New DNC Attack Ad

[Gracie]

After reading the WHOLE thread, y'all are STILL focusing on Trump and Clinton. FORGET THEM! You represent every voter out there...by IGNORING what is in front of your faces for a very LOUD statement that BOTH suck and the solution IS RIGHT HERE:

 

[HUGGY]

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.

There is a division. That is a fact. Yes she didn't go into any detail how she was going to fix the economy or any other problems. She simply pointed out some of the differences between her and Trump. Pretty mild stuff. She didn't make Trump look any worse than he made himself. THAT IS Donald Trump. Is she obligated to make Trump look any better than he is?

Ya it would be nice to hear what she has to say to do what she claims she can do. Hopefully she will present a "paper" explaining in detail her aims. Maybe some of it will come out in some debates.

I don't really care. I am not voting for president this year.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

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).

You don't get it, you don't need a reason to have have a gun, it's constitutionally guaranteed right.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

It's because of people like you that I joined the NRA as a life member just last Dec.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Great then a 1000 dollar poll tax wouldn't be an infringement.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

It's because of people like you that I joined the NRA as a life member just last Dec.

Did they teach you the secret handshake and give you a decoder ring?

 

[jillian]

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.

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 unreasonable. *shrug*

it's harder to get a fishing license than a gun license in some places. that should change.

but please, keep stamping your widdle feet.

It is an infringement on our rights.

only if the court says it is. and the courts haven't

 

[martybegan]

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 unreasonable. *shrug*

it's harder to get a fishing license than a gun license in some places. that should change.

but please, keep stamping your widdle feet.

It is an infringement on our rights.

only if the court says it is. and the courts haven't

The courts for 6 decades + said separate but equal was just hunky dory.

 

[blackhawk]

I might I'm also considering just voting in the House and Senate races and skipping past President.

Why not give Johnson/Weld a chance to show us how much better things could be instead of the status quo? If you want real change, you aren't going to get it from the Rs or Ds.

The sad reality is for any third party candidate to have any shot they would need to be included in the Presidential debates and neither party or the networks will go for that.

If he garners 15% then he is allowed to participate in the national televised debates.

Doesn't he have to have multiple polls showing him at 15 percent? It would seem like it would have to be one poll showing him at 15 could be an outlier just like having one poll show a candidate up by double digits when all the others show them up by only two or three points. I hope he makes it in there it would be interesting to see the impact he might have.

I don't know. The last I knew he was at 13%. There are some posts about it in the Gary Johnson forum.

Did a little googling it said you had to be at 15 percent in several polls it did not say if that was over a period of time or all at the same time or specifically what several was.

 

[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.

There is a division. That is a fact. Yes she didn't go into any detail how she was going to fix the economy or any other problems. She simply pointed out some of the differences between her and Trump. Pretty mild stuff. She didn't make Trump look any worse than he made himself. THAT IS Donald Trump. Is she obligated to make Trump look any better than he is?

Ya it would be nice to hear what she has to say to do what she claims she can do. Hopefully she will present a "paper" explaining in detail her aims. Maybe some of it will come out in some debates.

I don't really care. I am not voting for president this year.

It's an attack ad. Period. Instead of focusing on what is best for US, they focus on slamming the other candidate. There was none of that in the Gary Johnson ad because he is an adult.

 

[OKTexas]

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

You might want to review the tape, simply because you're wrong. I was paraphrasing, here's exactly what he said.

Excerpt from his statement. My bold.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

Oops, forgot the link: Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

 

[ChrisL]

Anyways, Gary Johnson is PRO 2nd amendment. Any candidate that I vote for has to be.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

But at this point that argument has yet to prevail, making him a criminal.

 

[OKTexas]

After reading the WHOLE thread, y'all are STILL focusing on Trump and Clinton. FORGET THEM! You represent every voter out there...by IGNORING what is in front of your faces for a very LOUD statement that BOTH suck and the solution IS RIGHT HERE:

There is no solution if he has zero chance of being elected.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

It's because of people like you that I joined the NRA as a life member just last Dec.

Did they teach you the secret handshake and give you a decoder ring?

Nope, just get a magazine.

 

[OKTexas]

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 unreasonable. *shrug*

it's harder to get a fishing license than a gun license in some places. that should change.

but please, keep stamping your widdle feet.

It is an infringement on our rights.

only if the court says it is. and the courts haven't

The courts don't have the authority to rewrite the Constitution.

 

[HUGGY]

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.

There is a division. That is a fact. Yes she didn't go into any detail how she was going to fix the economy or any other problems. She simply pointed out some of the differences between her and Trump. Pretty mild stuff. She didn't make Trump look any worse than he made himself. THAT IS Donald Trump. Is she obligated to make Trump look any better than he is?

Ya it would be nice to hear what she has to say to do what she claims she can do. Hopefully she will present a "paper" explaining in detail her aims. Maybe some of it will come out in some debates.

I don't really care. I am not voting for president this year.

It's an attack ad. Period. Instead of focusing on what is best for US, they focus on slamming the other candidate. There was none of that in the Gary Johnson ad because he is an adult.

Don't get your panties in a twist. Both sides will come out with actual attack ads. That's politics in our country. Trump was the epitome of an attack dog in the primaries with all his insults and baiting. Stop whining. You will get your attack ads. I can guarantee it.

 

[JoeMoma]

You don't get the apples and oranges point?

An intraparty primary is not a head-to-head. It's limited to that party. Whole different animal.

Not its not but the questions you have to consider are what will she say about him that has not already been said and why would it have anymore impact now than it did the first time? One more thing to consider is getting into a battle of who's the worst person really in Hillarys best interest? Trumps no prize but neither is she.

That's why you should vote for Gary Johnson.

I might I'm also considering just voting in the House and Senate races and skipping past President.

Why not give Johnson/Weld a chance to show us how much better things could be instead of the status quo? If you want real change, you aren't going to get it from the Rs or Ds.

The sad reality is for any third party candidate to have any shot they would need to be included in the Presidential debates and neither party or the networks will go for that.

They need 15% in the polls to qualify. People that write off the Libertarian party on the "can't win" basis are creating a self fulfilling prophecy. There are obviously enough Never Hillary or Trump people this cycle to put a third party in play if these people will simply vote that way.

 

[OKTexas]

Not its not but the questions you have to consider are what will she say about him that has not already been said and why would it have anymore impact now than it did the first time? One more thing to consider is getting into a battle of who's the worst person really in Hillarys best interest? Trumps no prize but neither is she.

That's why you should vote for Gary Johnson.

I might I'm also considering just voting in the House and Senate races and skipping past President.

Why not give Johnson/Weld a chance to show us how much better things could be instead of the status quo? If you want real change, you aren't going to get it from the Rs or Ds.

The sad reality is for any third party candidate to have any shot they would need to be included in the Presidential debates and neither party or the networks will go for that.

They need 15% in the polls to qualify. People that write off the Libertarian party on the "can't win" basis are creating a self fulfilling prophecy. There are obviously enough Never Hillary or Trump people this cycle to put a third party in play if these people will simply vote that way.

If Johnson were polling at even 30% you might have a case, best case he will be a spoiler for dump and ensure a hildabitch win.

 

[JoeMoma]

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.

It's not about "scaring" you... it's that a third party can't win in this country right now. that doesn't mean at some point it can't. but it can't now. so if you vote against you're party now, you're essentially voting for the other person.

Got to start somewhere. It's starting. Me and plenty of others are going to vote for Gary Johnson. That's all there is to it.

that's fine. vote for gary Johnson. it's not like the vote is being taken away from Hillary since you wouldn't have voted for her anyway.

so have at it. at least he's not a hateful loon.

I've noticed that there are a good chunk of lefties saying they are voting for Johnson also. Johnson will be taking votes from both Clinton and Trump.