Here Comes the Executive Order on Background Checks

[Lowe0]

Jeb Bush seems made to order in that regard.

And how's he doing in the primaries?

 

[cobber]

And how's he doing in the primaries?

Zounds. Did the primaries begin already?

 

[IndyDave1776]

And how's he doing in the [STRIKE]primaries[/STRIKE] polls?

Not worth a damn. That should tell you something, like that most of the rest of us are sick and tired of establishment hacks who work for a small number of undisclosed owners whose interests do not resemble ours.

 

[Lowe0]

Zounds. Did the primaries begin already?

Good point, let me rephrase: does he have any chance of being nominated?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Good point, let me rephrase: does he have any chance of being nominated?

His chance of being nominated is greater than mine only because I have not declared as a candidate with his poor fortune in the regard existing for the aforementioned reason.

 

[Indydrew]

1. The Clintons had IRS target conservative groups who were making “problems for them” - that will continue if she is elected.
2. She covered Bill’s sexual relations and then used criminal tactics to discredit his accusers in order to maintain power.
3. She laid off the entire White House travel office staff so she could fill the department with family and friends.
4. She looted the White House on her way out, trying to take $190,000 worth of furniture, etc then caused $14,000 in vandalism damage.
5. Huma Abedin is Hillary’s confidant / deputy chief of staff and also linked to the Muslim Brotherhood through her parents.
6. Stood by while Chinese corporations supported Bill’s reelection efforts in exchange for technology secrets.
7. Said she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia...a pathological liar.
8. Her admitted use of a personal email server to share classified correspondences illegally.
9. Then deleted 30,000 emails and trying to hide her illegal activities.
10. She’s buddies with Saul Alinsky, the author of Rules for Radicals much like our current president.
11. The Clinton Foundation's Iranian connections, the tax fraud and a deal that facilitated the release of nuclear material to Russia.
12. Finally Benghazi, her inactivity was responsible for the death of 4 Americans. A rescue mission was “spinning up” but told to stand down as not to tarnish the image of the administration. Then she lied about to the public until she was caught and no matter liberals say she was caught.

So liberals (including you) are willing to vote for a person with no executive experience of any kind, who's biggest (non-criminal) political achievement is being married to Bill and has a track record like I listed above? You absolutely have the right to do so, after all 1000's of idiots write ins "Mickey Mouse" in every national election.

I just can't understand how an entire group of people can become so delusional as to think the current president is a "great one" and Hillary would be a "good idea". Liberals seem to be more than willing to put gay marriage and the myth of climate change ahead of national security and international credibility - and you certainly have that right. But know that the 2nd amendment will not be what it is today if Hillary becomes president, to think otherwise is foolish and potentially dangerous.

No one on this board will change your mind, to think otherwise is stupid and a waste of time. But at least be honest with yourself and research your candidate and her history and the potential effect her presidency would have on this country and the resultant long term issues. If you can't take the time to do that objectively then you truly do deserve my, and a good portion of this countries, utter disdain.

 

[churchmouse]

1. The Clintons had IRS target conservative groups who were making “problems for them” - that will continue if she is elected.
2. She covered Bill’s sexual relations and then used criminal tactics to discredit his accusers in order to maintain power.
3. She laid off the entire White House travel office staff so she could fill the department with family and friends.
4. She looted the White House on her way out, trying to take $190,000 worth of furniture, etc then caused $14,000 in vandalism damage.
5. Huma Abedin is Hillary’s confidant / deputy chief of staff and also linked to the Muslim Brotherhood through her parents.
6. Stood by while Chinese corporations supported Bill’s reelection efforts in exchange for technology secrets.
7. Said she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia...a pathological liar.
8. Her admitted use of a personal email server to share classified correspondences illegally.
9. Then deleted 30,000 emails and trying to hide her illegal activities.
10. She’s buddies with Saul Alinsky, the author of Rules for Radicals much like our current president.
11. The Clinton Foundation's Iranian connections, the tax fraud and a deal that facilitated the release of nuclear material to Russia.
12. Finally Benghazi, her inactivity was responsible for the death of 4 Americans. A rescue mission was “spinning up” but told to stand down as not to tarnish the image of the administration. Then she lied about to the public until she was caught and no matter liberals say she was caught.

So liberals (including you) are willing to vote for a person with no executive experience of any kind, who's biggest (non-criminal) political achievement is being married to Bill and has a track record like I listed above? You absolutely have the right to do so, after all 1000's of idiots write ins "Mickey Mouse" in every national election.

I just can't understand how an entire group of people can become so delusional as to think the current president is a "great one" and Hillary would be a "good idea". Liberals seem to be more than willing to put gay marriage and the myth of climate change ahead of national security and international credibility - and you certainly have that right. But know that the 2nd amendment will not be what it is today if Hillary becomes president, to think otherwise is foolish and potentially dangerous.

No one on this board will change your mind, to think otherwise is stupid and a waste of time. But at least be honest with yourself and research your candidate and her history and the potential effect her presidency would have on this country and the resultant long term issues. If you can't take the time to do that objectively then you truly do deserve my, and a good portion of this countries, utter disdain.

​"WINNER"

 

[Lowe0]

I just can't understand how an entire group of people can become so delusional as to think the current president is a "great one" and Hillary would be a "good idea".

None of the candidates look like a " good idea " to me. I'm just planning on "least worst" at this point.

 

[bhughesiii]

1. The Clintons had IRS target conservative groups who were making “problems for them” - that will continue if she is elected.
2. She covered Bill’s sexual relations and then used criminal tactics to discredit his accusers in order to maintain power.
3. She laid off the entire White House travel office staff so she could fill the department with family and friends.
4. She looted the White House on her way out, trying to take $190,000 worth of furniture, etc then caused $14,000 in vandalism damage.
5. Huma Abedin is Hillary’s confidant / deputy chief of staff and also linked to the Muslim Brotherhood through her parents.
6. Stood by while Chinese corporations supported Bill’s reelection efforts in exchange for technology secrets.
7. Said she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia...a pathological liar.
8. Her admitted use of a personal email server to share classified correspondences illegally.
9. Then deleted 30,000 emails and trying to hide her illegal activities.
10. She’s buddies with Saul Alinsky, the author of Rules for Radicals much like our current president.
11. The Clinton Foundation's Iranian connections, the tax fraud and a deal that facilitated the release of nuclear material to Russia.
12. Finally Benghazi, her inactivity was responsible for the death of 4 Americans. A rescue mission was “spinning up” but told to stand down as not to tarnish the image of the administration. Then she lied about to the public until she was caught and no matter liberals say she was caught.

So liberals (including you) are willing to vote for a person with no executive experience of any kind, who's biggest (non-criminal) political achievement is being married to Bill and has a track record like I listed above? You absolutely have the right to do so, after all 1000's of idiots write ins "Mickey Mouse" in every national election.

I just can't understand how an entire group of people can become so delusional as to think the current president is a "great one" and Hillary would be a "good idea". Liberals seem to be more than willing to put gay marriage and the myth of climate change ahead of national security and international credibility - and you certainly have that right. But know that the 2nd amendment will not be what it is today if Hillary becomes president, to think otherwise is foolish and potentially dangerous.

No one on this board will change your mind, to think otherwise is stupid and a waste of time. But at least be honest with yourself and research your candidate and her history and the potential effect her presidency would have on this country and the resultant long term issues. If you can't take the time to do that objectively then you truly do deserve my, and a good portion of this countries, utter disdain.

To quote Michael Savage, "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder"

 

[dieselrealtor]

Is it time for the grown ups in the room to leave this discussion?

 

[cobber]

Good point, let me rephrase: does he have any chance of being nominated?

No. But you asked for a moderate. Thank goodness he doesn't stand a chance. I suppose some would consider Christie a moderate too. Either would be disastrous.

 

[Lowe0]

No. But you asked for a moderate. Thank goodness he doesn't stand a chance. I suppose some would consider Christie a moderate too. Either would be disastrous.

I was kinda meh on Christie, though I'm not big on his stance on the NSA (again, more inclined towards Paul there). I certainly wasn't about to go knock on doors for the guy though.

 

[Bennettjh]

1. The Clintons had IRS target conservative groups who were making “problems for them” - that will continue if she is elected.
2. She covered Bill’s sexual relations and then used criminal tactics to discredit his accusers in order to maintain power.
3. She laid off the entire White House travel office staff so she could fill the department with family and friends.
4. She looted the White House on her way out, trying to take $190,000 worth of furniture, etc then caused $14,000 in vandalism damage.
5. Huma Abedin is Hillary’s confidant / deputy chief of staff and also linked to the Muslim Brotherhood through her parents.
6. Stood by while Chinese corporations supported Bill’s reelection efforts in exchange for technology secrets.
7. Said she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia...a pathological liar.
8. Her admitted use of a personal email server to share classified correspondences illegally.
9. Then deleted 30,000 emails and trying to hide her illegal activities.
10. She’s buddies with Saul Alinsky, the author of Rules for Radicals much like our current president.
11. The Clinton Foundation's Iranian connections, the tax fraud and a deal that facilitated the release of nuclear material to Russia.
12. Finally Benghazi, her inactivity was responsible for the death of 4 Americans. A rescue mission was “spinning up” but told to stand down as not to tarnish the image of the administration. Then she lied about to the public until she was caught and no matter liberals say she was caught.

So liberals (including you) are willing to vote for a person with no executive experience of any kind, who's biggest (non-criminal) political achievement is being married to Bill and has a track record like I listed above? You absolutely have the right to do so, after all 1000's of idiots write ins "Mickey Mouse" in every national election.

I just can't understand how an entire group of people can become so delusional as to think the current president is a "great one" and Hillary would be a "good idea". Liberals seem to be more than willing to put gay marriage and the myth of climate change ahead of national security and international credibility - and you certainly have that right. But know that the 2nd amendment will not be what it is today if Hillary becomes president, to think otherwise is foolish and potentially dangerous.

No one on this board will change your mind, to think otherwise is stupid and a waste of time. But at least be honest with yourself and research your candidate and her history and the potential effect her presidency would have on this country and the resultant long term issues. If you can't take the time to do that objectively then you truly do deserve my, and a good portion of this countries, utter disdain.

Rep inbound.

 

[Indydrew]

Is it time for the grown ups in the room to leave this discussion?

Yup, I'm out...best of luck Lowe0 and I do hope you do some objective research on the candidates. Don't believe what MSNBC / CNN / FoxNews tells you, find out for yourself what these people are all about. You owe it to yourself and your country to do so.

-Drew.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Is it time for the grown ups in the room to leave this discussion?

No, but if one has to enter to clean it up, it will be unpleasant for some. Probably more so for those tasked with doing so.

 

[jamil]

None of the candidates look like a " good idea " to me. I'm just planning on "least worst" at this point.

I have to admit my imagination seems incapable of understanding a world view of a gun owner who sees HRC as the least worst candidate.

 

[Lowe0]

I have to admit my imagination seems incapable of understanding a world view of a gun owner who sees HRC as the least worst candidate.

Lucky for you, your imagination is not required. You can simply refer to my posts where I've already explained why I see the Republican candidates as worse options overall.

And I suppose Sanders would be the least worst candidate. But I don't see him making it out of the primaries.

 

[dusty88]

Lucky for you, your imagination is not required. You can simply refer to my posts where I've already explained why I see the Republican candidates as worse options overall.

And I suppose Sanders would be the least worst candidate. But I don't see him making it out of the primaries.

I'd be a lot less upset about Sanders than Hillary. His views are even farther from mine in terms of redistibution but frankly, we're going that direction at high speed anyway. It doesn't really matter who is president. And I don't have reason to believe that Sanders is as criminal and as dangerous as Clinton.

 

[jamil]

Lucky for you, your imagination is not required. You can simply refer to my posts where I've already explained why I see the Republican candidates as worse options overall.

And I suppose Sanders would be the least worst candidate. But I don't see him making it out of the primaries.

Yes. Imagination is required. I can read the words and still not imagine myself in such a place that I could think that. Similarly, I could not imagine a realistic situation that would make someone like Chris Christie the least worst choice.

 

[ATM]

What an animated contest we have here.

'My proposed ruler is less worser than your proposed ruler!'


yawn.