TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I have to admit that I haven't been following this thread and I now regret it. I'm shocked at some of the personal attacks against members who say they are voting for Hillary. That's a direct violation of our rules. We are not an echo chamber as are some forums.

Stop now.
Chas.

mojo84 wrote:While we are arguing and fighting among ourselves, the progressives are united and working toward getting their candidate elected. There's no chance a republican will win the white house with the horsepower and united front the progressives have.

Check this out. Notice some of the names mentioned and then realize this one organization has over a 100 billionaires and multi-millionaires that are members of Soros organization, Democracy Alliance. So much for the republican party being the party of the rich. Reading the entire article will give you a better idea of who's involved and how powerful they are in politics.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2010

Summary: Stephen M. Silberstein, a member of George Soros’s far-left Democracy Alliance, sheds light on the extent of Soros’s socialist agenda for America. Silberstein’s foundation backs a panoply of leftist groups that fight for higher taxes on the rich, wealth redistribution schemes, single-payer socialized medicine, burdensome regulation of energy markets, judicial activism designed to advance a radically egalitarian agenda, and the replacement of the linchpin of federalism, the Electoral College, with a national popular vote. George Soros’s secretive donor consortium, the Democracy Alliance, has been making news lately in the wake of a new plan set forth at its four-day conference entitled “A New Progressive Era?” which took place in Chicago at the end of April 2014. According to the Washington Post, “The plan, being crafted in private by a group of about 100 donors that includes billionaire hedge fund manager George Soros and San Francisco venture capitalist Rob McKay, seeks to give Democrats a stronger hand in the redrawing of district lines for state legislatures and the U.S. House.” More specifically, the newspaper reports that “keeping Democratic control of the Senate” was of paramount concern to the donors. “There’s a lot of anxiety about the midterms,” admitted McKay, the outgoing chairman, “who said substantial investment this year will go to local and state minimum-wage campaigns that can help drive turnout for federal races.” The new plan would shift significant resources away from the Alliance’s typical focus on donating to left-wing media outlets and think tanks, such as Media Matters for America and the John Podesta-founded Center for American Progress. Assuming the reported shift occurs, the Alliance will try to engage in ground-level political campaigning by in effect acting as a bundling super PAC—an über super PAC—in order to prevent the expected GOP takeover of the Senate.

v7a wrote:

parabelum wrote:These are the moles who have been sitting here as poseurs pretending to be "one of us".

I'd be curious to hear how my contributions to the campus carry lawsuit thread fit into your mole theory. Presumably you're already familiar with those contributions from your in-depth research of moles on this forum.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

v7a wrote:Right, so you were extrapoliting your own personal experience to the majority of the male population. However, your personal experience is no more representative than mine (which is that men in locker rooms generally do not boast about sexually assaulting women by touching their genitals without consent). Never mind that locker room talk isn't even the applicable standard here. Trump made these comments to a TV host, not in a locker room setting.

Yes. I was basing my perception of the world in part on my own personal experiences. Just like you are doing. And I will point out that you have offered zero basis for your claim that our personal experiences are equally representative of the male population in the U.S. Regardless, neither of us has any "scientific studies" that show what men (or women) talk about when they are having private conversations. But I'm assuming that we have been involved in plenty of private conversations with others of the same sex, so that is what we have to go on. My delicate ears were not offended by Trump's comments. If yours were, then I'm sorry you had to endure that abuse. And it doesn't really matter where the private conversation occurs. "Locker room banter" is a euphemism for a type of talk, not meant to be taken literally as talk that happened in a locker room. I would have assumed that someone with a personal experience that was as broadly representative of the entire male population would be more familiar with that term.

Hillary's crimes and behavior do not excuse Trump's and vice versa.

Agreed. She should be held to task for her attacks on rape victims of her husband and for enabling his behavior regardless of anything that Trump may or may not have done. It is just very ironic when she then holds herself out as a champion for women (the one ad I saw of hers where she did anything other than attack Trump).

Of course it's being used to attack Trump. Which is why it was the height of stupidity for Trump to make Bill's sexual misconduct and alleged sexual assaults the closing theme of his campaign when he had his own skeletons in the closet. Professional campaigns do opposition research on their own candidate so they can be prepared for attacks. Trump however is a clown candidate so naturally he refused to let his campaign do opposition research on himself

Why do all of you people (Hillary supporters) insist on name calling and vitriol? "Clown candidate"? Really? And I suppose you still think that Trump's campaign is the one that is based on hate?

Go vote for Hillary and enjoy your life as a subject. I'm done with this thread.

ScottDLS wrote:And why didn't these allegations against Trump appear until AFTER the Republican primary? Because the Democrats WANTED to run against Trump...since even Jeb! could have beaten HITLERY.

v7a wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Yet Trump uses crude language in what he thinks is a private discussion with a guy and all the republicans scatter?

Uh, he didn't merely use crude language. He described himself committing actions that are legally considered sexual assault. Numerous women have since stepped forward and accused him of doing exactly what he described himself doing.

v7a wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:I see what's going on. In this poll you have only two choices, Trump or Clinton. And since if you don't vote for Trump you're helping Clinton win...so you should check Clinton,if your being honest.

While you're being honest... If you voted for Trump in the Republican primary then you definitely should check Clinton in the poll, because YOU voted for HER by electing the absolute worst of the 17, and the only one that Clinton wanted to run against.

Bingo.

Whatever happened to the Trump supporters who claimed he would dominate Clinton in the general election because he's a media genius?

infoman wrote:Wow, I've been a member of this forum for many years & probably know as much or more about gun laws & General CHL/LTC than most on this forum yet I get called a "troll" & bashed for saying I'm voting a certain way. In regards to gun control, I know that neither candidate will ban owning guns, neither will "do away" with the 2nd amendment & there will most definitely be a TEXAS LTC 4 years from now. I'm also not for constitutional carry. I'm glad Texas has eligibility requirements for those wanting LTC's. I'm glad that we do thorough background checks & I'm proud to have & know others who have an LTC knowing they are law abiding citizens. Again, no one will ban the owning/carrying of handguns in Texas- no way no how. It's a state thing, the Texas legislature would have to make that call.