TexasCHLforum.com

These debates have driven me crazy. I honestly can't believe how poorly Trump debates her. He is so bad in these debates, which boggles my mind, because he hits her on the issues twice a day at his rallies and then in the debates he sinks down to personal attacks and name calling rather than hitting her on the issues.

RPBrown wrote:I watched the sparring match last night and when she said that she is a "staunch supporter" of the 2nd amendment, I lost it. If I had something to throw at the TV I would not have one this morning. Even my 15 YO grand daughter that was watching with us said " Pawpaw, she is lying through her teeth. I've heard her say she wants to take guns away".

I must say, I was surprised to see that 11 members of our forum here said they are backing her . That reminds me of the fox in the hen house.

I can't believe that she can even say the words "right to bear arms". She talks about the years that she spent in Arkansas and says that she understands the value of gun ownership, then she talks about Heller and DC and about how the Supreme Court is wrong about the 2nd Amendment and how she wants to see more limitations on safe storage, etc (which probably means having unloaded weapon. And obviously we all know the bull in her claims about how she wants to see "comprehensive background checks", and close the "online loophole", and close the "gun show loophole". Just come out and what you mean... You "would like to see private firearms transfers subjected to background checks", and then tell us how that is going to get guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals (here's a clue... it isn't.)!

eta: I wish that someone would press her to define the difference between "gun ownership" and "bearing arms" then watch her squirm

Bitter Clinger wrote:

parabelum wrote:Mojo,Soccerdad,TreyHouston and others:

Great job on doing research and trying to demonstrate what's going on here.

Those who still beat the same drum and continue to smear Trump right now are either heavily medicated, are receiving some kind of kickback from the fascist machine, are playing for the other side, or all of the above.


By definition, you cannot reason with unreasonable people.

You forgot to mention the possibility that a certain individual may suffer from "Borderline Personality Disorder".

Also, polls that sample predominately hard core Democrats could possibly exhibit some inherent bias, but that would never occur to our friend. He is a legend in his own mind apparently.

The polls should be biased based on % of likely voters who identify with either political party and are currently unemployed. #AINTGOTTIMETOTAKEYOURPOLL

v7a wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Here is some info on the alternative.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/17/fbi-d ... otect-her/

I'm well aware that Hillary is horrible. Unfortunately, a plurality of Republican primary voters decided to walk straight into the trap that the Clinton campaign and the media set for the Republican party. Even though many Republicans during the primary were shouting:

No need to bash Trump supporters and Trump primary voters. I voted for Ted Cruz, but I am backing Trump now.

I don't think Trump will win, but I think that the energy around Trump and among his loyal supporters will change the republican party for the better. I think the he is starting a movement and that people will start to realize that his ideas weren't all bad. We need someone who will dismantle the Washington establishment, and I think that if we don't lose our freedom forever that one day we may look back and thank Trump for being the champion for change in our political system.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

v7a wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Yet Trump uses crude language in what he thinks is a private discussion with a guy and all the republicans scatter?

Uh, he didn't merely use crude language. He described himself committing actions that are legally considered sexual assault. Numerous women have since stepped forward and accused him of doing exactly what he described himself doing.

That same conversation was happening in every locker room I found myself in when I played sports. It may be foreign language to you, but most males are familiar with it. I find it crude, personally. But then again, I find a lot of people crude. That doesn't disqualify them from holding office, IMHO.

As far as the "numerous women" coming forward. The timing of their allegations has little to do with the release of that tape, and much to do with the timing of the election. This is a coordinated attack by the media working together with the Clinton campaign to subvert this election. As evidenced by the leaked e-mails.

Tell me one thing that Hillary will do that would be good for this country. Hillary sure can't do that. The only thing I ever see from her hate filled campaign is attacks on her opponent. Her mantra is "when they go low, you tunnel underground."

I tend to agree. I have always been a bit of a goody two-shoes, but must confess that over the years there were a few occasions when I participated in less than acceptable conversations about the fairer sex. I've said and done some things that I'm not proud of. Even if the vast majority of my life has been lived beyond reproach, those occasions (while rare) will never cease to exist.

I have no idea about the veracity of the allegations that these women are bringing against Donald. I assume that in at least some of them there is some truth. But why are they just hitting the headlines now? That is what tells me what I need to know about all of this. It's been no secret that Trump has a long and public history of disgusting comments about women. The private comments on the Access Hollywood recording are certainly worse than comments rating women based on the quantities of their assets. However, those comments don't match Trump's record without the new allegations of gropings that happened up to 3 decades ago.

The liberal media has incentive to smear Trump any way they possibly can. The release of the footage showing Trump boasting about getting away with kissing and groping women obviously made the media's job a lot easier. And I think that it seems pretty obvious that NBC News knew about the tape for at least a couple of months and that they facilitated it's release to the Washington Post in order to both cover themselves from retribution and have maximum impact going into the second debate.