Dodger12

Super Moderator
Messages
7,388
Reaction score
4,316
You can list the qualifications you feel necessary but I doubt such a list would be all that extensive for either of them. She deliberately evaded the FOIA and Trump has never stood for anything because he's basically stood for everything depending on day of the week.

What makes someone "fit" to be President in your world? Personally, I'm done with career politicians who only have their own interests at heart and look the people in the eye and outright lie. Trump is far from perfect but I don't like the alternative. Having said that, I wouldn't characterize him as being unqualified. He's far more accomplished than other candidates who have done nothing but suck off the government tit, milked the taxpayers and made millions off of selling their political influence.
 

Dodger12

Super Moderator
Messages
7,388
Reaction score
4,316
Kasich could have had the most influential VP position in history if what was reported is true. He could have helped Trump win Ohio and most likely been on the winning ticket. And then if he and Trump had gone on to be a successful team he could have run for the Presidency after Trump served his terms and carried it forward. He would have been n a great position. Instead, like Cruz he showed how he's only in it for himself and is hoping he can run again in 4 years.

Completely agree. Kasich, who got clobbered in the primaries, could have come out ahead and set himself and the Republican Party up for the next several elections. These guys are so caught up in their own agenda, they just couldn't read the tea leaves even after the people spoke to them with their votes. They showed their true colors.
 

Dodger12

Super Moderator
Messages
7,388
Reaction score
4,316
Hilarious that everyone's upset at Cruz for not kneeling and kissing the ring of the Republican nominee.

Good for him. He apparently has a spine.

He didn't do it because he has a spine. He did it for his own agenda hoping to set himself up in 4 years. He's hoping Hillary wins in November and he'd be the front runner in 2020. He completely miscalculated and the backlash will all but ensure that Cruz' aspiration for a higher office all but over.
 

Dodger12

Super Moderator
Messages
7,388
Reaction score
4,316
You're saying he would be deemed more courageous for selling out hiw wife and father for the good of the party and so he could run for office again in the future? That's as selfish and gutless as a person could be. And I don't care how "most people" see it.

Folks forget that people took shots at Trump's wife first and leaked some nude pictures or something like that. I wouldn't doubt that Cruz or his super pac was behind it. And if it wasn't him, I certainly didn't see him protest that attack on Trump's wife. Then throw in the sleazy maneuver to steal Carson's votes, along with his actions at the RNC and his true colors shined through. He's a sleaze and he's done.
 

Dodger12

Super Moderator
Messages
7,388
Reaction score
4,316
Here's the problem. Last night I dont remember him saying anything about sticking up for his family. That all came out today when he was asked point blank about not keeping his word of supporting the nominee like he said he would. That whole family excuse was thrown out there to justify his actions while he was being called out for them.

100%. He wasn't expecting that reception and he knew he stepped in shit which led to BS justification the next day.

If you're defending your wife and her honor, you either don't go and speak at the RNC or you bring it up during your speech. He tried to sell himself to all the people watching and set himself up for 2020. Plain and simple. He fucked up.
 

dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
58,589
Reaction score
9,067
Folks forget that people took shots at Trump's wife first and leaked some nude pictures or something like that. I wouldn't doubt that Cruz or his super pac was behind it. And if it wasn't him, I certainly didn't see him protest that attack on Trump's wife. Then throw in the sleazy maneuver to steal Carson's votes, along with his actions at the RNC and his true colors shined through. He's a sleaze and he's done.

It was his people, and yes they did throw that out there first. I found the link to the article yesterday.
 

dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
58,589
Reaction score
9,067
Supposedly the Kunt has picked Tim Caine as VP

Andrea Mitchell says all Hillary scandals are results of conspiracy theories.

Chris Matthews says "law and order" is racist tones.
 

Sheik

All-Pro
Messages
24,809
Reaction score
5
Glenn Beck has gone off the deep end. The guy is and always has been a fucking nut job.
 

Sheik

All-Pro
Messages
24,809
Reaction score
5
Supposedly the Kunt has picked Tim Caine as VP

Andrea Mitchell says all Hillary scandals are results of conspiracy theories.

Chris Matthews says "law and order" is racist tones.

Don't worry. It's not going to work this time. Everyone heard what Comey said loud and clear. She's a lying piece of shit. I think Americans will put up with a ton of bullshit, but one thing they won't tolerate is blatant lies.
 

Sheik

All-Pro
Messages
24,809
Reaction score
5
Whats he saying now?

And isnt he a Mormon?

Same shit he's been saying for the last 6-7 months. He's a weird guy. Talking about Trump being a dictator or something to that effect.

He's begging people to accumulate stuff that has trade value because the country is going to collapse and we'll all need gold and rice to barter.

I'm not using direct quotes, but basically he's batshit crazy and extremely sad that Cruz, his buttfuck sex buddy, didn't win.

Nobody likes that trollish evangelist. His speak then pause with ugly fuck face grin thing is creepy as hell. I cannot believe someone close to him has not told him he looks like someone farted in his face during every applause line.
 

dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
58,589
Reaction score
9,067
Glenn Beck has gone off the deep end. The guy is and always has been a fucking nut job.

When he was at CNN I thought he was really smart and always well prepared. After he left there he totally wigged out.

Some of the stuff out there on him now is just ridiculous. Clearly a grade A fool.
 

dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
58,589
Reaction score
9,067
LOL. Hillary is anti-1%ers though.

Ivanka Trump reportedly wore a $138, blush-colored dress from her own fashion line — sold at Macy’s and Nordstrom — when she introduced her father Donald Trump on Thursday night at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, where he accepted the Republican Party’s nomination for President of the United States.

The 34-year-old fashionista also wore her own dress on Wednesday night.

“The entrepreneur was also sporting her own designs — $158 off-white dress, $135 black suede pumps and her own considerably pricier precious jewelry — in the Quicken Loans Arena on Wednesday night, when photographers shot her pointing toward her father’s nemesis Ted Cruz,” Women’s Wear Daily reports.

Trump’s decision to adorn her reasonably priced clothing line makes her relatable to every woman and it’s in stark contrast to presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s decision to wear a $12,485 Giorgio Armani jacket during her New York primary win in April.

As the New York Post noted, Clinton’s jacket reveals her disconnect from the everyday woman.

“It was a clear attempt to position herself as an everywoman,” the Post reported of Clinton’s victory speech, adding, “But an everywoman she is not — she gave the speech in a $12,495 Giorgio Armani tweed jacket.”
 

dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
58,589
Reaction score
9,067
LOL at CNN for having to take down their own poll numbers and downplay the results during their coverage after the speech last night.

Results were seen as "too favorable" for Trump
 

Sheik

All-Pro
Messages
24,809
Reaction score
5
I know fox doesn't hide their conservative agenda. I think Chris Wallace and O'Reily are the only ones that will really ask the tough questions to both party candidates.

My question is, does CNN or MSNBC pretend to be anything other than liberal? I know they don't hide it at all, but are they supposed to be unbiased media?

It was extremely hilarious to watch their focus group and the subsequent poll numbers that rolled in as both completely smashed their narrative. I have literally never seen them more angry when Trump's speech ended, then go from anger to pure bewilderment after seeing independents breaking toward trump in their focus group.

Then they try to explain the positive, 75% positive review, that Trump received in their poll by saying essentially "ok, these numbers are skewed by mostly conservative tuning into the speech/convention.

Dont fuckin tell me my party is deeply divided, then in the next breath tell me that 75% of your viewers found the speech to impact them positively, then say it's mostly all conservatives tuning in. Which is it? A split in the party, or a united party tuning into msnbc to show 75% support of his message?
 

dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
58,589
Reaction score
9,067
No worries here, its just another Clinton "misspeak". She really didn't mean to say she was for stripping people of 2nd amendment rights.


PolitiFact: Hillary Clinton ‘Misspoke’ or Misunderstood Australia’s Gun Ban, So Trump Is Wrong

by AWR Hawkins22 Jul 2016135

Just hours after Donald Trump renewed his claim that Hillary Clinton wants to “abolish” the Second Amendment, PolitiFact tried to counter by suggesting that Clinton “misspoke” or misunderstand the Australian gun ban when she voiced support for it in October 2015.
On October 16 Clinton said the Australian ban was “worth looking at” for gun policy in the U.S.

But PolitiFact suggests the claim that Clinton wants to “abolish” the Second Amendment is “false” because “she may have misspoken or not fully understood Australia’s program.”

In order to prove Trump wrong, PolitiFact even worked to dismiss Clinton’s refusal to admit Americans have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. On June 5 Bretibart News reported that Clinton twice refused to admit the right to keep and bear is constitutional during the airing of This Week with George Stephanopoulos. But PolitiFact claims this refusal has to be viewed in light of her rejection of the ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and therefore, may not be a 100 percent rejection after all.

By the way, Clinton’s problem with the Heller ruling is that it reaffirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms that the federal government cannot violate. Two years later–in McDonald v. Chicago (2010)–the Supreme Court affirmed that this individual right is incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment, thereby barring states/cities from violating it as well. Clinton is at war with Heller because she knows that if she can be successful in reversing the recognition of an individual right, then she can be successful in opening the floodgates for gun control at city, state, and federal levels.

Her spokesman Josh Schwerin said as much when Trump first began warning that Clinton wants to “abolish” the Second Amendment. Huffington Post reported that Schwerin rejected the language of “abolish” or “repeal,” but affirmed that Clinton “believes Heller was wrongly decided in that cities and states should have the power to craft common sense laws to keep their residents safe.”

So PolitiFact and Schwerin miss the fact that one does not have to “repeal,” erase, or otherwise remove the words of the Second Amendment to “abolish” it. The most simple approach would be to let it stand but empty it of meaning. And that is exactly what Clinton tries to do when she wars against Heller and refuses to admit the existence of a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It is a covert means of abolishing the Second Amendment.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.
 

NoMoRedJ

UDFA
Messages
2,477
Reaction score
56
No worries here, its just another Clinton "misspeak". She really didn't mean to say she was for stripping people of 2nd amendment rights.


PolitiFact: Hillary Clinton ‘Misspoke’ or Misunderstood Australia’s Gun Ban, So Trump Is Wrong

by AWR Hawkins22 Jul 2016135

Just hours after Donald Trump renewed his claim that Hillary Clinton wants to “abolish” the Second Amendment, PolitiFact tried to counter by suggesting that Clinton “misspoke” or misunderstand the Australian gun ban when she voiced support for it in October 2015.
On October 16 Clinton said the Australian ban was “worth looking at” for gun policy in the U.S.

But PolitiFact suggests the claim that Clinton wants to “abolish” the Second Amendment is “false” because “she may have misspoken or not fully understood Australia’s program.”

In order to prove Trump wrong, PolitiFact even worked to dismiss Clinton’s refusal to admit Americans have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. On June 5 Bretibart News reported that Clinton twice refused to admit the right to keep and bear is constitutional during the airing of This Week with George Stephanopoulos. But PolitiFact claims this refusal has to be viewed in light of her rejection of the ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and therefore, may not be a 100 percent rejection after all.

By the way, Clinton’s problem with the Heller ruling is that it reaffirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms that the federal government cannot violate. Two years later–in McDonald v. Chicago (2010)–the Supreme Court affirmed that this individual right is incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment, thereby barring states/cities from violating it as well. Clinton is at war with Heller because she knows that if she can be successful in reversing the recognition of an individual right, then she can be successful in opening the floodgates for gun control at city, state, and federal levels.

Her spokesman Josh Schwerin said as much when Trump first began warning that Clinton wants to “abolish” the Second Amendment. Huffington Post reported that Schwerin rejected the language of “abolish” or “repeal,” but affirmed that Clinton “believes Heller was wrongly decided in that cities and states should have the power to craft common sense laws to keep their residents safe.”

So PolitiFact and Schwerin miss the fact that one does not have to “repeal,” erase, or otherwise remove the words of the Second Amendment to “abolish” it. The most simple approach would be to let it stand but empty it of meaning. And that is exactly what Clinton tries to do when she wars against Heller and refuses to admit the existence of a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It is a covert means of abolishing the Second Amendment.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

Hillary thinks cities and states should have the power to craft "common sense" laws to keep their residents safe. Meaning unconstitutional gun control laws, which are never common sense. SMH and laugh when a democrap talks about common sense, as if any of them would even know what it is.
 
Top Bottom