Did you watch the END of the debate? Our country's future and the 2nd Amendent is in danger!

[MechAg94]

I am less concerned about the negatives with regard to Trump. The worst case scenario for Trump being a liberal President is still better than what Hillary would do.

Also, when I look back at past Republican Presidential candidates I have voted for, how many can I honestly say were better than Trump? Bob Dole? John McCain? If the only thing Trump does is appoint good judges like the list they put out earlier in the year, it will be worth my vote.

[bblhd672]

I am less concerned about the negatives with regard to Trump. The worst case scenario for Trump being a liberal President is still better than what Hillary would do.

Also, when I look back at past Republican Presidential candidates I have voted for, how many can I honestly say were better than Trump? Bob Dole? John McCain? If the only thing Trump does is appoint good judges like the list they put out earlier in the year, it will be worth my vote.

Well said.

[jb2012]

It's dumb for anyone to think that Clinton would somehow do away with license to carry on Texas. People feared that would happen when Obama was elected too, & that was dumb. I'm voting for Hillary & proud of it. That doesn't mean I'm "anti-gun", it means I have the common sense to know that Texas will still have the license to carry regardless of who's president. It's a state issue. Assuming she gets elected, I'll be here 4 years from now telling everyone "I told you so" when there will still be a Texas license to carry just like there is now.

I don't think anyone here is worried about the sole issue of her taking away LTC so much as the second ammendment in whole. I'm not sure if you recall, but earlier this year one of her campaign managers told an undercover press representative that she has an alternate agenda regarding the second amendment post election. She wants to take away ALL guns and our house+senate will do nothing to stop her. Allowing her control over our next supreme court justices would be flat out irresponsible. Once again don't count on congress to save us there. On top of that how can you trust someone as proven dishonest as her? Honestly I haven't watched much film of her, but during the debates she lies without any regard! She has zero problem lying to the American people, and can keep a straight face (sign of a sociopath and/or pathological liar). How can you trust a person as commander in chief who 1. Left our men stranded in Benghazi (then lied about) 2. Takes political donations from people with known ties to our enemy and 3. Has failed tremendously as secratary of state? How can one rationally think this woman is in any way qualified for any position besides jail cell roommate?

**correction prison cell roommate!!

[K.Mooneyham]

It's dumb for anyone to think that Clinton would somehow do away with license to carry on Texas. People feared that would happen when Obama was elected too, & that was dumb. I'm voting for Hillary & proud of it. That doesn't mean I'm "anti-gun", it means I have the common sense to know that Texas will still have the license to carry regardless of who's president. It's a state issue. Assuming she gets elected, I'll be here 4 years from now telling everyone "I told you so" when there will still be a Texas license to carry just like there is now.

At minimum, HRC wants to put anti-2A judges on the Supreme Court who would likely overturn both Heller and McDonald. She also wants to basically shut down gunshows and being able to purchase firearms via the internet. Additionally, she wants to make it where firearms manufacturers can be sued if any individual misuses one of that manufacturer's products. So, even if she cannot get rid of the 2A in word, she can still have a devastating de facto impact.

http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/10/10 ... ical-ever/

[bblhd672]

It's dumb for anyone to think that Clinton would somehow do away with license to carry on Texas. People feared that would happen when Obama was elected too, & that was dumb. I'm voting for Hillary & proud of it. That doesn't mean I'm "anti-gun", it means I have the common sense to know that Texas will still have the license to carry regardless of who's president. It's a state issue. Assuming she gets elected, I'll be here 4 years from now telling everyone "I told you so" when there will still be a Texas license to carry just like there is now.

So, the great majority of posters here are, in your opinion, "dumb"?

If you are voting for Hillary and "proud of it" then you are clearly not paying attention to or understand the danger to the Republic that she represents.

We're not talking about whether license to carry in Texas will be at risk, we are concerned that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution will be abolished by a socialist/progressive Supreme Court stacked to the left for generations to come. We are concerned that once the Federal Government has obtained the rulings that individuals do not have the right to bear arms, that the Federal Government's armed agencies (FBI, ATFE, EPA, FDA, SBA, DOE, and so on) will be directed to confiscate banned firearms and ammunition. (I suggest you read this about how many federal armed agents there are now:
http://www.openthebooks.com/openthebook ... f_america/)

We are concerned that once this happens, then additional "rights" that the liberals/socialist/progressives disagree with are going to be severely restricted. Want to speak up against President Clinton's policies now that you believe she is what we warned you about? Sorry, you cannot do that anymore, and by the way, what you gonna do about it? Have a rally? Nope, the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances has been restricted.

If Clinton is elected, I hope that you are right and we are wrong about what she is going to do to this country. If you are not, this forum most likely won't be here for you to gloat about how you voted for Hillary Clinton.

[jason812]

It's dumb for anyone to think that Clinton would somehow do away with license to carry on Texas. People feared that would happen when Obama was elected too, & that was dumb. I'm voting for Hillary & proud of it. That doesn't mean I'm "anti-gun", it means I have the common sense to know that Texas will still have the license to carry regardless of who's president. It's a state issue. Assuming she gets elected, I'll be here 4 years from now telling everyone "I told you so" when there will still be a Texas license to carry just like there is now.

Beyond just saying "she is the one best qualified for the job", specifically what accomplishments and policy positions make her your preferred candidate?

[sarcasm]You mean being "married" to a former President, getting elected to the Senate, appointed Secretary of State, and being in politics for her entire adult life isn't enough of an accomplishment? [sarcasm]

That's all I have ever heard about her "qualifications" to run for President.

[allisji]

It's dumb for anyone to think that Clinton would somehow do away with license to carry on Texas. People feared that would happen when Obama was elected too, & that was dumb. I'm voting for Hillary & proud of it. That doesn't mean I'm "anti-gun", it means I have the common sense to know that Texas will still have the license to carry regardless of who's president. It's a state issue. Assuming she gets elected, I'll be here 4 years from now telling everyone "I told you so" when there will still be a Texas license to carry just like there is now.

Beyond just saying "she is the one best qualified for the job", specifically what accomplishments and policy positions make her your preferred candidate?

[sarcasm]You mean being "married" to a former President, getting elected to the Senate, appointed Secretary of State, and being in politics for her entire adult life isn't enough of an accomplishment? [sarcasm]

That's all I have ever heard about her "qualifications" to run for President.

Per the constitution, she is qualified.

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

[mojo84]

It's dumb for anyone to think that Clinton would somehow do away with license to carry on Texas. People feared that would happen when Obama was elected too, & that was dumb. I'm voting for Hillary & proud of it. That doesn't mean I'm "anti-gun", it means I have the common sense to know that Texas will still have the license to carry regardless of who's president. It's a state issue. Assuming she gets elected, I'll be here 4 years from now telling everyone "I told you so" when there will still be a Texas license to carry just like there is now.

Beyond just saying "she is the one best qualified for the job", specifically what accomplishments and policy positions make her your preferred candidate?

[sarcasm]You mean being "married" to a former President, getting elected to the Senate, appointed Secretary of State, and being in politics for her entire adult life isn't enough of an accomplishment? [sarcasm]

That's all I have ever heard about her "qualifications" to run for President.

Per the constitution, she is qualified.

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

That's the bare minimum to be qualified. My question was more about what makes her infoman's preferred candidate. The progressives are the ones that always say she is the best qualified. Based on the bare minimums you cite, they both meet the qualifications.

I think Jason's point is being prior 1st lady, senator and SOS does not necessarily make her the best qualified and who our country needs at this time.

Then again, I am confident you already know that and are just attempting to stir the pot. How about you answering the question, what specific accomplishments has she achieved that makes her so much better a candidate than Trump.

[stroo]

I don't think someone who should be in prison for destruction of evidence, lying to the FBI and Congress and extreme negligence (at least) in the handling of classified materials is qualified to be President.

When I was working as a lawyer, I represented a couple of subjects of DOJ investigations. If we had done what Hillary and her legal team did, I would have been disbarred and probably given a prison sentence.

[allisji]

It's dumb for anyone to think that Clinton would somehow do away with license to carry on Texas. People feared that would happen when Obama was elected too, & that was dumb. I'm voting for Hillary & proud of it. That doesn't mean I'm "anti-gun", it means I have the common sense to know that Texas will still have the license to carry regardless of who's president. It's a state issue. Assuming she gets elected, I'll be here 4 years from now telling everyone "I told you so" when there will still be a Texas license to carry just like there is now.

Beyond just saying "she is the one best qualified for the job", specifically what accomplishments and policy positions make her your preferred candidate?

[sarcasm]You mean being "married" to a former President, getting elected to the Senate, appointed Secretary of State, and being in politics for her entire adult life isn't enough of an accomplishment? [sarcasm]

That's all I have ever heard about her "qualifications" to run for President.

Per the constitution, she is qualified.

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

That's the bare minimum to be qualified. My question was more about what makes her infoman's preferred candidate. The progressives are the ones that always say she is the best qualified. Based on the bare minimums you cite, they both meet the qualifications.

I think Jason's point is being prior 1st lady, senator and SOS does not necessarily make her the best qualified and who our country needs at this time.

Then again, I am confident you already know that and are just attempting to stir the pot. How about you answering the question, what specific accomplishments has she achieved that makes her so much better a candidate than Trump.

my comment was simply tongue in cheek. Anyone who is 35, who is a US citizen by birth, and who has held permanent residence in the USA for 14 years is just as qualified as she is. The only obvious difference of course being that she has negligently mishandled classified information and subsequently erased over 30,000 documents after being given a congressional subpoena (among other acts of corruption such as pay for play, etc.)

She's a national security threat, a treasonous crook, and should be in jail at the very least. But even if she was in jail, she still would probably find a win to cheat out a victory in the election....

Let it be known, I am voting for Trump. I think that he may be onto something with some of his policy ideas. I absolutely think that the political system needs to be upset and he's the only one who will do that. That said, I think that he's a liar in that he's denying that he's mistreated and abused his own power and wealth. I think that he needs to apologize to people who he has mistreated and abused, and more importantly seek forgiveness. I desparately hope that he is indeed a changed man and I believe that he is. I wish very badly that there was someone with a more honorable past than him that would carry through with some of his key ideas, and couple them with a limited government position that would reduce the national debt and put America on a path to a balanced budget. I don't think that Donald is going to win this election, but I hope that the republicans can retain control of the congress and I think that they will. I hope that the movement that Donald has started will carry on in the republican party behind the leadership of Donald Trump's supporters and inner circle. And I hope that a republican congress can do something about Hillary after she's elected.

[bblhd672]

Let it be known, I am voting for Trump. I think that he may be onto something with some of his policy ideas. I absolutely think that the political system needs to be upset and he's the only one who will do that. That said, I think that he's a liar in that he's denying that he's mistreated and abused his own power and wealth. I think that he needs to apologize to people who he has mistreated and abused, and more importantly seek forgiveness. I desparately hope that he is indeed a changed man and I believe that he is. I wish very badly that there was someone with a more honorable past than him that would carry through with some of his key ideas, and couple them with a limited government position that would reduce the national debt and put America on a path to a balanced budget. I don't think that Donald is going to win this election, but I hope that the republicans can retain control of the congress and I think that they will. I hope that the movement that Donald has started will carry on in the republican party behind the leadership of Donald Trump's supporters and inner circle. And I hope that a republican congress can do something about Hillary after she's elected.

If Trump doesn't win, at minimum I hope his campaign destroys the Republican Establishment who coveted power over loyalty. Trump has basically been the impolite candidate that Republicans can't bring themselves to be in order to overcome the left's big machine.

Until a Republican with the credentials and message stated above, and the testicular fortitude of Trump steps up we are doomed to continuing losing America.

[mojo84]

It's dumb for anyone to think that Clinton would somehow do away with license to carry on Texas. People feared that would happen when Obama was elected too, & that was dumb. I'm voting for Hillary & proud of it. That doesn't mean I'm "anti-gun", it means I have the common sense to know that Texas will still have the license to carry regardless of who's president. It's a state issue. Assuming she gets elected, I'll be here 4 years from now telling everyone "I told you so" when there will still be a Texas license to carry just like there is now.

Beyond just saying "she is the one best qualified for the job", specifically what accomplishments and policy positions make her your preferred candidate?

[sarcasm]You mean being "married" to a former President, getting elected to the Senate, appointed Secretary of State, and being in politics for her entire adult life isn't enough of an accomplishment? [sarcasm]

That's all I have ever heard about her "qualifications" to run for President.

Per the constitution, she is qualified.

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

That's the bare minimum to be qualified. My question was more about what makes her infoman's preferred candidate. The progressives are the ones that always say she is the best qualified. Based on the bare minimums you cite, they both meet the qualifications.

I think Jason's point is being prior 1st lady, senator and SOS does not necessarily make her the best qualified and who our country needs at this time.

Then again, I am confident you already know that and are just attempting to stir the pot. How about you answering the question, what specific accomplishments has she achieved that makes her so much better a candidate than Trump.

my comment was simply tongue in cheek. Anyone who is 35, who is a US citizen by birth, and who has held permanent residence in the USA for 14 years is just as qualified as she is. The only obvious difference of course being that she has negligently mishandled classified information and subsequently erased over 30,000 documents after being given a congressional subpoena (among other acts of corruption such as pay for play, etc.)

She's a national security threat, a treasonous crook, and should be in jail at the very least. But even if she was in jail, she still would probably find a win to cheat out a victory in the election....

Let it be known, I am voting for Trump. I think that he may be onto something with some of his policy ideas. I absolutely think that the political system needs to be upset and he's the only one who will do that. That said, I think that he's a liar in that he's denying that he's mistreated and abused his own power and wealth. I think that he needs to apologize to people who he has mistreated and abused, and more importantly seek forgiveness. I desparately hope that he is indeed a changed man and I believe that he is. I wish very badly that there was someone with a more honorable past than him that would carry through with some of his key ideas, and couple them with a limited government position that would reduce the national debt and put America on a path to a balanced budget. I don't think that Donald is going to win this election, but I hope that the republicans can retain control of the congress and I think that they will. I hope that the movement that Donald has started will carry on in the republican party behind the leadership of Donald Trump's supporters and inner circle. And I hope that a republican congress can do something about Hillary after she's elected.

Sorry. My detector was not tuned in.

This election has me wound a little tight.

[allisji]

Sorry. My detector was not tuned in.

This election has me wound a little tight.

Oh yeah, I'm definitely suffering election stress too. It's hard not to, knowing all that could be at stake. If she wins, then a republican senate could possibly block supreme court appointees for her for a couple years, but if the GOP continues this self-annihilation then they will lose the senate in 2018 and all bets are off.....