(October 19, 2016 at 10:45 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I have to say, she has never been known to be that comfortable in debate situations, but tonight she look very comfortable 99% of the time, She kicked his ass.
Indeed, she look very comfortable when trump called her out for taking money for countries that oppress women and gays. She look very natural and genuine when she smiled/cackled when trump said that in those countries they throw gays off of rooftops, and she did not look like she dropped a deuce in her bloomers when trump challenged her to give the hundreds of millions back to those countries in protest to how they treat women.. Your right I think she look very comfortable through out the whole thing.. Seriously.
But, isn't that the problem?
That she could take hundreds of millions of dollars from places whos social and political agenda's are not consistant with the values of this country, AND still be comfortable? That you can smile and grin on que no matter what is being said simply because a trigger word was uttered, or a time limit had expired? Seriously what monster cracks a grin when people are being oppressed? How can you not react when someone challenges your integrity and asks you to return your ill gotten gains to support the things you claim to support? That is unless you don't have any integrity and that word hows no meaning or value to you.
Who in their right mind wants a politician who is known for telling people whatever they want to hear, yet do something completely different, in charge of their nation?
A person like this will just say whatever it takes to get into office, and then once they are there do whatever they will.
For instance gun control:
She sets a goal (to eliminate the 33,000 gun related deaths in America every year.)
Then in order to appeal to the 2nd amendment crowd she starts out with common sense gun control.
The problem?
The people seeking guns to kill other people are not law abiding gun owners. Meaning no amount of legislation is going to stop them. the only thing that will is the elimination of the gun supply.
So next year the gun death rate remains the same, so more radical steps are needed to 'save toddlers' (and kill unborn babies) So like she said, in an earlier speech 'we need to look at what Australia did in the way of gun control..' (google it, that sh*t will start a civil war here)
Again what I am showing here is the process of converting the reasonable and common sense into radical/unconstitutional. which if she get her supreme court justices in place there will be no stopping it.
disarming the population is the road to tyranny. The US civil war was the intended result of the second amendment, but if the government disarms the people then nothing can oppose tyrannical rule.
All of what i am saying may sound far fetched, but in truth has already happened and history is trying to repeat itself.
