![]() |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 11888873)
Does such a thing exist? ;)
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Boiler
(Post 11888868)
Always helps to be able to do simple reasoning. It is not that complicated, try it some time.
|
Re: 2016 Election
These stupid criticisms leveled about "automatic" vs "semi automatic" seriously piss me off. I never used full auto on my M16 in the military for a few reasons...one was that firing full auto at an enemy was usually a waste of ammo, which you carried in limited supply. Two, I could, if needed, fire almost as quickly on semi auto. Three, we were actually taught to fire in only 3 shot bursts maximum due to the problem of the magnesium barrel warping when overheated..and that thing would get brutal hot on full auto. The point being...semi auto is still the same seriously deadly weapon that has no business in the hands of civilians. It has no purpose other than killing people.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Giantaxe
(Post 11888874)
Maybe in general, but that's not what happened in the debate. Clinton only resorted to talking about the 90's when she was confronted with her husband's actions:- "If we're going to talk about the '90's, then we have to look at the positives as well...".
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 11888907)
If she's using her time as First Lady as part of her record, she has to be able to defend that record surely.
|
Re: 2016 Election
It is being alleged that Mitt Romney has filed papers to run...
Mitt Romney Recently Filed Papers With FEC To Run For President, Names Paul Ryan As His Vice President |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Giantaxe
(Post 11888912)
Sure. But her record is not her husband's record. So any opinions she posited back then are fair game, but legislation over which she had not direct influence isn't.
Second, she's invoked Bill's economic success on countless occasions, so again you've got to take the bad as well as the good. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/us...ic-legacy.html |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 11888931)
Firstly, Hillary has already said that Bill will be one of her advisers, so his record is therefore fair game.
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 11888931)
Second, she's invoked Bill's economic success on countless occasions, so again you've got to take the bad as well as the good.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/us...ic-legacy.html |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Giantaxe
(Post 11888944)
it's fair game in the context of who she selects as an advisor. But I don't think it's fair game in the manner in which Sanders is trying to invoke it. For example, in last night's debate, Sanders droned on about bank deregulation at the end of Clinton's second term. The way he phrased it, you'd think it was (Hillary) Clinton that signed that legislation. Like Leslie, that feels to me like Hillary is being held to a different standard than other candidates.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Who is the most likely pick for VP for Clinton? Would Elizabeth Warren even consider it?
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Anian
(Post 11888969)
Who is the most likely pick for VP for Clinton? Would Elizabeth Warren even consider it?
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Anian
(Post 11888969)
Who is the most likely pick for VP for Clinton? Would Elizabeth Warren even consider it?
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 11888975)
Watch for Cory Booker.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 11888991)
Good call, got to cover the demographics.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 11888975)
Watch for Cory Booker.
|
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 1:12 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.