Do you mean a different article? Because the one posted makes no mention of anything you refer to there and I merely used it to show there is still an ongoing FBI investigation; unless you link something that shows that Daily Mail article is outright lying in reporting on an on-going investigation into Clinton, the political stances of the Daily Mail aren't relevant to my post. Some of you in favour of Clinton on here are acting just like her, completely swerving anything putting her in question and responding by questioning something completely irrelevant to the initial point. Who gives a fuck what one irrelevant journalist said?
If your going to reply to a particular matter discussed in a post in this thread, can you do so without failing to discredit it with something completely off-tangent please? We were just discussing what the status of on-going matters are - if it's related to Clinton in a negative way, there is no use in you obscuring the validity of what is happening or has happened. I ask, because it's happened a fair few times now - I can't tell if your trying to convince people to share your opinion or are just that defensive over Clinton, but can we just keep it to useful information whatever posters' preferences? Because few of us on here can actually vote.
Think what I'm trying to say is, I sense a bit too much bias letting down some arguments on here when the argument doesn't apply to what it's attempting to counter (especially when there is nothing to counter-argue) whilst still creating enough noise attacking something from the other side to detract from the negative of the side being discussed. Could be your clever intention, but won't achieve anything worthwhile for you. On the flip side, It appears some on here are up to the required standards of a sustainable political career :)