TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:
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.....

mojo84 wrote:

allisji wrote:

jason812 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

infoman wrote: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.

jason812 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

infoman wrote: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.

John Galt wrote:Ted Cruz has offered to work with him on debate prep for the next two.

hopefully has Ted talking to him through an earpiece.

jb2012 wrote:The debate was absolute trash in my opinion, and I have a feeling the rest of the debates will be the same. The media hates trump and will bash him at absolutely every chance they get as proven so far. I also was disappointed in Trump. I disagree with stop and frisk and I heavily disagree with no-fly lists having anything to do with purchases of firearms. Stop and frisk is a great idea on paper....along with socialism. However in reality when you factor in human interaction and decision making it will be a complete disaster. Also, even though I agree that it is a good idea on paper, it is very unconstitutional. No fly list? I think we are all on the same page here. I will still vote for Trump, but those statements disappointed me. Call me a bad sport but I really don't blame trump for not shaking Lester's hand. My handshake means something, and if I were Trump that guy would not have earned my handshake POST debate.

I expect a much stronger showing from Trump in the 2nd debate, whether or not he gets any help from the moderator. Kellyanne Conway is going to have him ready to go. He will miss far fewer opportunities to hit Clinton on her record. He will spend less time talking about the Trump Organization and more time talking about all the things that he's going to fix that Hillary and Obama messed up. All he has to do is watch the tape of the first debate. There were times where he almost made a strong hit, but he didn't follow through. An example of something that plagued him was when he was talking about isis, and he said that Hillary and Obama's Iraq strategy is why isis was able to grow. He could have easily driven home the point by highlighting how many tanks and weapons isis acquired from us as they flooded past the Iraqi army into Mosul. Most viewers don't tie it all together. We aren't all a bunch of political junkies. He needs to help us out a little more and make an argument that will really cause Hillary to go on defense rather than just blowing off his attacks like she was doing.

He did shake Lester's hand. But there was definitely an awkward moment there.

Trump patted Hillary on the back, then Clinton shook Lester's hand. Then Lester was going in for the shake with Trump and Trump turned away. Lester looked like he'd been left hanging before Trump turned back and came in for the shake.

I don't think that it was an intentional snub by Donald, but it may have been. I think that he was looking for his family to come up on stage or maybe someone yelled his name. But if you think that it was a sign that Trump is the alpha dog, then don't let me convince you otherwise.

Honestly, there's no third party candidate who would be a better choice than Trump. I used to think that Gary Johnson was a very smart leader. But his recent gaffe's with the media are showing me some concerns. I blew it off when it happened first with "What is Aleppo?", but the latest thing shows me that he isn't as quick a thinker as I thought he was. I remember being impressed by him in the Republican primary in 2012. Though I saw that he was a smart alec and a little out of touch with people. Of course I was for Perry.