Hillary Clinton Continues to Argue Against Guns

[Libertas7]

And doing nothing at all in the face of evil is somehow doing good??? Dwell on that for a while.

Not voting for the lesser of two evils = doing nothing? What?

Sorry, but I don't see any good that comes out of sitting home and doing nothing. We have a chance to participate, to effect the outcome. Regardless of the outcome, you are still going to be affected by the choice that's made. Why not at least try to swing it to the lesser of two evils rather than just sit by and let evil do whatever it wants?

So if three men with guns brake into your house and tell you that you can choose for them to ether kill or rape your wife and daughter, you would choose the lesser of the two evils (whatever that is) because the good choice has little hope of succeeding?

There are people in this world that are willing to risk their lives just for the opportunity to cast a vote. It amazes me how easily some folks toss away one of the most precious rights we have in this country simply because they can't have their 'perfect' candidate.

I would consider someone, anyone, who does more good than harm "perfect" by today's standards.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

It does not matter who you vote for President here in the Pacific NorthWest. The Left Coast is already a lock for Hillary. Just like the last five elections, this one will be decided by a half dozen "swing states" and we are not one of them. The best we can hope for is to hold the house.

 

[etrain16]

Not voting for the lesser of two evils = doing nothing? What?

No, not voting = doing nothing

So if three men with guns brake into your house and tell you that you can choose for them to ether kill or rape your wife and daughter, you would choose the lesser of the two evils (whatever that is) because the good choice has little hope of succeeding?

Faulty logic. There is no comparison between choosing between two undesirable candidates and men trying to rape or murder my wife or daughter. In such a case, it wouldn't be a choice, I would be fighting back using the weapons at my disposal. Nice try, but not even a close comparison.

I would consider someone, anyone, who does more good than harm "perfect" by today's standards.

Are either doing more harm than good? I'll admit both do bad things and I dislike both, do you know for certain that either are actually doing more harm than good? Many voters wait for their 'perfect' candidate. Unfortunately, they simply don't exist. In fact, to run for President, you have to have flaws, including an ego that says you believe you're better than everyone else. We should expect some level of 'evil' in these folks. And yes, in this case, choosing the lesser of the two is a good thing.

You have a right to do nothing, and I stand by your right to do so. I simply disagree with that choice, as I'm sure you disagree with mine.

 

[etrain16]

It does not matter who you vote for President here in the Pacific NorthWest. The Left Coast is already a lock for Hillary. Just like the last five elections, this one will be decided by a half dozen "swing states" and we are not one of them. The best we can hope for is to hold the house.

It may matter in the primary, at least on the Republican side. If votes are not cast for Trump, it may keep him from getting the important delegates he needs to clinch the nomination. It could literally come down to dozens of delegates in this contest. Fact is, Oregon may actually matter during the primary season, for the first time in a very long time. We'll see.

 

[boogerhook]

We should be focusing on holding the house. Not much she could do without.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

According to current numbers, if Donald gets the nomination the (R)'s lose against teh Hillary. So rock and hard place. Sounds like danged if ya do, and danged if ya don't.

Isn't it also interesting that the two most unpopular candidates are the two most likely to be nominated.

How is this possible? I don't know.

Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

 

[v0lcom13sn0w]

The only vote that wench will get from me is for her to go to prison.

Trump '16

 

[etrain16]

If Trump doesn't get the outright nomination during the primary season, I don't think there is a chance we'll be voting for him this fall. It won't be Cruz either. It will be someone the establishment/RINO's decide they want to run. So, in the end, those who don't like Trump or Cruz may just have another choice - one not chosen by the voters. And no matter who it is, it's still a better choice than Hillary. I only hope the Republicans can stop acting like babies and agree to back whoever the nominee is.

 

[jbett98]

I think the real battle will be for the next Supreme Court confirmation.
If you want to own this country, then having a majority of the Supreme Court justices in your back pocket like FDR had is paramount.

 

[cmica]

that C*nt bucket needs a silencer

 

[misterarman]

The only vote that wench will get from me is for her to go to prison.

Trump '16

Second that.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Republican Donald Trump holds a big lead in California, in a new Fox News Poll.

Trump captures 49 percent of likely Republican primary voters. That's more than the combined support for his two remaining competitors: Ted Cruz receives 22 percent and John Kasich 20 percent.

 

[misterarman]

We should be focusing on holding the house. Not much she could do without.

A good point but there is always
Executive order

 

[Ralgha]

The biggest threat from Hillary is the selection of new Supremes. If the R's hold the Senate or the House she won't be able to do much against guns directly.

If the R's trot out some third party crackpot at their convention that nobody voted for in the primarys, then they're probably done as a viable party for a long time, they'll probably lose both the Senate and the House, and Hillary will stick it way up our collective tailpipe. They'd be better off simply not supporting Trump and allowing Hillary to beat him in the general election, though that would proclaim to the world that they're a bunch of bubblegumming bubblegums and they still might lose the Senate and House.

Best case is that Sanders beats Hillary and she goes to jail.

 

[nammac]

The biggest threat from Hillary is the selection of new Supremes. If the R's hold the Senate or the House she won't be able to do much against guns directly.

If the R's trot out some third party crackpot at their convention that nobody voted for in the primarys, then they're probably done as a viable party for a long time, they'll probably lose both the Senate and the House, and Hillary will stick it way up our collective tailpipe. They'd be better off simply not supporting Trump and allowing Hillary to beat him in the general election, though that would proclaim to the world that they're a bunch of bubblegumming bubblegums and they still might lose the Senate and House.

Best case is that Sanders beats Hillary and she goes to jail.

If this goes to a contested conference, my gut tells me the R's will try to trot ole Mitt Romney out again...

Seriously, if the Donald shows up at the convention with the lions share of delegates, he should be the nominee, period. The entire party should rally behind him to ensure the Hildebeasts defeat. Anything less and the D's are goin to have a sweep of the House, Senate and Oval Office...

Take a look around... America is totally disenfranchised at this point... Due in large part to the biased mainstream media.

 

[Libertas7]

No, not voting = doing nothing

There are more candidates then just the greater and lesser evils. I don't believe things will get better until (unless?) people realize that.

Faulty logic. There is no comparison between choosing between two undesirable candidates and men trying to rape or murder my wife or daughter. In such a case, it wouldn't be a choice, I would be fighting back using the weapons at my disposal. Nice try, but not even a close comparison.

It was suppose to be an analogy. The government is destroying(killing) this country. And they appear to be having their way with it (raping). Though, I guess this country isn't worth fighting for, only voting for. (And no, I do not consider those the same thing)

Are either doing more harm than good? I'll admit both do bad things and I dislike both, do you know for certain that either are actually doing more harm than good? Many voters wait for their 'perfect' candidate. Unfortunately, they simply don't exist. In fact, to run for President, you have to have flaws, including an ego that says you believe you're better than everyone else. We should expect some level of 'evil' in these folks. And yes, in this case, choosing the lesser of the two is a good thing.

I can only judge what "they" will do based on what they have done. I know there are no perfect candidates. I also know the difference between flaws and evil, they are not always the same.

You have a right to do nothing, and I stand by your right to do so. I simply disagree with that choice, as I'm sure you disagree with mine.

Even if I do not vote, which I don't remember saying I wouldn't, trying to convince others of a problem I see is doing nothing? I might disagree with your choice, but I'll respect you for doing what you understand to be right.

Please don't think I trying to pick on you Etrain16, you just had more to reply to.

 

[etrain16]

There are more candidates then just the greater and lesser evils. I don't believe things will get better until (unless?) people realize that.


It was suppose to be an analogy. The government is destroying(killing) this country. And they appear to be having their way with it (raping). Though, I guess this country isn't worth fighting for, only voting for. (And no, I do not consider those the same thing)


I can only judge what "they" will do based on what they have done. I know there are no perfect candidates. I also know the difference between flaws and evil, they are not always the same.


Even if I do not vote, which I don't remember saying I wouldn't, trying to convince others of a problem I see is doing nothing? I might disagree with your choice, but I'll respect you for doing what you understand to be right.

Please don't think I trying to pick on you Etrain16, you just had more to reply to.

I don't feel picked on. I happen to like debate. And what fun is debate with people that are in complete agreement with you?

I agree this country is in a bad way, and it ends a serious reset, but that's something that can't happen until a huge number of people can agree on what that reset should be - and I think we're nowhere near that point - just too many divergent points of view to try to get them to coalesce around a common ideal.

Until then, I think all we have to work with, realistically, is to cast our votes to block the worst of the worst. And in this case, I do think Hillary is the worst of the worst.

 

[boogerhook]

A good point but there is always
Executive order

Yes, indeed, however, they are very limited in scope. Can't run an AWB or Down Under style confiscation with executive orders, otherwise Obama would have already used it with a larger scope.

 

[misterarman]

Until then, I think all we have to work with, realistically, is to cast our votes to block the worst of the worst. And in this case, I do think Hillary is the worst of the worst.

I could not agree more.

 

[twa2471]

I wouldn't vote for clinton, even if she was the only one running,,,period !!!

Note,,, I don't even capitalize her name I have so little respect for her !!!