Fallacies in Candidate statements?

I'm working on a project involving fallacious arguments or statements made by each of the four major candidates for president, and I'm in need of help regarding if these statements are fallacious or not.

1. It is not "freedom of the press" when newspapers and others are allowed to say and write whatever they want even if it is completely false!

2. Word is that Crooked Hillary has very small and unenthusiastic crowds in Pennsylvania. Perhaps it is because her husband signed NAFTA?

3. Trump's candidacy alone is undermining our national security. Imagine if he were to become president.

4. A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man you can trust with nuclear weapons.

5. The arbitrary 15% polling threshold for debate inclusion, set by DNC/RNC-controlled debates commission, is illegitimate.

6. Overcoming global hunger using genetic engineering is not credible. Malnutrition is not a problem of food quantity, but of distribution.

7. Today’s federal tax code does all the wrong things. It penalizes productivity, savings and investment, while rewarding inefficiency and designating winners and losers according to political whim.

8. Legalizing and regulating marijuana will save lives and make our communities safer by eliminating crime and creating an industry that can legitimately participate in America’s economy.

Any help is appreciated!

I'll try some of the items:

1. The full argument might be: Newspapers cannot be silenced because of "freedom of the press." Printing false information does not fall under the definition of "freedom of the press." Therefore, newspapers can be restricted from printing false information.

That seems like a sound argument. I don't think it's valid, though, because there are a couple of facts it assumes that are questionable. First, "freedom of the press" does not include printing false information. Some people will suggest that it does, that there are other avenues for redress if the falsehood is intentional and intended to harm (libel). Second, newspapers are printing false information. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't.

2. I think this is a hasty generalization. The argument "Bill Clinton signed NAFTA, Pennsylvanians don't like NAFTA, therefore Pennsylvanians don't support Hillary at her rallies," even if all the facts are true, suggests that just because Pennsylvanians don't like NAFTA, they don't like Hillary Clinton. There may be many people in PA who don't like NAFTA, but like other things Hillary stands for (or doesn't want Trump elected).

www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/45/Argument_by_Emotive_Language

Read this, then read the candidate's answers.

Tell me how they differ, if at all now ok?