New DNC Attack Ad

[martybegan]

During her speech introducing her running mate, she specifically mentioned the NRA. Big turn off. Can't vote for someone who is a governmental official who wants to take away MY right because of what a few psychopaths do. No way, no how. If I end up voting (for some reason) for either of the front runners, it will not be Hillary.

the NRA is the lobbying group for gun manufacturers. 90% of the country wanted reasonable background checks and their bought and purchased congressmen blocked it.

We already have reasonable background checks.

I raised specific objections which are not covered by background checks. and if we did have reasonable background checks then no one on the terrorist watch list would get a gun without the FBI knowing about it.

So basically background checks would eliminate the illegal gun trade?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!

 

[ChrisL]

Has anyone seen this? I just saw it for the first time yesterday. Wow! As much as I can't stand the Democrats and the Republicans, this ad makes The Donald look really pretty bad.



Having said that, I am tired of attack ads. Tell us what YOU are going to do!

That's not really much of an attack ad. No hyperbole. Nothing made up. If Trump doesn't want to look like a bully he should learn to be wiser when he opens his mouth. He has presented his opposition with dozens of unforced errors.

Point is, these attacks don't tell us what the candidate is going to do to make this country a better place. Instead, they are participating in division.

 

[jillian]

You don't get a say in what other people need and/or why.

but government can. which is why reasonable regulation was permissible even under heller.

what is funny is when pretend libertarians who whine about rules want government to restrict reproductive choice which IS constitutionally protected.

to his credit, Johnson isn't a hypocrite like that.

How is 2 months and $400 reasonable?

It's not reasonable at all. That is infringing on the poor or those who have a stalker or something, constitutional rights!

puleeze. you think everyone should just be able to say "oooh I have a stalker". (half the time it would be a lie).

Plenty of women have been attacked, raped and murdered by stalkers. Get off with your "oh puleeze" bull.

and statistically she's far more likely to have the gun taken away from her and used against her.

 

[martybegan]

no. and neither have most people. but a target/premise permit covers your home.

so you were saying?

I'm saying that you don't make those kinds of decisions for other people. If you don't want a gun, then don't own one.

Jillian is a busybody nanny-statist. It's just her nature to restrict things she doesn't like, and get pissy when you try to restrict things she does.

you sound like an idiot who spends his time whining because he has to wear a seatbelt and go outside to smoke.

which is really funny from someone who wants to tell women and others what to do with their most personal decisions.

Not using a seat belt is not a constitutional right. plus they don't charge me every time I need to use it, or delay my car 3 months to make sure it has seat belts. My issue with smoking in bars isn't individual bars banning it, but government imposing a blanket restriction on use of a legal product, regardless of the desires of the business owner.

And again, I have no issue with abortion being legal, I just don't see how the federal courts can stop Alabama if they want to ban or restrict the procedure.

and you are not entitled to unregulated gun ownership.

reading heller might be good for you instead of deciding what it means from the rightwingnut blogosphere.

again about 90% of the population is in agreement on this issue. if you want to be a shill for the NRA that's on you.

I am entitled to owning one without infringement, and months of waiting and hundreds of dollars of fees is not regulation, it is infringement.

Try asking in a poll if they think a 6 month wait and a $1000 in fees is A-OK to own a handgun, and watch that 90% value plummet.

 

[ChrisL]

but government can. which is why reasonable regulation was permissible even under heller.

what is funny is when pretend libertarians who whine about rules want government to restrict reproductive choice which IS constitutionally protected.

to his credit, Johnson isn't a hypocrite like that.

How is 2 months and $400 reasonable?

It's not reasonable at all. That is infringing on the poor or those who have a stalker or something, constitutional rights!

puleeze. you think everyone should just be able to say "oooh I have a stalker". (half the time it would be a lie).

Plenty of women have been attacked, raped and murdered by stalkers. Get off with your "oh puleeze" bull.

and statistically she's far more likely to have the gun taken away from her and used against her.

At least 800,000 people defend themselves with guns in this country each year.

 

[jillian]

During her speech introducing her running mate, she specifically mentioned the NRA. Big turn off. Can't vote for someone who is a governmental official who wants to take away MY right because of what a few psychopaths do. No way, no how. If I end up voting (for some reason) for either of the front runners, it will not be Hillary.

the NRA is the lobbying group for gun manufacturers. 90% of the country wanted reasonable background checks and their bought and purchased congressmen blocked it.

We already have reasonable background checks.

I raised specific objections which are not covered by background checks. and if we did have reasonable background checks then no one on the terrorist watch list would get a gun without the FBI knowing about it.

So basically background checks would eliminate the illegal gun trade?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!

you can laugh like a moron, but it would certainly cut down the guns coming from states where there's little to no regulation.

 

[martybegan]

but government can. which is why reasonable regulation was permissible even under heller.

what is funny is when pretend libertarians who whine about rules want government to restrict reproductive choice which IS constitutionally protected.

to his credit, Johnson isn't a hypocrite like that.

How is 2 months and $400 reasonable?

It's not reasonable at all. That is infringing on the poor or those who have a stalker or something, constitutional rights!

puleeze. you think everyone should just be able to say "oooh I have a stalker". (half the time it would be a lie).

Plenty of women have been attacked, raped and murdered by stalkers. Get off with your "oh puleeze" bull.

and statistically she's far more likely to have the gun taken away from her and used against her.

Link?

 

[ChrisL]

This is why I will NEVER vote for a democrat and will encourage my friends not to vote democrat.

 

[martybegan]

During her speech introducing her running mate, she specifically mentioned the NRA. Big turn off. Can't vote for someone who is a governmental official who wants to take away MY right because of what a few psychopaths do. No way, no how. If I end up voting (for some reason) for either of the front runners, it will not be Hillary.

the NRA is the lobbying group for gun manufacturers. 90% of the country wanted reasonable background checks and their bought and purchased congressmen blocked it.

We already have reasonable background checks.

I raised specific objections which are not covered by background checks. and if we did have reasonable background checks then no one on the terrorist watch list would get a gun without the FBI knowing about it.

So basically background checks would eliminate the illegal gun trade?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!

you can laugh like a moron, but it would certainly cut down the guns coming from states where there's little to no regulation.

No, it won't. if you don't cut the demand, the supply will always be there. I guess you also thing the war on drugs is a success, right?

 

[jillian]

I'm saying that you don't make those kinds of decisions for other people. If you don't want a gun, then don't own one.

Jillian is a busybody nanny-statist. It's just her nature to restrict things she doesn't like, and get pissy when you try to restrict things she does.

you sound like an idiot who spends his time whining because he has to wear a seatbelt and go outside to smoke.

which is really funny from someone who wants to tell women and others what to do with their most personal decisions.

Not using a seat belt is not a constitutional right. plus they don't charge me every time I need to use it, or delay my car 3 months to make sure it has seat belts. My issue with smoking in bars isn't individual bars banning it, but government imposing a blanket restriction on use of a legal product, regardless of the desires of the business owner.

And again, I have no issue with abortion being legal, I just don't see how the federal courts can stop Alabama if they want to ban or restrict the procedure.

and you are not entitled to unregulated gun ownership.

reading heller might be good for you instead of deciding what it means from the rightwingnut blogosphere.

again about 90% of the population is in agreement on this issue. if you want to be a shill for the NRA that's on you.

I am entitled to owning one without infringement, and months of waiting and hundreds of dollars of fees is not regulation, it is infringement.

Try asking in a poll if they think a 6 month wait and a $1000 in fees is A-OK to own a handgun, and watch that 90% value plummet.

regulation is not infringement.

now tell me again how it's ok for you to interfere with my constitutionally protected right to reproductive choice and with the right to marriage equality.

we'll wait.

 

[OKTexas]

Just saw this ad, that makes an art out of race baiting:



Might want to look at the thumbs up/down ratio...

As usual for the democrat plantation, free speech is completely blocked from their echo chambers. Comments have been disabled in order to prevent any reason from entering in.

Yep, they hit every divisive talking point the regressive have.

 

[ChrisL]

Jillian is a busybody nanny-statist. It's just her nature to restrict things she doesn't like, and get pissy when you try to restrict things she does.

you sound like an idiot who spends his time whining because he has to wear a seatbelt and go outside to smoke.

which is really funny from someone who wants to tell women and others what to do with their most personal decisions.

Not using a seat belt is not a constitutional right. plus they don't charge me every time I need to use it, or delay my car 3 months to make sure it has seat belts. My issue with smoking in bars isn't individual bars banning it, but government imposing a blanket restriction on use of a legal product, regardless of the desires of the business owner.

And again, I have no issue with abortion being legal, I just don't see how the federal courts can stop Alabama if they want to ban or restrict the procedure.

and you are not entitled to unregulated gun ownership.

reading heller might be good for you instead of deciding what it means from the rightwingnut blogosphere.

again about 90% of the population is in agreement on this issue. if you want to be a shill for the NRA that's on you.

I am entitled to owning one without infringement, and months of waiting and hundreds of dollars of fees is not regulation, it is infringement.

Try asking in a poll if they think a 6 month wait and a $1000 in fees is A-OK to own a handgun, and watch that 90% value plummet.

regulation is not infringement.

now tell me again how it's ok for you to interfere with my constitutionally protected right to reproductive choice and with the right to marriage equality.

we'll wait.

So then, I can assume that you support voter ID and putting a halt on immigration from war zones?

 

[ChrisL]

Jillian is a busybody nanny-statist. It's just her nature to restrict things she doesn't like, and get pissy when you try to restrict things she does.

you sound like an idiot who spends his time whining because he has to wear a seatbelt and go outside to smoke.

which is really funny from someone who wants to tell women and others what to do with their most personal decisions.

Not using a seat belt is not a constitutional right. plus they don't charge me every time I need to use it, or delay my car 3 months to make sure it has seat belts. My issue with smoking in bars isn't individual bars banning it, but government imposing a blanket restriction on use of a legal product, regardless of the desires of the business owner.

And again, I have no issue with abortion being legal, I just don't see how the federal courts can stop Alabama if they want to ban or restrict the procedure.

and you are not entitled to unregulated gun ownership.

reading heller might be good for you instead of deciding what it means from the rightwingnut blogosphere.

again about 90% of the population is in agreement on this issue. if you want to be a shill for the NRA that's on you.

I am entitled to owning one without infringement, and months of waiting and hundreds of dollars of fees is not regulation, it is infringement.

Try asking in a poll if they think a 6 month wait and a $1000 in fees is A-OK to own a handgun, and watch that 90% value plummet.

regulation is not infringement.

now tell me again how it's ok for you to interfere with my constitutionally protected right to reproductive choice and with the right to marriage equality.

we'll wait.

We? Are you more than one person now?

 

[martybegan]

Jillian is a busybody nanny-statist. It's just her nature to restrict things she doesn't like, and get pissy when you try to restrict things she does.

you sound like an idiot who spends his time whining because he has to wear a seatbelt and go outside to smoke.

which is really funny from someone who wants to tell women and others what to do with their most personal decisions.

Not using a seat belt is not a constitutional right. plus they don't charge me every time I need to use it, or delay my car 3 months to make sure it has seat belts. My issue with smoking in bars isn't individual bars banning it, but government imposing a blanket restriction on use of a legal product, regardless of the desires of the business owner.

And again, I have no issue with abortion being legal, I just don't see how the federal courts can stop Alabama if they want to ban or restrict the procedure.

and you are not entitled to unregulated gun ownership.

reading heller might be good for you instead of deciding what it means from the rightwingnut blogosphere.

again about 90% of the population is in agreement on this issue. if you want to be a shill for the NRA that's on you.

I am entitled to owning one without infringement, and months of waiting and hundreds of dollars of fees is not regulation, it is infringement.

Try asking in a poll if they think a 6 month wait and a $1000 in fees is A-OK to own a handgun, and watch that 90% value plummet.

regulation is not infringement.

now tell me again how it's ok for you to interfere with my constitutionally protected right to reproductive choice and with the right to marriage equality.

we'll wait.

The fees and time I have pointed out is not regulation, it is infringement.

So why is all of those fees "A-OK" but making a woman wait 3 days and pay $50 bucks before an abortion wrong?

 

[OKTexas]

LOL all you want, just proves he's another political hack that thinks he above the law.

Give it up. That is a stupid. You just ignore all the IMPORTANT issues that he brings up and you are very narrow minded and shallow.

Yep, I'm for anyone who has a realistic chance of defeating the hildabitch.

It's the fault of you republicans and the democrats that we are stuck with the status quo, you and your bogus rhetoric, trying to scare people away from voting for the 3rd party BETTER candidates.

I don't think another politician who thinks he's above the law is a better anything. The SOB should be in jail along with the hildabitch.

Are you serious? You think people who smoke POT should go to jail? *SMH* Why? Besides that, he quit smoking, so it's a nonissue.

Is it illegal, he's supporting violent drug cartels, that are no nonviolent drug offenders, because they financially support the violence.

 

[OKTexas]

During her speech introducing her running mate, she specifically mentioned the NRA. Big turn off. Can't vote for someone who is a governmental official who wants to take away MY right because of what a few psychopaths do. No way, no how. If I end up voting (for some reason) for either of the front runners, it will not be Hillary.

the NRA is the lobbying group for gun manufacturers. 90% of the country wanted reasonable background checks and their bought and purchased congressmen blocked it.

There are reasonable background checks.

There are unreasonable background checks as well, such as in NYC, 3-6 months and $1000 in fees for a home only handgun permit.

that isn't true. it's not $1000 and it took my husband less than two months. it cost about $400, which covers an unlimited number of guns. there's no reason for anyone to have anything but a target premise permit unless they have a reason for one.

I'm not sure how that's unreasonable.

soo unless the price went up since he got his, that's what it is.

There's no reason to require any permits, tell us what other constitutional rights require a permit to exercise them.

 

[Gracie]

THIS is what I want to hear on a political ad.

^^^

THIS ad. WATCH it.

That's very good. Although the eyeroll could have been delivered better.
Will that be your vote? Because you could definitely do worse.

I liked the eye roll. It sums up perfectly how I feel about both Trump and Hillary. Yup, I'm voting for Gary Johnson! Wouldn't it be great if he beat out both the front runners?

I know the chances are not very good though. I'm spreading the word the best I can.

Me too. I plan to tweet it every hour, all day. Then do it again tomorrow. And the day after. And the day after that. Media wants to ignore them? Ok. Twitter will work. Anyone that has FB, send it out there, too.

 

[rightwinger]

What Hillary has to do:

Make the public fear Trump: Replay clips of his opinions and foolishness constantly

Stand up for America: America IS great, our economy is the strongest on earth, we do not have to live in fear

Present yourself as the only responsible candidate: Reply calmly and rationally to Trumps rants and accusations

Paint ALL Republican candidate as being the same as Trump

Right, the only candidate that jeopardized national security and lied to congress. Great qualifications, for president of the inmates.

As much as Republicans have tried, they have not been able to show that Hillary jeopardized national security.
They have been unable to show that Hillary was responsible for Benghazi, just like they couldn't show Obama was responsible for Benghazi in 2012

Hillary will point out specific Trump proposals and what they mean

1. Killing the families of terrorists
2. Destroying our NATO alliances
3. Cutting taxes on the wealthy at a cost of $10 trillion
4. Banning muslims from entering the country
5. Building a useless wall
6. Trying to round up 11 million Mexicans
7. Prosecuting women who get abortions

You weren't paying attention to what Comey said. He laid out a prima facie case for gross negligence in the handling of classified information and said that no REASONABLE PERSON would have the conversations she did on an insecure network. The DNC has much better cyber security than the hildabitch did and hackers got in, what are the odds the didn't get hers. Can you say slim and none? If she was a regular federal employee she'd have lost her security clearance for ever and probably gone to jail.

He said nothing about a reasonable person having conversations. What he said was that no reasonable prosecutor would press this case

 

[ChrisL]

Give it up. That is a stupid. You just ignore all the IMPORTANT issues that he brings up and you are very narrow minded and shallow.

Yep, I'm for anyone who has a realistic chance of defeating the hildabitch.

It's the fault of you republicans and the democrats that we are stuck with the status quo, you and your bogus rhetoric, trying to scare people away from voting for the 3rd party BETTER candidates.

I don't think another politician who thinks he's above the law is a better anything. The SOB should be in jail along with the hildabitch.

Are you serious? You think people who smoke POT should go to jail? *SMH* Why? Besides that, he quit smoking, so it's a nonissue.

Is it illegal, he's supporting violent drug cartels, that are no nonviolent drug offenders, because they financially support the violence.

That's just another argument for legalization.

 

[OKTexas]

Oh, I'll call him right now and ask him.

he'll tell you he doesn't know, but it's "huuuuuuuge".

my point was Hillary has been pretty specific yet you demand more detail from her (which is fair) but give the Donald, who says nothing, a pass. (which is not fair).

I won't vote for a candidate who is anti 2nd amendment.

she isn't anti 2nd amendment. there is nothing in the 2nd amendment that keeps us from doing backround checks that keep guns out of the hands of crazies, criminals and abusers. no one is taking away your guns.

But you ignore those laws already exist. But hey just one more added to the thousand out there will do the trick, right? How did Einstein define crazy, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

I'm not ignoring them.... they don't exist nationally or guns wouldn't be coming up from the south to NYC. I wasn't aware that we had laws requiring guns be kept away from people on the terrorist watch list or requiring people engaged in private sales to do background checks.

Terrorist watch list and no fly list violate the 5th and 6th amendments, now you want to violate the 2nd on the same basis? Fuck off commie.