his book and why?
• Out of scope --> Is "someone" -- it doesn't even matter who -- mentally fit to for a given job?
  

  Don't you think a better question would be, that if even supporters of Trump agree on the inadvisability of engaging in a mud fight, is he mentally suitable for the job ?

Why am I having to reiterate for you what is the topic of this thread?

• Is the OP not clear enough about it?
• Are you prohibited from creating threads to ask the questions you want answered?
• Do you think me incapable of asking the question I want answered?

I gave you the reasoning and directly answered the question, since I did that nothing more can be discussed. Everybody so far agrees with one option so nothing further can come of it. It doesn't come over derisive.It just comes over limiting.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Thread topic:

• The topic: This thread's topic of discussion is how Trump, the RNC (and/or other federal public office holding individuals) should respond or not respond to Comey and/or his book.
• Not the topic: Everything else.

Poll question:

• If you were Trump, which of the following would you do?
  1. Ignore Comey and whatever he might have to say or has already said.
     
  2. Engage in argy-bargy with Comey.

My remarks:

Why is the RNC, the WH or Trump even talking about Jim Comey, what he's written in his book, or anything else he's said or done? James Comey is nothing other than a private citizen. There's absolutely no reason for Trump, the RNC, members of Congress or anyone having an actual role as a "player" in national politics and/or public policy making to respond to him and his book at all.

Regardless of what Trump, the RNC (and/or other federal public office holding individuals) think about Comey or his book, there's nothing to gain by dignifying him or his remarks with a refutory response. The man has no actual power; thus there's nothing to defend oneself from with regard to his remarks.

Hell, if Trump and the cabal of conservative media don't talk about it, it'll disappear from everyone's "radar" in a day or less. There's really no alternative but that because the folks who might want to talk about Comey and his book will run out of things to say.

It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to.
-- W.C. Fields​

Don't you think a better question would be, that if even supporters of Trump agree on the inadvisability of engaging in a mud fight, is he mentally suitable for the job ?

No. The question I asked is the question for which I'm interested to know what be people's answers.

Don't you think a better question would be, that if even supporters of Trump agree on the inadvisability of engaging in a mud fight, is he mentally suitable for the job ? Or does that fall out of the scope of this OP?

Trump's "mental suitability for the job" most definitely is out of scope for this thread, OP, etc. If you want the answer to that question, by all means, create a thread and ask it.

Ah so you just want to ask the question.But you do not want to discuss the implications of that question? Seems a bit easy but it's your OP.

The thread is about whether one thinks Trump et al should ignore Comey/his book or not. Answer the thread question and, if you feel so inclined, discuss why you think Trump et al should take the course of action you think they should.

I see in the poll you've answered the question. Would you like to share why you think Trump et al should ignore Comey/his book? If so, by all means do so. Quite simply, the thread asks a normative question about a course of action, not a question of any sort about anyone's state of being.

Don't you think a better question would be, that if even supporters of Trump agree on the inadvisability of engaging in a mud fight, is he mentally suitable for the job ?

I'll reply, but it'll make for boring conversations if you restrict the topic to such an extent. Nothing is to be gained from engaging Comey. All it will do is extent this news cycle. It's bad politics, not to mention beneath the office he holds.

I'll reply...

TY. I will appreciate your on-topic reply, regardless of what it is. I just want it to be on topic.

I'll reply, but it'll make for boring conversations if you restrict the topic to such an extent.

Be that as it may in your mind, not everything I post is complicated. Plenty of the stuff I post about is markedly more complex, more comprehensive, etc. and folks don't like that either.

If you are of a mind to address a meatier topic, I have lots of threads that entreat for well considered responses...they still are very focused topics and the responses have to be on-topic, but there's lots on which one can expound within the scope of the topics. Here are a few examples:

• CDZ - Data Mining: If you don't want your data mined, don't distribute it
  
• CDZ - On Character -- When it goes, everything else is sure to follow
  
• CDZ - Connectedness: How strange that there's less of it these days than there used to be
  
• CDZ - An FBI agent lied to a few and got fired; Trump lies to everyone and what is the penalty?
  
• Trump's braggadocio and bravado may hide what is actually low self-esteem
  
• CDZ - Gun Control Proposals Aim to Reduce, not Eliminate, Gun Deaths and Injuries
  
• CDZ - "Woke" is qualitatively eternal and objectively ephemeral
  
• The PA 18th District special election's portent for the GOP and Democrats
  
• A POTUS should know what the hell he's talking about when he makes a claim
  
• Debate Now - Is it reasonable to think Trump suffers from mental illness? NPD, dementia, something else?
  
• The portrayal of fictional characters in non-animated plays/operas, TV shows and movies
  
• What was your or your children's schooling like?
  
• Might economies of scale not be good for education delivery or school security/safety?
  
• Debate Now - Is the American Dream at the expense of the American Negro?
  
• Debate Now - When the smoke clears, the real problem for the middle class is lack of adequate pay.
  
• Debate Now - The "Hidden" Tax Increase Because of the APRP Adopting the CCPIU
  
• Debate Now - Do the liberal bent of academe ensure discrimination against candidates seen as conservative?
  
• Debate Now - Bill Maher is a "house ni*ga," or so he claims

I can assure you that if you take the time to read my threads, you'll find that even though the topics are usually very narrow, there's plenty that can be said within that narrow scope.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Trump needs to consider the proper use of attack dogs.