What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (25 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
AnonymousBob said:
You have yet to discuss any campaign issues in the hundreds of pages this has spanned. That's why people laughed. 
Click to expand...
I have discussed them all the time for almost two years in my numerous cut-and-paste of articles, links to articles, and in reposted tweets that generate discussion. The fact you don't pay attention is not my problem.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dparker713 said:
By the time my state finally had a say in the nomination process, it was all over but the crying.
Click to expand...
Why does this matter so much to people. Your vote equals the same as the first guy who voted in Iowa.

I can't tell you how many times I've had to choose between corrupt vs ######## - it's been lots. Best thing is when all is said and done and one of them has been caught embezzling or in some ugly racist scandal you know you didn't have a hand in it. We are not obligated to vote for one of these people.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Any word on how much last night's terror attack has hurt Hillary in the polls?

Funny how she shifted her stance real quick this morning...world class phony.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Why does this matter so much to people. Your vote equals the same as the first guy who voted in Iowa.

I can't tell you how many times I've had to choose between corrupt vs ######## - it's been lots. Best thing is when all is said and done and one of them has been caught embezzling or in some ugly racist scandal you know you didn't have a hand in it. We are not obligated to vote for one of these people.
Click to expand...
Cause I can do math?

 
timschochet said:
Hillary could turn the tables on Trump right now by proposing that anyone whom the FBI has flagged as a possible or suspected terrorist be prohibited from purchasing firearms.

The NRA is opposed to this. 
Click to expand...
:lmao: at:

@HillaryClinton: "If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn't be able to just go buy a gun no questions asked."
Click to expand...

Yeah, anyone under FBI investigation is super sketchy.
Click to expand...
 
timschochet said:
Hillary could turn the tables on Trump right now by proposing that anyone whom the FBI has flagged as a possible or suspected terrorist be prohibited from purchasing firearms. The NRA is opposed to this. 
Click to expand...


The little problem is that it was Hillary's State Dept. that stopped the investigation into the Orlando shooter because it wasn't "politically correct". Trump wins there.

Hillary is right, though, that there should be more questions, and the NRA is right that a full prohibition is outright unconstitutional as a violation of Due Process. You should be more careful in what you say. There shouldn't be a prohibition. A second-level of screenings, though, is entirely acceptable to everyone. Unfortunately for you, that just puts the question back on Hillary why it wasn't done.

 
Mr. Ham said:
This is the farce of this election, and why Hillary should be replaced.  Under her own logic, she shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun.  Optics are crazy bad.
Click to expand...


The farce is consistent with the current administration. Electing a Commander in Chief who cannot have a firearm makes as much sense as having the Director of Naval Intelligence who's banned from getting anything Classified or Top Secret. He's had no Security Clearance since November of 2013 and he's still serving in this administration. He's in charge of military intelligence yet can't have access to any secrets. It's all farce.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Philo said:
@HillaryClinton: "If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn't be able to just go buy a gun no questions asked."

Yeah, anyone under FBI investigation is super sketchy.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that the FBI is watching Hillary for suspected terrorist links?

Really? Must have missed that in the news...

 
Mr. Ham said:
In a little place called... Reality.  
Click to expand...
Reality, is that the same reality where you say Bill Clinton paid off Ken Starr to help cover up the Vince Foster murder?

That ain't reality. That is a parallel universe and it is like you live in a bad episode of Sliders.

 
The Commish said:
I'm an American citizen.  It's my right to have a gun.  Anything you put in the way of that if it hasn't been through a court of law to determine is a direct rejection of my right.  It's not complicated.  There's no court proceeding to get me put on a "suspected terrorist" list.  

But to the original question, all I have heard from you for why it's in Hillary's best interest to support this is that it MAY hurt Trump.  Talk about throwing out the baby with the bath water...holy cripes!
Click to expand...
Lol. 

You don't have a right to a gun IMO unless you're joining a militia. Heller was a bad decision and hopefully it will be overturned. 

Dude If I thought I could stop a single terrorist from harming a single person I would be for taking ALL of your guns away in a heartbeat. But I don't. However I do believe that suspected terrorists shouldn't be allowed to legally buy guns. If that somehow interferes with your gun privileges, sorry I don't give a ####. 

 
Philo said:
The little problem is that it was Hillary's State Dept. that stopped the investigation into the Orlando shooter because it wasn't "politically correct". Trump wins there.

Hillary is right, though, that there should be more questions, and the NRA is right that a full prohibition is outright unconstitutional as a violation of Due Process. You should be more careful in what you say. There shouldn't be a prohibition. A second-level of screenings, though, is entirely acceptable to everyone. Unfortunately for you, that just puts the question back on Hillary why it wasn't done.
Click to expand...
No there should be a full prohibition on all suspected terrorists. 

 
dparker713 said:
The Commish said:
This is where it goes off the rails, because NO ONE's single vote is going to overcome.  It's faulty logic IMO.  You guys want so desperately for a person's vote to be something it's not, or more than it is.  It's just not how things work.  We get a single vote.  That's it.  For most of us, candidates have to justify why they deserve our vote.  Of course some set the bar at "lesser of two evils" or "in opposition of".  That's cool, but every vote counts and none of them are meaningless.  You're as correct in saying my vote is meaningless as I am in saying your vote is meaningless.  That is to say WRONG.
Click to expand...
So basically, you're just going to rely on others to prevent the worst option so you can stand on principle.  
Click to expand...
We all rely on each other to keep him out of office :shrug: My part in keeping Trump out of office is not voting for him.  Just like yours. 

 
The Commish said:
squistion said:
They have been rehashing the exact same crap in this thread on a daily basis about for about two years. They can't talk about the issues in the campaign, so they just recycle the old scandals interspersed with supposedly new revelations about the emails, which never lead to anything.
Click to expand...
Feel free to chime in on my question to Tim if you're so eager to talk about "issues in the campaign".  No one seems to want to address why it's a positive thing for Hillary Clinton to encourage a division of our federal government to walk on our Constitutional rights.  If you don't like the idea, perhaps you could get through to guys like Tim.  He's not going to listen to "the enemy" regardless how correct we are.
Click to expand...
You continue to do a lot of whining about no one discussing the issues when a real question's been presented to you and other whiners several times. :potkettle:  is becoming more and more appropriate. Want to take a shot at this?

 
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
I'm an American citizen.  It's my right to have a gun.  Anything you put in the way of that if it hasn't been through a court of law to determine is a direct rejection of my right.  It's not complicated.  There's no court proceeding to get me put on a "suspected terrorist" list.  

But to the original question, all I have heard from you for why it's in Hillary's best interest to support this is that it MAY hurt Trump.  Talk about throwing out the baby with the bath water...holy cripes!
Click to expand...
Lol. 

You don't have a right to a gun IMO unless you're joining a militia. Heller was a bad decision and hopefully it will be overturned. 

Dude If I thought I could stop a single terrorist from harming a single person I would be for taking ALL of your guns away in a heartbeat. But I don't. However I do believe that suspected terrorists shouldn't be allowed to legally buy guns. If that somehow interferes with your gun privileges, sorry I don't give a ####. 
Click to expand...
Yikes...ok then.  At least you're honest.  Problem for you is our laws and Constitution are what they are so your opinion on what they should be is pretty irrelevant.  So the question still stands.  In a race like this, where Trump is the other options, why would Hillary Clinton be smart to support a position that goes directly against our Constitution especially one that has no due process involved at all?

 
dparker713 said:
You do understand that Trump will have some baseline level of support in every state and that nearly each state is winner take all, right?
Click to expand...
Of course he will.  Keeping that "base" at a minimum is priority one.  That doesn't support your narrative that "unless you are not voting for Trump by voting for Hillary you are wasting your vote".  You guys can repeat that all you want.  It's just wrong.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is a poll on MSN (which is about a left leaning as it gets MSM wise) and over 600k have voted. The question is "should there be a temporary ban on Muslim immigrants to allow a better vetting process"

Again over 600,000 have voted and 63% are in favor of it. 

 
Courtjester said:
There is a poll on MSN (which is about a left leaning as it gets MSM wise) and over 600k have voted. The question is "should there be a temporary ban on Muslim immigrants to allow a better vetting process"

Again over 600,000 have voted and 63% are in favor of it. 
Click to expand...
Anyone who votes No is against improving the vetting process... I'm surprised it's not higher. Asking the government to do its job competently should not be controversial. 

 
I haven't fully come around on the voting issue.  I'm terribly conflicted.  On the one hand, Trump is atrocious.  I am not one to make statement flippantly or lightly, but left unencumbered by the laws of our republic and he other branches of government, I have no doubt he would commit genocide and he would have a lot of popular support for it.  Even encumbered by such laws, he would be a menace, both in this country and abroad.  

On the other hand, there's Hillary.  While not as evil as Trump, she is a detestable human being in her own right and represents her own unique threats to the stability and integrity of our country and, by extension, the world.

So, how does one vote here?  I suppose the easy answer and the one I've settled on is voting for the person most likely to beat the guy who would commit genocide.  Seems like a reasonable thing to do.  But, can I really support a detestable scourge and criminal who puts her own self-interests ahead of country and others?  Is that's what it's come down to?  Reward her with my vote just because her brand of awfulness is just below that of her opponent?

I ####### hate this election.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cobalt_27 said:
I haven't fully come around on the voting issue.  I'm terribly conflicted.  On the one hand, Trump is atrocious.  I am not one to make statement flippantly or lightly, but left unencumbered by the laws of our republic and he other branches of government, I have no doubt he would commit genocide and he would have a lot of popular support for it.  Even encumbered by such laws, he would be a menace, both in this country and abroad.  

On the other hand, there's Hillary.  While not as evil as Trump, she is a detestable human being in her own right and represents her own unique threats to the stability and integrity of our country and, by extension, the world.

So, how does one vote here?  I suppose the easy answer and the one I've settled on is voting for the person most likely to beat the guy who would commit genocide.  Seems like a reasonable thing to do.  But, can I really support a detestable scourge and criminal who puts her own self-interests ahead of country and others?  Is that's what it's come down to?  Reward her with my vote just because her brand of awfulness is just below that of her opponent?

I ####### hate this election.
Click to expand...
This is where I stand as well. I may hate Hillary a little less than this, but not by much. 

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mr. furley
Long Island serial killer suspect in custody
Replies
34
Views
2K
Dezbelief
Dezbelief
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
253K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 25 (members: 0, guests: 25)
Back
Top