Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (9 Viewers)

[tommyGunZ]

How is it more complicated?

She was under subpoena to turn over those documents. We know from her buddy Blumenthal that she did not turn over all of the requested emails.

Seems rather simple imo.

You might argue that she simply couldn't "find" those emails - but that is not the same as saying she complied.

You know, you can support Bernie Sanders without buying into all the right wing conspiracy theories and promulgating all this anti-Hillary nonsense.

 

[GrandpaRox]

She has done the one thing that ensures that she will not get elected regardless of the Republican candidate.

She wants to confiscate guns, death knell on her campaign. This one issue alone will galvanize the support for anyone who runs against her.

She could have done nothing worse.

 

[Sinn Fein]

So, is this testimony going to be closed to the public?

Seems odd that Clinton would get any sympathy without video proof that she was being harassed. On the flip side, with no video she will spin this however she wants.

Feels like the public should see this to decide for themselves.

She can spin all she wants. The majority of people know she's full of crap.

The majority of the public, I suspect, will see what a farce this committee is, and that Hillary has really done nothing wrong.

Stop. The committee may well be a farce (judging from who's running it, most likely is), but Hillary has done plenty wrong. She's hidden documents and obstructed as much as possible.

I don't believe that. There's no evidence of it.

Of course there's evidence of it. You just keep ignoring it, for some reason.

Simple question: did she, or did she not, turn over all the documents (e-mails) to which the committee was entitled, and asked for? You know perfectly well that she did not.

It's a little more complicated than that, and you know it.

How is it more complicated?

She was under subpoena to turn over those documents. We know from her buddy Blumenthal that she did not turn over all of the requested emails.

Seems rather simple imo.

You might argue that she simply couldn't "find" those emails - but that is not the same as saying she complied.

I worked in litigation for ~ 12 years, on 100s of document productions. It's a lot more complicated than that.

Congrats?

I was a litigation attorney for ~12 years. Its not more complicated than that. If you have documents responsive to the Subpoena - you turn them over.

If you have documents that are covered by some privilege - such as attorney/client, or executive privilege - you say we have these documents, but we are not turning them over because of some privilege.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

at the recent posts by the Hillary lovers. Good Lord you people need to get your head out of the sand.

 

[GrandpaRox]

Total validation on NRA concerns and the fears of over 30% of Americans on this one issue alone.

Hillary Clinton said Friday that mandatory gun buy-back programs like ones in Australia are “worth looking into,” sparking criticism that the Democratic presidential front-runner would, if elected, impose gun-confiscation efforts.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

She has done the one thing that ensures that she will not get elected regardless of the Republican candidate.

She wants to confiscate guns, death knell on her campaign. This one issue alone will galvanize the support for anyone who runs against her.

She could have done nothing worse.

She wasn't getting the gun nut vote anyway.

 

[timschochet]

GrandpaRox is right! Just think of all of the millions of NRA votes Hillary could have had if she hadn't made that comment about Australia.

 

[GrandpaRox]

She has done the one thing that ensures that she will not get elected regardless of the Republican candidate.

She wants to confiscate guns, death knell on her campaign. This one issue alone will galvanize the support for anyone who runs against her.

She could have done nothing worse.

She wasn't getting the gun nut vote anyway.

This goes much deeper than gun nuts.

You don't understand the depth of what will arise in the next election if there is a fear of gun confiscation.

Now I hope she wins the nomination,

This will galvanize all conservatives and many gun owners. People need a reason to vote, she gave this to the Republicans in spades.

People may not come out to support or vote for a candidate they don't like but will come out to stop a candidate that scares them.

This was a huge mistake on her part.

 

[timschochet]

So, is this testimony going to be closed to the public?

Seems odd that Clinton would get any sympathy without video proof that she was being harassed. On the flip side, with no video she will spin this however she wants.

Feels like the public should see this to decide for themselves.

She can spin all she wants. The majority of people know she's full of crap.

The majority of the public, I suspect, will see what a farce this committee is, and that Hillary has really done nothing wrong.

Stop. The committee may well be a farce (judging from who's running it, most likely is), but Hillary has done plenty wrong. She's hidden documents and obstructed as much as possible.

I don't believe that. There's no evidence of it.

Of course there's evidence of it. You just keep ignoring it, for some reason.Simple question: did she, or did she not, turn over all the documents (e-mails) to which the committee was entitled, and asked for? You know perfectly well that she did not.

No I don't. According to her attorneys, personal emails not related to work were destroyed prior to them ever requesting those emails. According to Hillary and her attorneys, when asked she turned over everything and more. There is a lot of confusion about this and it's easy to guess that mistakes were made but I don't believe she ever obstructed justice.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

She has done the one thing that ensures that she will not get elected regardless of the Republican candidate.

She wants to confiscate guns, death knell on her campaign. This one issue alone will galvanize the support for anyone who runs against her.

She could have done nothing worse.

She wasn't getting the gun nut vote anyway.

This goes much deeper than gun nuts.

You don't understand the depth of what will arise in the next election if there is a fear of gun confiscation.

Now I hope she wins the nomination,

This will galvanize all conservatives and many gun owners. People need a reason to vote, she gave this to the Republicans in spades.

People may not come out to support or vote for a candidate they don't like but will come out to stop a candidate that scares them.

This was a huge mistake on her part.

Sure.

 

[timschochet]

She has done the one thing that ensures that she will not get elected regardless of the Republican candidate.

She wants to confiscate guns, death knell on her campaign. This one issue alone will galvanize the support for anyone who runs against her.

She could have done nothing worse.

She wasn't getting the gun nut vote anyway.

This goes much deeper than gun nuts.You don't understand the depth of what will arise in the next election if there is a fear of gun confiscation.

Now I hope she wins the nomination,

This will galvanize all conservatives and many gun owners. People need a reason to vote, she gave this to the Republicans in spades.

People may not come out to support or vote for a candidate they don't like but will come out to stop a candidate that scares them.

This was a huge mistake on her part.

It will be fascinating to see what happens if Republicans follow your lead and make this the central issue of the campaign. Sadly for Hillary, I doubt they would be that politically inept.

 

[tommyGunZ]

So, is this testimony going to be closed to the public?

Seems odd that Clinton would get any sympathy without video proof that she was being harassed. On the flip side, with no video she will spin this however she wants.

Feels like the public should see this to decide for themselves.

She can spin all she wants. The majority of people know she's full of crap.

The majority of the public, I suspect, will see what a farce this committee is, and that Hillary has really done nothing wrong.

Stop. The committee may well be a farce (judging from who's running it, most likely is), but Hillary has done plenty wrong. She's hidden documents and obstructed as much as possible.

I don't believe that. There's no evidence of it.

Of course there's evidence of it. You just keep ignoring it, for some reason.

Simple question: did she, or did she not, turn over all the documents (e-mails) to which the committee was entitled, and asked for? You know perfectly well that she did not.

It's a little more complicated than that, and you know it.

How is it more complicated?

She was under subpoena to turn over those documents. We know from her buddy Blumenthal that she did not turn over all of the requested emails.

Seems rather simple imo.

You might argue that she simply couldn't "find" those emails - but that is not the same as saying she complied.

I worked in litigation for ~ 12 years, on 100s of document productions. It's a lot more complicated than that.

Congrats?

I was a litigation attorney for ~12 years. Its not more complicated than that. If you have documents responsive to the Subpoena - you turn them over.

If you have documents that are covered by some privilege - such as attorney/client, or executive privilege - you say we have these documents, but we are not turning them over because of some privilege.

Well then you know it's far more complicated than "just turn over the documents responsive to the subpoena".

Again, you can support Bernie Sanders without this silliness.

 

[tommyGunZ]

From a political standpoint, there is far more danger in Hillary's anti-gun rhetoric than anything from this email nonsense. Lots of politicians have dug their graves engaging the NRA.

I agree with her - I'm a repeal the 2nd guy - but she's playing with fire here.

 

[GrandpaRox]

You think only gun nuts are the only thing that makes the NRA powerful.

Silly silly boy.

 

[timschochet]

From a political standpoint, there is far more danger in Hillary's anti-gun rhetoric than anything from this email nonsense. Lots of politicians have dug their graves engaging the NRA.

I agree with her - I'm a repeal the 2nd guy - but she's playing with fire here.

Not really. The NRA has spent the last 20 years convincing their supporters that every Democratic politician means to seize their guns. The hardline gun owners have been already convinced of this long since. There is absolutely nothing Hillary could do to win over their vote. Meanwhile the coalition that Hillary means to take to victory: Latinos, Blacks, women- are the most strident for gun control.

 

[GrandpaRox]

From a political standpoint, there is far more danger in Hillary's anti-gun rhetoric than anything from this email nonsense. Lots of politicians have dug their graves engaging the NRA.

I agree with her - I'm a repeal the 2nd guy - but she's playing with fire here.

Not really.The NRA has spent the last 20 years convincing their supporters that every Democratic politician means to seize their guns. The hardline gun owners have been already convinced of this long since. There is absolutely nothing Hillary could do to win over their vote. Meanwhile the coalition that Hillary means to take to victory: Latinos, Blacks, women- are the most strident for gun control.

SECOND AMENDMENT CRUSHES GUN CONTROL CANDIDATES IN MIDTERM ELECTIONS

 

[Aerial Assault]

She has done the one thing that ensures that she will not get elected regardless of the Republican candidate.

She wants to confiscate guns, death knell on her campaign. This one issue alone will galvanize the support for anyone who runs against her.

She could have done nothing worse.

She wasn't getting the gun nut vote anyway.

This goes much deeper than gun nuts.You don't understand the depth of what will arise in the next election if there is a fear of gun confiscation.

Now I hope she wins the nomination,

This will galvanize all conservatives and many gun owners. People need a reason to vote, she gave this to the Republicans in spades.

People may not come out to support or vote for a candidate they don't like but will come out to stop a candidate that scares them.

This was a huge mistake on her part.

You know a lot about what will happen. And it is clear that no deep understanding of the issues is needed because of your Nostradamus-like qualities. Thanks.

 

[GrandpaRox]

Hillary Clinton’s push on gun control marks a shift in presidential politics

 

[GrandpaRox]

Gun Rights Groups’ Political Spending Crushes That of Gun Control Supporters

 

[GrandpaRox]

A recall election in Colorado has shown that the national debate over guns is just as bitterly contested as ever. Two state senators who voted for stricter gun laws earlier this lost their jobs in a recall election and the outcome is reverberating through the country.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Hillary Clinton’s push on gun control marks a shift in presidential politics

I would not go hiding your guns...Hillary is unlikely to stick to this position, nor is she likely to get elected...

 

[GrandpaRox]

Yes this would be a very good gun control thread for the next year.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The irony is that this committee is providig a perfect example of why Hillary wanted a separate server in the first place.

Ha this is a statement deep in meaning...

 

[GrandpaRox]

In their statement, the NRA said these comments from Clinton should strike fear in already worried gun owners and that her “extreme views are completely out of touch with the American people.”

“I’ve been told by some, 'Quit talking about this,' to, 'Quit shouting about this,'” Clinton said earlier this week in Texas. “I will tell you right now: I will not be silenced and we will not be silenced — we must continue to speak out.”

Go Hillary, use your moral imperative and keep speaking out.

 

[Aerial Assault]

Go Hillary, use your moral imperative and keep speaking out.

 

[jon_mx]

The irony is that this committee is providig a perfect example of why Hillary wanted a separate server in the first place.

No government official should want or have a private email server to hide things from congress.

When that public official knows that her private emails are going to examined, mischaracterized, and misconstrued for political reasons, he/she absolutely would want a mechanism in place to shield that data from the inevitable political shenanigans.

It is not allowed to use your government email for anything private. HTH, but it won't for an endless Hillay-apologist.

 

[MaxThreshold]

The irony is that this committee is providig a perfect example of why Hillary wanted a separate server in the first place.

No government official should want or have a private email server to hide things from congress.

When that public official knows that her private emails are going to examined, mischaracterized, and misconstrued for political reasons, he/she absolutely would want a mechanism in place to shield that data from the inevitable political shenanigans.

It is not allowed to use your government email for anything private.

Regardless of how you feel, you still can't break the law because "they're picking on me". TGunz bringing the ridiculous to ever new levels.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

The irony is that this committee is providig a perfect example of why Hillary wanted a separate server in the first place.

No government official should want or have a private email server to hide things from congress.

When that public official knows that her private emails are going to examined, mischaracterized, and misconstrued for political reasons, he/she absolutely would want a mechanism in place to shield that data from the inevitable political shenanigans.

You are insane.

 

[GrandpaRox]

It’s one thing to support gun control.

It’s another to make it the centerpiece of a floundering presidential primary campaign.

But Hillary Clinton wasn’t finished when she latched onto the idea of opposing the NRA as a means of diverting the nation from the humiliating scandals and poll results plaguing her own bid to succeed Barack Obama.

First, she announced to her wealthy supporters that “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment,” which demonstrates her opposition to the individual right to keep and bear firearms, including handguns, for self-defense.

 

[tommyGunZ]

The irony is that this committee is providig a perfect example of why Hillary wanted a separate server in the first place.

No government official should want or have a private email server to hide things from congress.

When that public official knows that her private emails are going to examined, mischaracterized, and misconstrued for political reasons, he/she absolutely would want a mechanism in place to shield that data from the inevitable political shenanigans.

It is not allowed to use your government email for anything private. HTH, but it won't for an endless Hillay-apologist.

The irony is that this committee is providig a perfect example of why Hillary wanted a separate server in the first place.

No government official should want or have a private email server to hide things from congress.

When that public official knows that her private emails are going to examined, mischaracterized, and misconstrued for political reasons, he/she absolutely would want a mechanism in place to shield that data from the inevitable political shenanigans.

It is not allowed to use your government email for anything private. HTH, but it won't for an endless Hillay-apologist.

This is probably the policy in most of the businesses we all work in. And most of us also aren't supposed to browse the web all day for fun at our jobs either.

Yet we all do.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Trey Gowdy Loves Irony

He says it's the worst weeks of his life because there are attacks on his character and his motives. I'm sure Hillary will shed a tear.

He also doesn't like what he claims is the Dems M.O. "just attack, attack, attack and something will take hold, at some point, maybe something will stick, or maybe you get them off track or you get them to do or say something stupid, then you can seize on that.”

 

[GrandpaRox]

Hillary’s gun confiscation proposal is going to backfire in a big way.

As AP already noted, this is a winning strategy for Clinton in the primary because her base has largely been sold on the idea of things like expanded background checks at the federal level and a national gun registry. (!) How they will react to actual gun confiscation from law abiding owners remains to be seen. But when it comes to the general election, Clinton has a serious storm brewing on the horizon. Regarding a ban on all semi-automatic weapons, including handguns, the public has been consistent in their response for decades. As of last year there was 73% opposition to such a ban, and 63% said that a home was safer if there was a gun in the house.

 

[Mister CIA]

Hillary’s gun confiscation proposal is going to backfire in a big way.

As AP already noted, this is a winning strategy for Clinton in the primary because her base has largely been sold on the idea of things like expanded background checks at the federal level and a national gun registry. (!) How they will react to actual gun confiscation from law abiding owners remains to be seen. But when it comes to the general election, Clinton has a serious storm brewing on the horizon. Regarding a ban on all semi-automatic weapons, including handguns, the public has been consistent in their response for decades. As of last year there was 73% opposition to such a ban, and 63% said that a home was safer if there was a gun in the house.

I can't stand Hillary, but I find solace in my belief that if she's elected (and she will be) that she will send a brigade of Army Rangers to YOUR house and perform unusual anatomy experiments on you. All I ask is that you post pictures.

 

[GrandpaRox]

Hillary’s gun confiscation proposal is going to backfire in a big way.

As AP already noted, this is a winning strategy for Clinton in the primary because her base has largely been sold on the idea of things like expanded background checks at the federal level and a national gun registry. (!) How they will react to actual gun confiscation from law abiding owners remains to be seen. But when it comes to the general election, Clinton has a serious storm brewing on the horizon. Regarding a ban on all semi-automatic weapons, including handguns, the public has been consistent in their response for decades. As of last year there was 73% opposition to such a ban, and 63% said that a home was safer if there was a gun in the house.

I can't stand Hillary, but I find solace in my belief that if she's elected (and she will be) that she will send a brigade of Army Rangers to YOUR house and perform unusual anatomy experiments on you. All I ask is that you post pictures.

They have websites for the kind of stuff that you like.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Yagottaluvher really:

February 18, 2008, 5:22 PM

Clinton's Hunting HistoryWAUSAU, WIS. -- At a campaign stop this afternoon, Hillary Clinton's focus was on the economy and health care but some in the crowd had other things on their minds. Clinton was asked to discuss gun control which prompted Clinton to talk about her days holding a rifle in the cold, shallow waters in backwoods Arkansas.

"I've hunted. My father taught me how to hunt. I went duck hunting in Arkansas. I remember standing in that cold water, so cold, at first light. I was with a bunch of my friends, all men. The sun's up, the ducks are flying and they are playing a trick on me. They said, 'we're not going to shoot, you shoot.' They wanted to embarrass me. The pressure was on. So I shot, and I shot a banded duck and they were surprised as I was," Clinton said drawing laughter from the crowd.

...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clintons-hunting-history/

A regular Annie Oakley.

 

[timschochet]

Yagottaluvher really:

February 18, 2008, 5:22 PM

Clinton's Hunting HistoryWAUSAU, WIS. -- At a campaign stop this afternoon, Hillary Clinton's focus was on the economy and health care but some in the crowd had other things on their minds. Clinton was asked to discuss gun control which prompted Clinton to talk about her days holding a rifle in the cold, shallow waters in backwoods Arkansas.

"I've hunted. My father taught me how to hunt. I went duck hunting in Arkansas. I remember standing in that cold water, so cold, at first light. I was with a bunch of my friends, all men. The sun's up, the ducks are flying and they are playing a trick on me. They said, 'we're not going to shoot, you shoot.' They wanted to embarrass me. The pressure was on. So I shot, and I shot a banded duck and they were surprised as I was," Clinton said drawing laughter from the crowd.

...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clintons-hunting-history/

A regular Annie Oakley.

Anything you can do, she can do better. She can do anything better than you.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Yagottaluvher really:

February 18, 2008, 5:22 PM

Clinton's Hunting HistoryWAUSAU, WIS. -- At a campaign stop this afternoon, Hillary Clinton's focus was on the economy and health care but some in the crowd had other things on their minds. Clinton was asked to discuss gun control which prompted Clinton to talk about her days holding a rifle in the cold, shallow waters in backwoods Arkansas.

"I've hunted. My father taught me how to hunt. I went duck hunting in Arkansas. I remember standing in that cold water, so cold, at first light. I was with a bunch of my friends, all men. The sun's up, the ducks are flying and they are playing a trick on me. They said, 'we're not going to shoot, you shoot.' They wanted to embarrass me. The pressure was on. So I shot, and I shot a banded duck and they were surprised as I was," Clinton said drawing laughter from the crowd.

...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clintons-hunting-history/

A regular Annie Oakley.

Anything you can do, she can do better. She can do anything better than you.

Sure, dodge bullets in war zones, take out ducks with one shot, apply for the astronaut program, why that lil' gal's done it all.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Amid a heated moment in the 2008 Democratic primary, in a debate against then-Illinois senator Barack Obama that April, Clinton argued that “having any kind of blanket rules” set by the federal government on guns “doesn’t make sense.”

Clinton made the comments in response to a question from moderator Charlie Gibson regarding whether she favors the licensing and registration of handguns.

“What I favor is what works in New York,” she said. “You know, we have a set of rules in New York City and we have a totally different set of rules in the rest of the state. What might work in New York City is certainly not going to work in Montana. So, for the federal government to be having any kind of, you know, blanket rules that they’re going to try to impose, I think doesn’t make sense.”

In the 2008 debate, George Stephanopoulos challenged Clinton’s answer, alluding to her support for a national gun registry during her 2000 run for Senate in New York.

“I was for the New York rules, that’s right,” Clinton said. “I was for the New York rules because they have worked over time. And there isn’t a lot of uproar in New York about changing them, because I go to upstate New York, where we have a lot of hunters and people who are collectors and people who are sport shooters; they have every reason to believe that their rights are being respected.”

Stephanopoulos had previously asked Clinton her view of the ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., which has since been struck down.

“I want to give local communities the opportunity to have some authority over determining how to keep their citizens safe,” Clinton answered, before further saying she supported “sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms.”

She suggested that “a total ban” “might be found by the court not to be” constitutional, but admitted, “I don’t know the facts.”

“I don’t think that should blow open a hole that says that D.C. or Philadelphia or anybody else cannot come up with sensible regulations to protect their people and keep, you know, machine guns and assault weapons out of the hands of folks who shouldn’t have them,” she added.

The debate happened less than a week after Clinton attacked her rival Obama’s remark that people in “small towns in Pennsylvania” “get bitter” and then “cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them.”

Clinton responded by saying that “Obama’s remarks are elitist, and they are out of touch.” She also touted her own sharpshooting credentials, saying that her father “took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl.”

Adding that guns were “part of culture,” she said, “People enjoy hunting and shooting because it’s an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter.”

...Earlier during her first campaign for president, in October 2007, Clinton said “I support the Second Amendment,” adding that “law-abiding citizens should be able to own guns,” but arguing that she also believed “strongly in smart laws that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists.”

...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/christophermassie/clinton-in-2008-it-doesnt-make-sense-for-federal-government#.bqbjPZ28PE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk5HvDvLJyI

 

[tommyGunZ]

Amid a heated moment in the 2008 Democratic primary, in a debate against then-Illinois senator Barack Obama that April, Clinton argued that “having any kind of blanket rules” set by the federal government on guns “doesn’t make sense.”

Clinton made the comments in response to a question from moderator Charlie Gibson regarding whether she favors the licensing and registration of handguns.

“What I favor is what works in New York,” she said. “You know, we have a set of rules in New York City and we have a totally different set of rules in the rest of the state. What might work in New York City is certainly not going to work in Montana. So, for the federal government to be having any kind of, you know, blanket rules that they’re going to try to impose, I think doesn’t make sense.”

In the 2008 debate, George Stephanopoulos challenged Clinton’s answer, alluding to her support for a national gun registry during her 2000 run for Senate in New York.

“I was for the New York rules, that’s right,” Clinton said. “I was for the New York rules because they have worked over time. And there isn’t a lot of uproar in New York about changing them, because I go to upstate New York, where we have a lot of hunters and people who are collectors and people who are sport shooters; they have every reason to believe that their rights are being respected.”

Stephanopoulos had previously asked Clinton her view of the ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., which has since been struck down.

“I want to give local communities the opportunity to have some authority over determining how to keep their citizens safe,” Clinton answered, before further saying she supported “sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms.”

She suggested that “a total ban” “might be found by the court not to be” constitutional, but admitted, “I don’t know the facts.”

“I don’t think that should blow open a hole that says that D.C. or Philadelphia or anybody else cannot come up with sensible regulations to protect their people and keep, you know, machine guns and assault weapons out of the hands of folks who shouldn’t have them,” she added.

The debate happened less than a week after Clinton attacked her rival Obama’s remark that people in “small towns in Pennsylvania” “get bitter” and then “cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them.”

Clinton responded by saying that “Obama’s remarks are elitist, and they are out of touch.” She also touted her own sharpshooting credentials, saying that her father “took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl.”

Adding that guns were “part of culture,” she said, “People enjoy hunting and shooting because it’s an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter.”

...Earlier during her first campaign for president, in October 2007, Clinton said “I support the Second Amendment,” adding that “law-abiding citizens should be able to own guns,” but arguing that she also believed “strongly in smart laws that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists.”

...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/christophermassie/clinton-in-2008-it-doesnt-make-sense-for-federal-government#.bqbjPZ28PEhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk5HvDvLJyI

Anything happened the last 8 years that may have affected her views and position?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Amid a heated moment in the 2008 Democratic primary, in a debate against then-Illinois senator Barack Obama that April, Clinton argued that “having any kind of blanket rules” set by the federal government on guns “doesn’t make sense.”

Clinton made the comments in response to a question from moderator Charlie Gibson regarding whether she favors the licensing and registration of handguns.

“What I favor is what works in New York,” she said. “You know, we have a set of rules in New York City and we have a totally different set of rules in the rest of the state. What might work in New York City is certainly not going to work in Montana. So, for the federal government to be having any kind of, you know, blanket rules that they’re going to try to impose, I think doesn’t make sense.”

In the 2008 debate, George Stephanopoulos challenged Clinton’s answer, alluding to her support for a national gun registry during her 2000 run for Senate in New York.

“I was for the New York rules, that’s right,” Clinton said. “I was for the New York rules because they have worked over time. And there isn’t a lot of uproar in New York about changing them, because I go to upstate New York, where we have a lot of hunters and people who are collectors and people who are sport shooters; they have every reason to believe that their rights are being respected.”

Stephanopoulos had previously asked Clinton her view of the ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., which has since been struck down.

“I want to give local communities the opportunity to have some authority over determining how to keep their citizens safe,” Clinton answered, before further saying she supported “sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms.”

She suggested that “a total ban” “might be found by the court not to be” constitutional, but admitted, “I don’t know the facts.”

“I don’t think that should blow open a hole that says that D.C. or Philadelphia or anybody else cannot come up with sensible regulations to protect their people and keep, you know, machine guns and assault weapons out of the hands of folks who shouldn’t have them,” she added.

The debate happened less than a week after Clinton attacked her rival Obama’s remark that people in “small towns in Pennsylvania” “get bitter” and then “cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them.”

Clinton responded by saying that “Obama’s remarks are elitist, and they are out of touch.” She also touted her own sharpshooting credentials, saying that her father “took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl.”

Adding that guns were “part of culture,” she said, “People enjoy hunting and shooting because it’s an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter.”

...Earlier during her first campaign for president, in October 2007, Clinton said “I support the Second Amendment,” adding that “law-abiding citizens should be able to own guns,” but arguing that she also believed “strongly in smart laws that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists.”

...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/christophermassie/clinton-in-2008-it-doesnt-make-sense-for-federal-government#.bqbjPZ28PE

Sure, we have mass murderers which never occurred before 2008. - Anything might happen after she gets elected which might change her views back?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ah yes, way back when when the Clintons wanted to be seen with "gun people."

 

[GrandpaRox]

Amid a heated moment in the 2008 Democratic primary, in a debate against then-Illinois senator Barack Obama that April, Clinton argued that “having any kind of blanket rules” set by the federal government on guns “doesn’t make sense.”

Clinton made the comments in response to a question from moderator Charlie Gibson regarding whether she favors the licensing and registration of handguns.

“What I favor is what works in New York,” she said. “You know, we have a set of rules in New York City and we have a totally different set of rules in the rest of the state. What might work in New York City is certainly not going to work in Montana. So, for the federal government to be having any kind of, you know, blanket rules that they’re going to try to impose, I think doesn’t make sense.”

In the 2008 debate, George Stephanopoulos challenged Clinton’s answer, alluding to her support for a national gun registry during her 2000 run for Senate in New York.

“I was for the New York rules, that’s right,” Clinton said. “I was for the New York rules because they have worked over time. And there isn’t a lot of uproar in New York about changing them, because I go to upstate New York, where we have a lot of hunters and people who are collectors and people who are sport shooters; they have every reason to believe that their rights are being respected.”

Stephanopoulos had previously asked Clinton her view of the ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., which has since been struck down.

“I want to give local communities the opportunity to have some authority over determining how to keep their citizens safe,” Clinton answered, before further saying she supported “sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms.”

She suggested that “a total ban” “might be found by the court not to be” constitutional, but admitted, “I don’t know the facts.”

“I don’t think that should blow open a hole that says that D.C. or Philadelphia or anybody else cannot come up with sensible regulations to protect their people and keep, you know, machine guns and assault weapons out of the hands of folks who shouldn’t have them,” she added.

The debate happened less than a week after Clinton attacked her rival Obama’s remark that people in “small towns in Pennsylvania” “get bitter” and then “cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them.”

Clinton responded by saying that “Obama’s remarks are elitist, and they are out of touch.” She also touted her own sharpshooting credentials, saying that her father “took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl.”

Adding that guns were “part of culture,” she said, “People enjoy hunting and shooting because it’s an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter.”

...Earlier during her first campaign for president, in October 2007, Clinton said “I support the Second Amendment,” adding that “law-abiding citizens should be able to own guns,” but arguing that she also believed “strongly in smart laws that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists.”

...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/christophermassie/clinton-in-2008-it-doesnt-make-sense-for-federal-government#.bqbjPZ28PE

Polls

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Appearing before Obama's National Finance Committee and various business leaders, Clinton stressed that guns present different cultural complexities than other political issues.

"Do not patronize the passionate supporters of your opponents by looking down your nose at them," he said, according to Politico.

Clinton's comments echoed similar thoughts from April 2012, when he advised Obama to not bother with gun-control legislation for cultural reasons.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/19/bill-clinton-guns-_n_2512588.html

 

[timschochet]

Ah yes, way back when when the Clintons wanted to be seen with "gun people."

Saints, you are so devoted to seeing Hillary lose. But what are you going to do if it's Hillary vs. Trump or Carson? Are you really going to vote for one of those guys?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Amid a heated moment in the 2008 Democratic primary, in a debate against then-Illinois senator Barack Obama that April, Clinton argued that “having any kind of blanket rules” set by the federal government on guns “doesn’t make sense.”

Clinton made the comments in response to a question from moderator Charlie Gibson regarding whether she favors the licensing and registration of handguns.

“What I favor is what works in New York,” she said. “You know, we have a set of rules in New York City and we have a totally different set of rules in the rest of the state. What might work in New York City is certainly not going to work in Montana. So, for the federal government to be having any kind of, you know, blanket rules that they’re going to try to impose, I think doesn’t make sense.”

In the 2008 debate, George Stephanopoulos challenged Clinton’s answer, alluding to her support for a national gun registry during her 2000 run for Senate in New York.

“I was for the New York rules, that’s right,” Clinton said. “I was for the New York rules because they have worked over time. And there isn’t a lot of uproar in New York about changing them, because I go to upstate New York, where we have a lot of hunters and people who are collectors and people who are sport shooters; they have every reason to believe that their rights are being respected.”

Stephanopoulos had previously asked Clinton her view of the ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., which has since been struck down.

“I want to give local communities the opportunity to have some authority over determining how to keep their citizens safe,” Clinton answered, before further saying she supported “sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms.”

She suggested that “a total ban” “might be found by the court not to be” constitutional, but admitted, “I don’t know the facts.”

“I don’t think that should blow open a hole that says that D.C. or Philadelphia or anybody else cannot come up with sensible regulations to protect their people and keep, you know, machine guns and assault weapons out of the hands of folks who shouldn’t have them,” she added.

The debate happened less than a week after Clinton attacked her rival Obama’s remark that people in “small towns in Pennsylvania” “get bitter” and then “cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them.”

Clinton responded by saying that “Obama’s remarks are elitist, and they are out of touch.” She also touted her own sharpshooting credentials, saying that her father “took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl.”

Adding that guns were “part of culture,” she said, “People enjoy hunting and shooting because it’s an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter.”

...Earlier during her first campaign for president, in October 2007, Clinton said “I support the Second Amendment,” adding that “law-abiding citizens should be able to own guns,” but arguing that she also believed “strongly in smart laws that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists.”

...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/christophermassie/clinton-in-2008-it-doesnt-make-sense-for-federal-government#.bqbjPZ28PE

And Sanders.

Sanders from Vermont, him love guns. BAD.

Hillary from North Chicago, Arkansas, New York State, New York City: her love HATE guns. GOOD.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ah yes, way back when when the Clintons wanted to be seen with "gun people."

Saints, you are so devoted to seeing Hillary lose. But what are you going to do if it's Hillary vs. Trump or Carson? Are you really going to vote for one of those guys?

No, I'm not. Tim she's gonna win most likely. If I thought she was going to lose like Trump, I'd be less concerned for our country, I'll go third party, which I have done locally and in state elections before. In any event IMO though I think Biden and Sanders would fare better against Trump.

I could vote for Sanders vs Trump, I would vote for Biden (vs Trump). If I think of a Gopper I'd support I'll let you know. The only guy I really like personally is Rubio, but he reminds me of Kennedy in his brashness and inexperience and overheated promises about Russia. After that I run out of steam really thinking of any of the 17 I outright support. I also personally and on a policy level like and respect Webb but he has zero chance of being given any time by the networks or by the parties,

Hillary just feels like we are shooting ourselves in the foot. We need to move on and reform one way or the other.

eta - I need to edit that. I mean if I thought Trump was going to win I'd spend more time in that thread pounding away. I enjoy discussing policy and politics with all of you. Hillary at least is real politics and it is a rich mine of discussion. - What is Trump? He is a dummy with a string that when you pull it it goes yawk. I would be very worried if I thought he would be president. More worried than if Hillary was president. But I am used to this devil's alternative. The only way out of this constant problem of American failure in leadership is to stop going along with it.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Ah yes, way back when when the Clintons wanted to be seen with "gun people."

Saints, you are so devoted to seeing Hillary lose. But what are you going to do if it's Hillary vs. Trump or Carson? Are you really going to vote for one of those guys?

No, I'm not. Tim she's gonna win most likely. If I thought she was going to lose like Trump, I'd be less concerned for our country, I'll go third party, which I have done locally and in state elections before. In any event IMO though I think Biden and Sanders would fare better against Trump.

I could vote for Sanders vs Trump, I would vote for Biden (vs Trump). If I think of a Gopper I'd support I'll let you know. The only guy I really like personally is Rubio, but he reminds me of Kennedy in his brashness and inexperience and overheated promises about Russia. After that I run out of steam really thinking of any of the 17 I outright support.

Hillary just feels like we are shooting ourselves in the foot. We need to move on and reform one way or the other.

Why is Hillary like "shooting ourselves in the foot"? B/c she would likely govern like two of our best presidents over the past century?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ah yes, way back when when the Clintons wanted to be seen with "gun people."

Saints, you are so devoted to seeing Hillary lose. But what are you going to do if it's Hillary vs. Trump or Carson? Are you really going to vote for one of those guys?

No, I'm not. Tim she's gonna win most likely. If I thought she was going to lose like Trump, I'd be less concerned for our country, I'll go third party, which I have done locally and in state elections before. In any event IMO though I think Biden and Sanders would fare better against Trump.

I could vote for Sanders vs Trump, I would vote for Biden (vs Trump). If I think of a Gopper I'd support I'll let you know. The only guy I really like personally is Rubio, but he reminds me of Kennedy in his brashness and inexperience and overheated promises about Russia. After that I run out of steam really thinking of any of the 17 I outright support.

Hillary just feels like we are shooting ourselves in the foot. We need to move on and reform one way or the other.

Why is Hillary like "shooting ourselves in the foot"? B/c she would likely govern like two of our best presidents over the past century?

I edited my comment above, if that helps.

It's like shooting ourselves in the foot because we as a nation have fallen into permanent incompetence, division and corruption. Hillary is the problem, digging that hole further is a dead end.

 

[BassNBrew]

Ah yes, way back when when the Clintons wanted to be seen with "gun people."

Saints, you are so devoted to seeing Hillary lose. But what are you going to do if it's Hillary vs. Trump or Carson? Are you really going to vote for one of those guys?

No, I'm not. Tim she's gonna win most likely. If I thought she was going to lose like Trump, I'd be less concerned for our country, I'll go third party, which I have done locally and in state elections before. In any event IMO though I think Biden and Sanders would fare better against Trump.

I could vote for Sanders vs Trump, I would vote for Biden (vs Trump). If I think of a Gopper I'd support I'll let you know. The only guy I really like personally is Rubio, but he reminds me of Kennedy in his brashness and inexperience and overheated promises about Russia. After that I run out of steam really thinking of any of the 17 I outright support.

Hillary just feels like we are shooting ourselves in the foot. We need to move on and reform one way or the other.

Why is Hillary like "shooting ourselves in the foot"? B/c she would likely govern like two of our best presidents over the past century?

Bush, Clinton, Bush.

That's the last thing a true liberal or progressive should want. Of course you're not a liberal or progressive interested in ideas promoting change, you're a party shill.

 

[BassNBrew]

Ah yes, way back when when the Clintons wanted to be seen with "gun people."

Saints, you are so devoted to seeing Hillary lose. But what are you going to do if it's Hillary vs. Trump or Carson? Are you really going to vote for one of those guys?

No, I'm not. Tim she's gonna win most likely. If I thought she was going to lose like Trump, I'd be less concerned for our country, I'll go third party, which I have done locally and in state elections before. In any event IMO though I think Biden and Sanders would fare better against Trump.

I could vote for Sanders vs Trump, I would vote for Biden (vs Trump). If I think of a Gopper I'd support I'll let you know. The only guy I really like personally is Rubio, but he reminds me of Kennedy in his brashness and inexperience and overheated promises about Russia. After that I run out of steam really thinking of any of the 17 I outright support.

Hillary just feels like we are shooting ourselves in the foot. We need to move on and reform one way or the other.

Why is Hillary like "shooting ourselves in the foot"? B/c she would likely govern like two of our best presidents over the past century?

I edited my comment above, if that helps.

It's like shooting ourselves in the foot because we as a nation have fallen into permanent incompetence, division and corruption. Hillary is the problem, digging that hole further is a dead end.

He's a lost cause. Dude is still waving the Obamacare flag when the true progressives wanted single payer.

If the Dems came out in support of the NRA and banning abortion tomorrow, he'd be the first around here pointing out how we all need more guns and why life begins at conception.