[POLL] U.S. Presidential Election 2016

[RevPokemon]

It is a correction! You said he's forcing people out, I corrected you and said he's forcing illegal immigrants out.

immigrants are people tho

 

[Foxi4]

It is a correction! You said he's forcing people out, I corrected you and said he's forcing illegal immigrants out.

Illegal immigrants are a subset of people.

 

[Viri]

Illegal immigrants are a subset of people.

They're people?

 

[RevPokemon]

They're people?

For the love of God, I hope you are trolling.

 

[Foxi4]

They're people?

Yes, they're people - human beings, thus a retraction is unnecessary on Lacius' part since he didn't make a mistake. I wish your parents made a retraction though. It's people like you who make right-wing supporters look retarded.

 

[Subtle Demise]

My ideal candidate would at least attempt the following during their term:
* repeal the patriot act
* abolish the dea and repeal the controlled substances act and any laws associated with it
* end all military involvement with any nation that is not a direct threat to u.s. soil
* direct intelligence efforts abroad and not on u.s. citizens
*make it so that the executive branch no longer has any "emergency powers" while also nullifying any executive order that infringes any entity's civil rights
*reform the electoral process to allow for more than two parties

 

[RevPokemon]

Yes, they're people - human beings, thus a retraction is unnecessary on Lacius' part. I wish your parents made a retraction though.

That is one of the funniest comments that I have ever read on GBATemp!

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

My ideal candidate would at least attempt the following during their term:
* repeal the patriot act
* abolish the dea and repeal the controlled substances act and any laws associated with it
* end all military involvement with any nation that is not a direct threat to u.s. soil
* direct intelligence efforts abroad and not on u.s. citizens
*make it so that the executive branch no longer has any "emergency powers" while also nullifying any executive order that infringes any entity's civil rights
*reform the electoral process to allow for more than two parties

Only Jill Stein or maybe Gary Johnson would do all of that.

 

[Foxi4]

That is one of the funniest comments that I have ever read on GBATemp!

Thank you. I shamelessly stole the joke from classic Maddox, it seemed fitting.

 

[Lacius]

I have no evidence of impropriety, I already admitted that. As for the accusation of sexism, I'm merely interested in what makes humans tick - I'm not claiming either sex is superior.

You are claiming, however, that Secretary Clinton engaged or likely engaged in a negative behavior on the basis of her sex. Stereotyping is a qualification for sexism. If I believed in a god, I would pray that this doesn't turn into another discussion about semantics.

Regarding the probability fallacy, that was your argument against certain guns, was it not? Lowering the probability of mass shootings taking place and the deathtolls when they do pre-emptively?

You are claiming a person did something because you think her sex makes it likely she would do that thing. That's a probabilistic fallacy. Acknowledging the probabilities of mass shootings with or without gun restriction is not a probabilistic fallacy; I am not claiming that something is true because there's a higher probability of it being true.

It is a correction! You said he's forcing people out, I corrected you and said he's forcing illegal immigrants out.

Echoing the posts above mine, illegal immigrants are indeed people, regardless of whether or not you like them or think they should be here.

 

[Foxi4]

You are claiming, however, that Secretary Clinton engaged or likely engaged in a negative behavior on the basis of her sex. Stereotyping is a qualification for sexism. If I believed in a god, I would pray that this doesn't turn into another discussion about semantics.

Points for a cheeky joke. If that's how it came across, I do apologise - I was merely stating that she'd be the first case of a woman completely oblivious to her husband's operations and with no influence over them, even unintended influence resulting from passing comments, that I know of. They're people - surely they talk about work over coffee and cereal in the morning. I find her "complete lack of involvement" unlikely, but that's my opinion, not fact, and I don't present it as fact.

You are claiming a person did something because you think her sex makes it likely she would do that thing. That's a probabilistic fallacy. Acknowledging the probabilities of mass shootings with or without gun restriction is not a probabilistic fallacy; I am not claiming that something is true because there's a higher probability of it being true.

I'm saying that it's likely, not that it's a fact. I have no evidence, thus I didn't form a direct accusation, rather presented an opinion - jokingly so at that. I mentioned scientific research pertaining female psyche as an interesting tidbit relevant to the conversation, not so much as an argument. Both cases are the same thing in my book, neither of us has conclusive evidence that our opinions on either matter are correct as future performance is not predicated on past results.

 

[Lacius]

Points for a cheeky joke. If that's how it came across, I do apologise - I was merely stating that she'd be the first case of a woman completely oblivious to her husband's operations and with no influence over them, even unintended influence resulting from passing comments, that I know of. They're people - surely they talk about work over coffee and cereal in the morning. I find her "complete lack of involvement" unlikely, but that's my opinion, not fact, and I don't present it as fact.
I'm saying that it's likely, not that it's a fact. I have no evidence, thus I didn't form a direct accusation, rather presented an opinion - jokingly so at that. I mentioned scientific research pertaining female psyche as an interesting tidbit relevant to the conversation, not so much as an argument. Both cases are the same thing in my book, neither of us has conclusive evidence that our opinions on either matter are correct as future performance is not predicated on past results.

Excuse me then. I thought you were arguing this as an example of something scandalous Clinton had done.

On an unrelated note, Missouri is having its non-presidential primary today, and this was on my ballot:

Spoiler

 

[RevPokemon]

On an unrelated note, Missouri is having its non-presidential primary today, and this was on my ballot:

Dubie seems like a great leader with good ideals that will help your state.

(Joking)

 

[Foxi4]

I'm on-board with The Chief. My uncle always said that "if things can't get better, they should at least get funnier". I'd smoke a doobie with Wana Dubie.

 

[Lacius]

I'd consider smoking a doobie with Dubie, but I didn't vote for him. For those who didn't catch it, Dubie is running to unseat Blunt.

 

[RevPokemon]

I'd consider smoking a doobie with Dubie, but I didn't vote for him. For those who didn't catch it, Dubie is running to unseat Blunt.

Yes but it would be great if he did win so he could say 'Pass the Blunt get the Dubie!".

 

[Foxi4]

Yes but it would be great if he did win so he could say 'Pass the Blunt get the Dubie!".

The inauguration party would increase carbon emissions of the state by 90%. Not that I care - I despise the environment. ;O;

 

[Lacius]

Yes but it would be great if he did win so he could say 'Pass the Blunt get the Dubie!".

The inauguration party would increase carbon emissions of the state by 90%. Not that I care - I despise the environment. ;O;

Sorry, but Chief Wana Dubie only got about 9.5% of the Democratic vote.

 

[RevPokemon]

Sorry, but Chief Wana Dubie only got about 9.5% of the Democratic vote.

To be honest that sounds pretty solid for a joke candidate in a major party primary. (Vermin Supreme 2020 VP?)

Edit: No that is not too good as I realized that Missouri has open primaries so it was probably mostly mischief making Republicans.

 

[Foxi4]

9.5% is pretty significant. Look at his face.

 

[Lacius]

9.5% is pretty significant. Look at his face.

9.5% in a low-turnout primary election isn't very significant. To put it another way, he got 30,340 votes out of about 6.1 million Missourians.