Trump or Clinton--our own poll

[mojo84]

A few reasons not to vote for Hillary

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/ ... ed-wikile/

http://www.npr.org/2016/06/12/481718785 ... foundation

http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=86404

Pro abortion

Anti-2nd

Lack of accomplishment

Life of living off the government

No practical experience outside of government or government activism

Pro same sex marriage

Will appointing progressive liberal activist judges to the SCOTUS

Generally believes she is above the law

Low character

No integrity

Unlikable person

Corrupt to the core

[Bitter Clinger]

[Deleted, disgusting photo supposedly showing Stevens]

Probably not true. See: http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/stevens.asp

Dale, quoting liberal left wing false fronts like snopes is highly disingenuous IMO. Thanks to documents released to Judicial Watch (and a FOIA request plus a Court Order) we know what Hillary was hiding.

Not just criminal negligence, but murder and treason...covered up by official lies.

Hillary and Obama knew, they lied, four died.

A DoD report was sent to:
- Hillary as SecState
- Leon Panetta as SecDef
- The Joint Chiefs of Staff
- The National Security Council [White House]
And just the headline of the Press Release says enough:
"Defense, State Department documents reveal Obama administration knew that Al Qaeda terrorists had planned Benghazi attack 10 days in advance."

Dale, I can't imagine why you would seek to denigrate the memory of those Americans who were murdered thanks to Hillary?

[parabelum]

Wow, I've been a member of this forum for many years & probably know as much or more about gun laws & General CHL/LTC than most on this forum yet I get called a "troll" & bashed for saying I'm voting a certain way. In regards to gun control, I know that neither candidate will ban owning guns, neither will "do away" with the 2nd amendment & there will most definitely be a TEXAS LTC 4 years from now. I'm also not for constitutional carry. I'm glad Texas has eligibility requirements for those wanting LTC's. I'm glad that we do thorough background checks & I'm proud to have & know others who have an LTC knowing they are law abiding citizens. Again, no one will ban the owning/carrying of handguns in Texas- no way no how. It's a state thing, the Texas legislature would have to make that call.

I wouldn't have called you a troll were in not for your usual (this isn't the first time you've done this) one liner "I support Hillary ...". While some on here provide extensive reasons (like mojo did just now) why that witch should never come near WH, again, you just throw a one liner supporting the witch without even attempting to provide clear and rational reason why. It comes across to me as you are trying to stir the pot with majority of folks on here that you know detest the witch. It's that age old divide and conquer tactic.

You do understand that some of us detest that creature in WH and this witch to a point indescribable, for what that gang has done to this Country.

Moreover, if you are truly not a mole but a genuine 2A supporter, then how do you reconcile the stance that witch has towards NRA and gun owners in general? How do you defend her high crimes and misdemeanors? What's in it for you?

[Bitter Clinger]

Wow, I've been a member of this forum for many years & probably know as much or more about gun laws & General CHL/LTC than most on this forum yet I get called a "troll" & bashed for saying I'm voting a certain way. In regards to gun control, I know that neither candidate will ban owning guns, neither will "do away" with the 2nd amendment & there will most definitely be a TEXAS LTC 4 years from now. I'm also not for constitutional carry. I'm glad Texas has eligibility requirements for those wanting LTC's. I'm glad that we do thorough background checks & I'm proud to have & know others who have an LTC knowing they are law abiding citizens. Again, no one will ban the owning/carrying of handguns in Texas- no way no how. It's a state thing, the Texas legislature would have to make that call.

I wouldn't have called you a troll were in not for your usual (this isn't the first time you've done this) one liner "I support Hillary ...". While some on here provide extensive reasons (like mojo did just now) why that witch should never come near WH, again, you just throw a one liner supporting the witch without even attempting to provide clear and rational reason why. It comes across to me as you are trying to stir the pot with majority of folks on here that you know detest the witch. It's that age old divide and conquer tactic.

You do understand that some of us detest that creature in WH and this witch to a point indescribable, for what that gang has done to this Country.

Moreover, if you are truly not a mole but a genuine 2A supporter, then how do you reconcile the stance that witch has towards NRA and gun owners in general? How do you defend her high crimes and misdemeanors? What's in it for you?

Maybe Infoman is positioning himself to be remunerated by some of that quarter billion dollars that the Clintons amassed by selling access to the Federal Government. After all, paid liberal activists are rife throughout the process. Why limit the payola to just the Black Lies Matter paid organizers, James Comey and the main stream media?

[mojo84]

Wow, I've been a member of this forum for many years & probably know as much or more about gun laws & General CHL/LTC than most on this forum yet I get called a "troll" & bashed for saying I'm voting a certain way. In regards to gun control, I know that neither candidate will ban owning guns, neither will "do away" with the 2nd amendment & there will most definitely be a TEXAS LTC 4 years from now. I'm also not for constitutional carry. I'm glad Texas has eligibility requirements for those wanting LTC's. I'm glad that we do thorough background checks & I'm proud to have & know others who have an LTC knowing they are law abiding citizens. Again, no one will ban the owning/carrying of handguns in Texas- no way no how. It's a state thing, the Texas legislature would have to make that call.

I am confident Hillary would work to severely limit gun ownership as she has publicly indicated. How successful she would be is an unknown at this point. However, that is not the only issue.

You ignored my previous question. What has she done or what positions, specifically, makes her your preferred choice? I listed quite a few reasons she shouldn't be a liberty minded moral person's choice and am interested in why people think she is the best choice.

[P3^eQme(c+]

Thank you all, and thank you to those others that have served. I hope this thread can become an intellectual discussion on positions and not just bashing, name calling. To the only one who questioned my background, okay? Sorry I disagree with you and you have not met an infantryman before that could have a different view then yourself.

Because HC has experience. She has been in the top parts of government for many years. Yes, she is a career politician, but obviously that is because she has done something right. She is educated, well spoken and will probably make rational decisions that will have effects throughout the whole country.

As poetic as it sounds, we cannot have some renegade in the front. That is not how business gets conducted.

Is she my ideal candidate? Absolutely not. Is she perfect? No. has she done things I don't agree with? Yes. But to me, she is still more CAPABLE of running THE WHOLE COUNTRY. A president is not imposing their views on the country. That would be impossible. But I think she has agreed to follow the views of the Democratic Party. DT? Who knows where he is going. He doesn't come clear on his position, is visibly emotionally unstable when confronted, and I just don't think he is right for the job.

[dale blanker]

[Deleted, disgusting photo supposedly showing Stevens]

Probably not true. See: http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/stevens.asp

Dale, quoting liberal left wing false fronts like snopes is highly disingenuous IMO. Thanks to documents released to Judicial Watch (and a FOIA request plus a Court Order) we know what Hillary was hiding.

................

Dale, I can't imagine why you would seek to denigrate the memory of those Americans who were murdered thanks to Hillary?

Nothing in the snopes article I quoted defends Hillary's actions. That article examines the validity of the claim about how Stevens actually died. Sorry to burden you with facts and reason.

[Javier730]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/ross-elder ... evens/amp/

[Bitter Clinger]

[Deleted, disgusting photo supposedly showing Stevens]

Probably not true. See: http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/stevens.asp

Dale, quoting liberal left wing false fronts like snopes is highly disingenuous IMO. Thanks to documents released to Judicial Watch (and a FOIA request plus a Court Order) we know what Hillary was hiding.

................

Dale, I can't imagine why you would seek to denigrate the memory of those Americans who were murdered thanks to Hillary?

Nothing in the snopes article I quoted defends Hillary's actions. That article examines the validity of the claim about how Stevens actually died. Sorry to burden you with facts and reason.

Dale, you did not burden me. I would not waste my time reading any fiction that you post a link to...Stevens was murdered and Hillary is responsible, and she lied about it. Not sorry to burden you at all.

[ScottDLS]

I see what's going on. In this poll you have only two choices, Trump or Clinton. And since if you don't vote for Trump you're helping Clinton win...so you should check Clinton,if your being honest.

While you're being honest... If you voted for Trump in the Republican primary then you definitely should check Clinton in the poll, because YOU voted for HER by electing the absolute worst of the 17, and the only one that Clinton wanted to run against.

[longhorn86]

Wow, I've been a member of this forum for many years & probably know as much or more about gun laws & General CHL/LTC than most on this forum yet I get called a "troll" & bashed for saying I'm voting a certain way. In regards to gun control, I know that neither candidate will ban owning guns, neither will "do away" with the 2nd amendment & there will most definitely be a TEXAS LTC 4 years from now. I'm also not for constitutional carry. I'm glad Texas has eligibility requirements for those wanting LTC's. I'm glad that we do thorough background checks & I'm proud to have & know others who have an LTC knowing they are law abiding citizens. Again, no one will ban the owning/carrying of handguns in Texas- no way no how. It's a state thing, the Texas legislature would have to make that call.

While I agree that neither candidate will themselves "do away" with the 2A, what you fail to realize is that if elected Hillary will have the opportunity to appoint multiple liberal justices to the SCOTUS. The result of this will be the SCOTUS will fundamentally change the Constitution to fit the left's agenda. Our rights in general, especially RKBA, will be slowly eroded.

Remeber, Hillary may impact the country for 4 -8 years, SCOTUS can impact our lives for 40+ years.

[tbrown]

I'm voting for Trump but I hate to admit that a small part of me hopes he loses, mostly because I swore 8 months ago that I would retire in 2017 if HRC was elected.

[srothstein]

I cannot answer this poll because I do not believe in answering false dichotomies. While I lean towards Johnson, I am considering also abstaining. I am also considering voting for Trump to help punish him.

My political beliefs are much closer to Johnson than to anyone else running. So I will probably vote for him. I could never bring myself t vote for Clinton. She convinced me to run for Congress in 1994 to be able to fight against her planned medical insurance reform then. I lost the election, and we lost that battle, though it did take them a couple decades to win.

I might abstain from the presidential race. I could go vote and just vote in the down ballot races. They usually have a much more direct effect on my life anyway.

And I could vote for Trump. If I did, it would be to try to punish him for trying to rig the election. I figure he is only running to get Clinton elected and not because he wants to be president. While he has an ego that might be pushing it, I firmly believe he is much more profit motivated than that. And there is no money (for him) in being president. I cannot see his willingly taking the pay cut to $435,000 annually, even though all of his living expenses are also paid for. He would also have to put all of his holdings in a blind trust while in office. I honestly cannot see him planning on doing this. So, if he is profit motivated and not doing this because of the money, where is there money? Well, having a president who owes you a large favor, say for taking out the opposition, could be very profitable. As one example, look at all the housing contracts the military is letting right now. They are contracting military housing on base to private companies to manage. This would fit right in to Trump's companies and expertise. And a president who owes you could make several of these contracts come your way without too much trouble at all. Yep, it could be very profitable to run for office against an old friend (he even went to Chelsea's wedding) and deliberately lose.

So I will probably vote for Johnson, but I could still abstain or vote for Trump. And while I am almost an anybody but Clinton voter, I cannot see me making Stein a choice either.

[mojo84]

Something for you Clinton and anti-Trump folks to think about. This is from Clinton insiders to attorneys hitting them up to donate.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11897

Re: My Attorney Pitch for Hillary

From:john.podesta@gmail.com To: ARibeiro@vrslaw.com Date: 2015-05-10 07:06 Subject: Re: My Attorney Pitch for Hillary

Augie, This is great. I'll share with others in the campaign. Thx. John On May 9, 2015 8:13 PM, "Augie Ribeiro" <ARibeiro@vrslaw.com> wrote: Just want to share. I sent to Jon and Greg. Thanks, Augie Ribeiro *From:* <ARibeiro@vrslaw.com> *Date:* May 9, 2015 at 7:55:08 PM EDT *To:* Jon Adrabi <jadrabi@hillaryclinton.com>, "ggoddard@hillaryclinton.com" <ggoddard@hillaryclinton.com> Be a Voice to Decide The Future of the Supreme Court The next President of the United States will change the future of the Supreme Court for generations. By the middle of the next President's term, there will be four Supreme Court justices in their 80s. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg born March 15, 1933. Justice Antonin Scalia born March 11, 1936 Justice Anthony Kennedy born July 23, 1936 Justice Stephen Breyer born August 15, 1938 If Hillary Clinton is elected President in 2016, and is able to replace Ginsberg, Breyer, and either Kennedy or Scalia, she will lock in a very young liberal court for many decades to come. This new Court would surely cement the Roe v. Wade decision and reverse this Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United which allows big corporations and billionaires to lurk in the shadows, and influence legislation by allowing for limitless political contributions. If you have no other political agenda but to protect our civil liberties, like a woman's right to choose, or if you believe that we should not allow big corporations and billionaires to have limitless influence on our government, then GIVE NOW. MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD

[bblhd672]

Wow, I've been a member of this forum for many years & probably know as much or more about gun laws & General CHL/LTC than most on this forum yet I get called a "troll" & bashed for saying I'm voting a certain way. In regards to gun control, I know that neither candidate will ban owning guns, neither will "do away" with the 2nd amendment & there will most definitely be a TEXAS LTC 4 years from now. I'm also not for constitutional carry. I'm glad Texas has eligibility requirements for those wanting LTC's. I'm glad that we do thorough background checks & I'm proud to have & know others who have an LTC knowing they are law abiding citizens. Again, no one will ban the owning/carrying of handguns in Texas- no way no how. It's a state thing, the Texas legislature would have to make that call.

There may be a Texas LTC in 4 years, but it won't do much good if there aren't any handguns to carry.

Your basic argument is that regardless of what the federal government does to restrict or ban firearms, it's okay because Texas will still allow it? Do you know something we don't about Texas getting ready to secede from a tyrannical federal system?