Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
never mentioned the word only, you trying to put words where there isn't? the thread is about trump and his words. no one should be making thinly veiled threats, no one. especially a presidential candidate. crazy people listen to people they deem to have more clout than others. trump has clout and there is no excuse whatsoever to make the types of statements he does other than to stir up crap. then he shrugs it off like he had nothing to do with it.
"The candidate’s website lays out a multifaceted gun plan, and nearly a full evening of the Democratic National Convention was dedicated to survivors and victims of gun violence. Clinton has said that she does not want to deprive law-abiding gun owners of their rights, that her goal instead is simply to make sure that criminals and other people who shouldn’t own guns are prevented from doing so."
How does that make her "not a friend of gun owners"?
Apparently to be "a friend of gun owners" you need to advocate the position that anyone who can fog a mirror should be able to get them.
never mentioned the word only, you trying to put words where there isn't? the thread is about trump and his words. no one should be making thinly veiled threats, no one. especially a presidential candidate. crazy people listen to people they deem to have more clout than others. trump has clout and there is no excuse whatsoever to make the types of statements he does other than to stir up crap. then he shrugs it off like he had nothing to do with it.
Nope, no words in your mouth, you clearly stated that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hothulamaui
exactly, we most certainly do not need a presidential candidate making thinly veiled statements which a great deal of people consider either a threat or a call to violence.
Great friend to what jobs? Coal country? Hamburger flippers? Oh, you mean those Wall Street jobs, gotcha.
NAFTA trade agreement that Bill and Hillary supported? Those jobs that have gone and are going to Mexico?
..... And are replaced with higher paying jobs.
Companies are having a tough time filling jobs. That's because too many Americans like you just long for those low-pay unskilled jobs and never bothered to update their skill.
The well pay jobs are here. Don't blame anyone but yourself if you can't get one.
“Companies all over are having a difficult time recruiting the kind of people they’re looking for,†said Robert Funk, chairman and chief executive of Express Employment Professionals, a national staffing firm based in Oklahoma City that helped some 335,000 people land jobs last year. “We currently have 18,000 open job orders we can’t fill.â€
How can you say that? She went all girly in May and said her husband would handle the economy for her.
So?
You don't know that presidents appoint people to handle certain tasks?
Last time Bill Clinton got his hands on the economy, almost everyone got paid handsomely. If you have to pick one person to handle the economy, that person would be Bill Clinton.
.
You don't know that presidents appoint people to handle certain tasks?
Last time Bill Clinton got his hands on the economy, almost everyone got paid handsomely. If you have to pick one person to handle the economy, that person would be Bill Clinton.
.
slickwille created the dotcom burst? Hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
And of course the house and senate were owned by who was it....oh yea the repubs.....the ones with the purse strings....
Since you lefties are too thick to understand the nuance of trumps point, I'll explain it. If guns aren't necessary for personal protection, as is the common Democrat argument, then Hillarys SS shouldn't need guns. Trumps SS shouldn't give up their guns because trump has never said guns are unnecessary for personal protection.
The lefty response is proof that the left understands guns are needed for self defense. The difference is lefties think not all people are important enough to have the right to defend themselves.
You shouldn't be the one to explain.
HRC doesn't believe guns aren't necessary for protection. She's for common-sense gun laws; she's not for a ban of all guns.
Your argument cannot be taken seriously if you rely on hyperbole and extreme conservative talking points.
slickwille created the dotcom burst? Hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
And of course the house and senate were owned by who was it....oh yea the repubs.....the ones with the purse strings....
Uninformed people laugh at the dotcom bubble like it was a bad thing. It created many lasting companies from eBay to Amazon. And it paved the way for our current tech dominance. Without the first dotcom, our country would have been in real trouble. The bust only took away the weakings, those that survived include many businesses that we cannot live without today.
Clinton's role in our tech dominance is to simply recognize its potential and foster a great creative environment to let businesses flourish. That's why you almost always see a boom of innovative businesses during Democratic presidency. They don't block new technology (think Bus) or interfere with global trade (think Trump).
The Republican Senate did a few good things and also some bad things. All in all, the gist of the credit goes to Bill Clinton.
.
If guns are bad, why should Hillary employ them? Also, if walls aren't effective, why is there a wall around the White House and the Vatican? If carbon emissions are bad, why does obama fly?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.