[POLL] Who are/would you vote for United States President?

[grossaffe]

I was very clear what I meant before that.

It was clear you meant to spin things as you've been doing for 38 pages.

 

[Lacius]

It was clear you meant to spin things as you've been doing for 38 pages.

First, he wasn't asked to pick a foreign leader he agrees with 100%; he was asked to pick a foreign leader whom he likes. Is he so much of a politician that he can't say a name without fear that he will ruffle some Libertarian feathers? Second, and by Johnson's admission, there are foreign leaders he likes but doesn't know their names, so your defense of him is moot.

Nice try.

 

[RevPokemon]

• She called the TPP the gold standard of trade agreements before it was negotiated and controversial.
• Fainting isn't disqualifying.
• She had both and never claimed that what was pneumonia was actually allergies.
  • If you did any reading, you would know she was not contagious.
• She didn't break any laws using the server. It's why she wasn't indicted.
• The primaries weren't rigged, and there's no reason to think she would have even been involved with it if they had been. Liking DWS doesn't demonstrate anything. That's a guilt by association fallacy.
• So?
• Her superpredators comment wasn't good, but it's not disqualifying, it was a long time ago, and it has no bearing on her policy positions. There's a reason why she has overwhelming support from the black community.
• Having a super PAC in an election that necessitates it doesn't mean she doesn't want to repeat Citizens United. She's been very clear about it. Obama had a super PAC, but he wants Citizens United gone too, and he has nominated justices who would be likely to do just that.

It's like you're not trying.

I would add the does it matter issue but it is not about if it is illegal but it is about if her actions embarrassed her or potrayed her in negative light and with regards to the secret talks with Goldman Sachs, the reversal of the Tpp supports, her emails, that comment durring benghazi, and the deplorables and now the basement dwellers,the amswer is whether fair or not her statements or actions have done just that.

You can go back and read my previous posts on the email story, because I'm not going to do it again just because a Johnson-support is sad his candidate makes idiotic mistakes and needs to spin away from that

pot meet kettle. Regardles that mentality is what the liberal media has been doing recently to Stein and Johnson and it is BS.

 

[I pwned U!]

She called the TPP the gold standard of trade agreements before it was negotiated and controversial.

Yet she made a fool of herself by denying it in the debate.

Fainting isn't disqualifying.

Again, you asked when she made a fool of herself, not when she did or did not do anything disqualifying.

She had both and never claimed that what was pneumonia was actually allergies.

At first, she implied that it was only allergies.

If you did any reading, you would know she was not contagious.

If you did any reading, you would know that she was contagious.

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/1069.aspx?CategoryID=69

She didn't break any laws using the server. It's why she wasn't indicted.

She did break laws, but she is "Too Big to Jail," and the FBI never had any intention of prosecuting her in the first place.

The primaries weren't rigged, and there's no reason to think she would have even been involved with it if they had been. Liking DWS doesn't demonstrate anything. That's a guilt by association fallacy.

By thinking Bernie supporters will vote for her, she is making a fool of herself.

So?

So, she made a fool of herself.

There's a reason why she has overwhelming support from the black community.

Is it comfortable living under your rock?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-florida-black-voters-228822

This also talks about black support as a whole.

Having a super PAC in an election that necessitates it doesn't mean she doesn't want to repeat Citizens United. She's been very clear about it. Obama had a super PAC, but he wants Citizens United gone too, and he has nominated justices who would be likely to do just that.

She still made a fool of herself.

It's like you're not trying.

It's like you're oblivious to reality. (because you are)

 

[vayanui8]

First, he wasn't asked to pick a foreign leader he agrees with 100%; he was asked to pick a foreign leader whom he likes. Is he so much of a politician that he can't say a name without fear that he will ruffle some Libertarian feathers? Second, and by Johnson's admission, there are foreign leaders he likes but doesn't know their names, so your defense of him is moot.
.

Or maybe there just aren't any other leaders in the world that represent the same ideals as him, so he doesn't have any he likes. I'm not even a Johnson supporter but I don't see how this would be an issue. Its hard enough to find a politician I like here in the US where we still represent some of the ideals I believe in, much less in other parts of the world that don't represent them at all.

 

[Lacius]

I would add the does it matter issue but it is not about if it is illegal but it is about if her actions embarrassed her or potrayed her in negative light and with regards to the secret talks with Goldman Sachs

Giving paid speeches is neither disqualifying nor embarrassing.

the reversal of the Tpp supports, her emails

See above about how these are non-issues.

that comment durring benghazi

What comment?

and the deplorables

Not a politically savvy comment, but it also wasn't untrue, and it's not disqualifying.

pot meet kettle. Regardles that mentality is what the liberal media has been doing recently to Stein and Johnson and it is BS.

Nobody asked Johnson and Stein to make idiotic comments.

Yet she made a fool of herself by denying it in the debate.

She wasn't wrong in the debate. See what I said previously.

Again, you asked when she made a fool of herself, not when she did or did not do anything disqualifying.

Fainting has no bearing on this election. It's not disqualifying. It's not foolish. It's fainting. This is grasping at straws.

At first, she implied that it was only allergies.

I'd like a source for this. She never claimed that what was pneumonia was allergies.

If you did any reading, you would know that she was contagious.

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/1069.aspx?CategoryID=69

If you had read the doctor's report, you would have seen that it was a mild non-contagious bacterial pneumonia.

She did break laws, but she is "Too Big to Jail," and the FBI never had any intention of prosecuting her in the first place.

Which laws?

By thinking Bernie supporters will vote for her, she is making a fool of herself.

She has over 91% of the Bernie supporters, according to an August report. So, it looks like she's not the fool here. Good thing you're not running for president.

So, she made a fool of herself.

She didn't. I suggest you reread the timeline of what happened.

Is it comfortable living under your rock?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-florida-black-voters-228822

This also talks about black support as a whole.

You tell me.

She still made a fool of herself.

I'm not sure how. Do you know how super PACs work?

Or maybe there just aren't any other leaders in the world that represent the same ideals as him, so he doesn't have any he likes. I'm not even a Johnson supporter but I don't see how this would be an issue. Its hard enough to find a politician I like here in the US where we still represent some of the ideals I believe in, much less in other parts of the world that don't represent them at all.

This point was already addressed here.

 

[Engert]

It was clear you meant to spin things as you've been doing for 38 pages.

Lacius is a professional troll. One of the best in the business I must add and he's very entertaining to watch troll you all.
He also has trust and secrecy issues which is why he immediately connects to people like Hillary who are professional sociopaths with a rough childhood like hillarys mother.

 

[Lacius]

Lacius is a professional troll. One of the best in the business I must add and he's very entertaining to watch troll you all.
He also has trust and secrecy issues which is why he immediately connects to people like Hillary who are professional sociopaths with a rough childhood like hillarys mother.

Yeah, I'm the troll.

 

[RevPokemon]

Giving paid speeches is neither disqualifying nor embarrassing

The thing with these points is that it does not matter if it is illegal or disqualifying. The thing we are addressing is she if she has said or acted in a way that brought negative attention to her self. In some of those cases they might have been blown out to an extent BUT regardless they caused negative reaction on her. Plus for what it is worth when we ask what is disqualifying it is much up to your own perspective

 

[Lacius]

The thing with these points is that it does not matter if it is illegal or disqualifying. The thing we are addressing is she if she has said or acted in a way that brought negative attention to her self. In some of those cases they might have been blown out to an extent BUT regardless they caused negative reaction on her. Plus for what it is worth when we ask what is disqualifying it is much up to your own perspective

Negative attention isn't indicative of whether or not a person is qualified to be president.

 

[The Cringe]

Yeah, I'm the troll.

Yay, you finally get it!!!

 

[RevPokemon]

Negative attention isn't indicative of whether or not a person is qualified to be president.

I was reffering to when you stated

"I would like it very much if you could find something comparable to what Johnson said, preferably something within the last, say, four years."

So I did. I did not say those things were disqualifying or not. Regardless what you consider to be disqualifing is subjective to each persons opinion.

 

[Lacius]

Yay, you finally get it!!!
View attachment 64570

I suggest you look at the italicized I'm and how it's indicative of sarcasm.

Pointing out the facts as I see them doesn't fit any definition of trolling that I'm aware of. I'm not trying to elicit any sort of negative emotional response from my posts. I'm merely participating in political discourse. Please learn the difference before posting something that makes you look silly.

I was reffering to when you stated

"I would like it very much if you could find something comparable to what Johnson said, preferably something within the last, say, four years."

So I did. I did not say those things were disqualifying or not. Regardless what you consider to be disqualifing is subjective to each persons opinion.

Here's a reminder of what we were talking about:

I could use those past experiences of Clinton and say they are disqualifying and have no problem. To say you can overlock those faults of hers and then condemn Johnson is absurd.

 

[I pwned U!]

I'm not trying to elicit any sort of negative emotional response from my posts.

Then how do you explain this?

Disrespectful to a few members for no reason.-Ska

 

[Lacius]

Then how do you explain this?

I have no idea what that is.

 

[I pwned U!]

I have no idea what that is.

It is a former staff member editing out your disrespectful post.

 

[Lacius]

It is a former staff member editing out your disrespectful post.

I cannot verify that it was disrespectful.

Edit: If it was disrespectful, I didn't mean for it to be. If I were a troll, I'm sure a lot more than one post would be disrespectful.

 

[I pwned U!]

I cannot verify that it was disrespectful.

There is no need to, because someone with authority here already did.

 

[RevPokemon]

It is a former staff member editing out your disrespectful post.

I cannot verify that it was disrespectful.

If it was disrespectful then @Lacius then you probably would have been PM'd or have a warning mark

 

[Lacius]

There is no need to, because someone with authority here already did.

Forgive me if I don't accept that it was disrespectful without knowing what I said. Disrespectful is not my M.O. Pointing out what I see as the facts is my M.O. Calling out bullshit is my M.O. Being blunt is my M.O. Also, see above. This is all irrelevant even if the one post had accidentally gone too far.

If it was disrespectful then @Lacius then you probably would have been PM'd or have a warning mark

I received no such PM. I didn't notice it until now.