Hillary Clinton losing support of Demosocialists

:banghead:

>I reject your premise that the national and state levels are seperated somehow. They most certainly are not, they are interwoven.<

I reject your premise that humans survive on oxygen, therefore your premise is false.

REAL nice logic.

My point (and you keep avoiding it) is that the Feds have NOTHING to do with legislation passed at the state level. You say otherwise. I say prove it. Cite instances where the Congress or the POTUS has hand an effect on a state legislature for a pro-gun result. Name one. I don't think you can.
 
Oh, that's necessary :rolleyes:

One of my favorite sayings is "the pendulum always swings too far". When a change comes in American politics, it's always way too much. Just a by-product of our 2 party system.
I do not look forward to the coming reign under our new liberal overlords. I think it's a safe assumption that you're not either.
What I am suggesting is that you work to effect positive change wherever you find the opportunity. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's the party-lever pullers who helped bring about this situation in the first place.
You vote the issue, not the party. Your issue is the 2nd Amendment, so start thinking strategically about how best to protect it. Don't waste time on candidates that won't run or can't win. Start paying attention to what's going on instead of pretending that things are as you'd like them to be.
OTOH, you can always continue to ignore reality and get steamrolled. Your choice.
 
is that the Feds have NOTHING to do with legislation passed at the state level.
Click to expand...
Explain why most, if not all, states have a law where you cannot drink alchohol until you're 21 years old.
Your issue is the 2nd Amendment, so start thinking strategically about how best to protect it.
Click to expand...
I have - and found the republicans to be the party that is better, by far, on the issue.
 
> is that the Feds have NOTHING to do with legislation passed at the state level.
Explain why most, if not all, states have a law where you cannot drink alchohol until you're 21 years old.<


Yeah... the Feds pressured the states to raise the drinking age. You kinda skipped over the part about pro-gun legislation, didn't you. Then again, you have a habit of ignoring things you don't like or can't respond to, call names, etc.

Let's try this again. Name ONE piece of pro-gun legislation that has been passed at the state level that the feds had ANYTHING to do with. Heck, even you cited example of drinking age, IIRC, had nothing to do with POTUS or Congress, but was done by beurocrats...
 
You kinda skipped over the part about pro-gun legislation, didn't you
Click to expand...
I don't see your point. You state that the federal government has nothing to do with the state level. Besides being obviously wrong, I gave a clear example of it. Yet you still aren't satisfied. Are you saying that only on gun issues the federal government is somehow banned from the state level?
 
:banghead:
>I don't see your point. You state that the federal government has nothing to do with the state level. Besides being obviously wrong, I gave a clear example of it. Yet you still aren't satisfied. Are you saying that only on gun issues the federal government is somehow banned from the state level?<

Are you REALLY that obtuse?

You gave an example of beauracracy pressuring the state legislatures into something. Last time I checked, we don't vote for beauracrats. Name another, one where the POTUS or Congress themselves had an effect on a state legislature.

Just so you understand: I'm saying your example was no good, and asking for another. Like you keep saying to anyone who disagrees with you, I reject your example as being incorrect (not in terms of "that didn't happen", but that it has no bearing because it doesn't involve the groups in question)...
 
You are getting way too personal, on the verge of insulting. If you really don't see that the state and federal governments are intermeshed, then we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
Hillary Clinton losing support

Will Hillary Clinton live long enough to be elected President?

GEFFEN UNLOADS ON HILLARY: ‘SHE CAN’T WIN’

Sen. Hillary Clinton should not count on help from Hollywood mogul David Geffen in her possible run for the White House.

Geffen, who was a generous supporter and pal of Bill Clinton when he was president, trashed Hillary’s prospects last night during a Q&A at the 92nd St. Y in New York City.

“She can’t win, and she’s an incredibly polarizing figure,” the
billionaire Democrat told his audience. “And ambition is just not a good enough reason.”

Lloyd Grove reports in fresh editions of the NY DAILY NEWS the audience broke with “hearty applause” over Geffen’s comments.
 
Just had a thought. What if all of us (speaking of gun owners) registered as Dems, and wrote in Zell Miller during the primaries? Would that work?
 
oh yeah, and can you link to the speech hilary gave where she said she is going to take all the guns from law abiding citizens. I would appreciatte that alot.
Click to expand...
Who cares about speeches ? Actions speak louder than words.

Examine her voting record on RKBA issues.
 
The polls in the MSM also fail to list one other fact that is consistantly shown; the Dem-socalists party ratings is about 30% lower that Bush and the Reps! Somehow that never makes it into the papers etc. But then Dem screaming has done so well for them in the last three elections and self delusion is so comforting....
 
the Dem-socalists party ratings is about 30% lower that Bush and the Reps!
Click to expand...
Did you know that approximately 92% of all statistics cited in arguments are invented on the spot?
(that's a joke)
Could you be so kind as to back up this fanciful claim? Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top