• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you vote for a candidate who...

Would you vote for a candidate who...

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 11.1%

  • No

    Votes: 16 88.9%
  • Total voters
    18
  • Poll closed .
Ikari said:
Is it a terrorist we like (i.e. like Al Qaeda when we trained them to fight the Russians) or terrorists we don't like (i.e. Al Qaeda when they turned on us)?
Click to expand...

You can explain what cases you would vote for such a candidate?
 
CanadaJohn said:
Depends on the relationship.

Was the unrepentant terrorist an older sibling? A parent? A child?

Were the terrorist sympathies evident before? during? after? the relationship?

In other words, is the relationship with a known unrepentant terrorist a blood relationship, a voluntary one, and/or one known prior to the terrorist's actions?
Click to expand...

Let's say an unrepentant middle aged terrorist. No blood relationship. A political relationship.
 
zimmer said:
Let's say an unrepentant middle aged terrorist. No blood relationship. A political relationship.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't vote for the particular individual you're referring to - I'm smart enough to realize he wasn't up to the job and after four years of on the job proof I certainly woulnd't have doubled down on stupid. That said, it would have nothing to do with who the man associated with.
 
Like this guy?
282ng2o.jpg


14c49j8.jpg
 
Obama directly ordered the assassination of an American citizen without due process. The weather underground may have been reckless violent idiots, but they at least had the decency to give out warnings before they blew up a building. Ayers is a bad person, but he has committed fewer felonies than either of the last two administrations.
 
zimmer said:
... had a relationship with an unrepentant terrorist?
Click to expand...

I think we need a working definition of terrorist before we can answer but a good number of us probably have without knowing it. Others voted for some with one in their cabinet. I don't think I ever have however. Prior to the Bush 41, you'd be surprised at some of the stuff that went on.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Like this guy?
282ng2o.jpg


14c49j8.jpg
Click to expand...
Those working in government securing our freedom and using one group of idiots (like Saddam) as a counterweight to the Iranians during the Cold War doesn't qualify. Agree or disagree, these decisions are in the interest of the nation whether you or I particularly like their choice or not.

I'm looking more at the tolerance level of private individuals who sought the assistance or a relationship with an unrepentant terrorist or terrorists. Could someone... and why would someone vote for an individual with so little character or judgment?
 
obvious Child said:
Didn't we re-elect Reagan?

So, I guess so.
Click to expand...
Oh! So Reagan sought out terrorists before coming to office? Had them as counsel? Did they assist him up the ladder in the Republican Party?
 
zimmer said:
Those working in government securing our freedom and using one group of idiots (like Saddam) as a counterweight to the Iranians during the Cold War doesn't qualify.
Click to expand...

Because you say so?

Terrorism is a method. Whether your goals are noble or not does not change the fact that using terrorism as a method means you are a terrorist.

Agree or disagree, these decisions are in the interest of the nation whether you or I particularly like their choice or not.
Click to expand...

You are not free to unilaterally redefine words to suit your piss poor arguments.

I'm looking more at the tolerance level of private individuals who sought the assistance or a relationship with an unrepentant terrorist or terrorists. Could someone... and why would someone vote for an individual with so little character or judgment?
Click to expand...

Well, we reelected Reagan. And Bush. Both of who had relationships with unrepentant terrorists (or those who funded them).

zimmer said:
Oh! So Reagan sought out terrorists before coming to office? Had them as counsel? Did they assist him up the ladder in the Republican Party?
Click to expand...

Why does before or after being in office matter?

Bush has close ties to the House of Saud, who funds terrorists. And had them before he entered office. They helped bail him out when he drove his baseball team into the ground.

If you think you haven't gotten owned here, you're only kidding yourself.
 
obvious Child said:
Because you say so?
Click to expand...
Yes because I say so. The question in the OP is related to someone who would seek said terrorist out before seeking office.

You are not free to unilaterally redefine words to suit your piss poor arguments.
Click to expand...
I am free to unilaterally define what the thread's thrust is. You don't like it... tough darts.

It's not an "argument" either... the OP stated a question.

Tell me... at what level would you accept a candidate having a relationship with a known terrorist? Would you accept it?
Did you accept it?


Well, we reelected Reagan. And Bush. Both of who had relationships with unrepentant terrorists (or those who funded them).
Click to expand...
Reagan sought out an unrepentant terrorist for counsel? Bush too? How about some meat on them bones.

Why does before or after being in office matter?
Click to expand...
Doh... because in government you sometimes have to deal with evil.

Bush has close ties to the House of Saud, who funds terrorists. And had them before he entered office. They helped bail him out when he drove his baseball team into the ground.
Click to expand...
Bush bought into the team in 1989 and left in 93 or 94. The Islamic terror wave didn't start until after that. Nice try.

If you think you haven't gotten owned here, you're only kidding yourself.
Click to expand...
Like you owned me on taxes (which you self destructed in your very first post), or Autobahns (which you're never driven on), or compact cars... or a whole host of your imaginary "owns".

I'll congratulate you for a first though... you actually didn't twist any words that were posted in order to warp the conversation, but I have the funny feeling that isn't going to last. But... firsts are firsts... CONGRATULATIONS!
 
zimmer said:
Yes because I say so. The question in the OP is related to someone who would seek said terrorist out before seeking office.
Click to expand...

No it's not.

"Would you vote for a candidate who had a relationship with an unrepentant terrorist?"

There isn't a damn thing about before seeking office. You're just adding that because YOU GOT PWNED.

I am free to unilaterally define what the thread's thrust is. You don't like it... tough darts.
Click to expand...

And we're free to point out your dishonesty.

It's not an argument either... the OP stated a question
Click to expand...

Which has absolutely nothing to do with "before seeking office."

Reagan sought out an unrepentant terrorist for counsel? Bush too? How about some meat on them bones.
Click to expand...

I see you are still completely unable to argue without dishonesty.

Here is your OP:

"Would you vote for a candidate who had a relationship with an unrepentant terrorist?"

Where does it say anything about before office?

Doh... because in government you sometimes have to deal with evil.

Bush bought into the team in 1989 and left in 93 or 94. The Islamic terror wave didn't start until after that. Nice try.
Click to expand...

Really? You mean that Islamic terrorists weren't doing anything before '93? Maybe you should ask the Russians how they feel about that statement.

And let's not forget how Saudi Arabia had funded terrorists in Israel. Both small and large groups like the PLO.

I see you are deliberately ignoring my point about how terrorism is a method.

Like you owned me on taxes (which you self destructed in your very first post), or Autobahns (which you're never driven on), or compact cars... or a whole host of your imaginary "owns".
Click to expand...

I see you are still fabricating lies. Anyone can go to those threads and see you are still a huge liar.

I'll congratulate you for a first though... you actually didn't twist any words that were posted in order to warp the conversation, but I have the funny feeling that isn't going to last. But... firsts are firsts... CONGRATULATIONS!
Click to expand...

It's funny trying to watch you pretend you never got pwed.

FYI, once again, here is your OP:

"Would you vote for a candidate who had a relationship with an unrepentant terrorist?"

And yes, the American people have done so. Obama, Bush and Reagan in the last 30 years.
 
Heck - I might vote for an unrepentant terrorist (depending on who he killed) if he would just balance the federal budget, bring the troops home, cut the military budget in half, end the Patriot Act, close Gitmo, end the Fed AND THEN turned himself in for his crimes once his time in office was over (or kill himself - whichever).
 
obvious Child said:
No it's not.

"Would you vote for a candidate who had a relationship with an unrepentant terrorist?"

There isn't a damn thing about before seeking office. You're just adding that because YOU GOT PWNED.
Click to expand...
Hey... don't spill the soup in your pants from excitement.

I'm not adding anything because you fantasize about getting "pawned".

And we're free to point out your dishonesty.
Click to expand...
No dishonesty... some here realize what this thread is about... you seem to be out of the loop, which is normal.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with "before seeking office."
Click to expand...
For me it has everything to do with "before".

I see you are still completely unable to argue without dishonesty.
Click to expand...
The claim of dishonesty coming from perhaps the greatest prevaricator on the site... you have a penchant for twisting what people say into unrecognizable forms as a tool so you can score some type of victory in your own honesty challenged mind.

Here is your OP:

"Would you vote for a candidate who had a relationship with an unrepentant terrorist?"

Where does it say anything about before office?
Click to expand...
As noted... you have been out of the loop, and if I would like to clarify the OP... I can... and did.

Really? You mean that Islamic terrorists weren't doing anything before '93? Maybe you should ask the Russians how they feel about that statement.
Click to expand...
You mean to tell me the ouster of Russians from Afghanistan was brought about by terrorists? Interesting.

And let's not forget how Saudi Arabia had funded terrorists in Israel. Both small and large groups like the PLO.
Click to expand...
Let's have a list of terrorists Reagan and Bush (41 and 43) had a relationship with, used as counsel and assisted his move up the Republican Party ladder.

(Jeopardy theme music... )

I see you are deliberately ignoring my point about how terrorism is a method.
Click to expand...
It's a tool, an action and can be a systematic method used by people like Bill Ayers and his merry group of terrorists and Democrat Consultants.

I see you are still fabricating lies. Anyone can go to those threads and see you are still a huge liar.
Click to expand...
No fabrication... there is a thread on DP illustrating your grand delusions. The best delusion was watching you self destruct on taxes in your first post. It was thanks to your level of arrogance.

It's funny trying to watch you pretend you never got pwed.
Click to expand...
You try so hard OC... but trying hard and failing is still failing.

FYI, once again, here is your OP:

"Would you vote for a candidate who had a relationship with an unrepentant terrorist?"

And yes, the American people have done so. Obama, Bush and Reagan in the last 30 years.
Click to expand...
And there have been clarifications to the OP you obviously chose to ignore.

So... would you vote for a candidate who had a relationship with an unrepentant terrorist? Someone who sought out the relationship with said terrorist? Someone like... Bill Ayers (as was noted on pg 3 of this thread and which you either chose to ignore or failed to read)?
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
Hey... don't spill the soup in your pants from excitement.

I'm not adding anything because you fantasize about getting "pawned".
Click to expand...

Hahha. CC PWNED you so bad that you are now rewriting history as to what you meant. Typical dishonest Zimmer.

No dishonesty... some here realize what this thread is about... you seem to be out of the loop, which is normal.
Click to expand...

Really? Why is it that there are pages of people not agreeing with you then? Seems to me that you got PWNED and are now trying to save your thread by rewriting history as to what you actually meant.

For me it has everything to do with "before".
Click to expand...

Why didn't you write that before then? After all, only after you got PWNED does "before" come up.

The claim of dishonesty coming from perhaps the greatest prevaricator on the site... you have a penchant for twisting what people say into unrecognizable forms as a tool so you can score some type of victory in your own honesty challenged mind.
Click to expand...

Good luck proving that. After you do, bring back some jelly from the magical space pandas in the Sun.

You never learned how to debate. That's why you think I twist words. The concept of examining the logic behind one's arguments for flaws was something you never learned. That ain't my problem.

As noted... you have been out of the loop, and if I would like to clarify the OP... I can... and did.
Click to expand...

Wrong. You got PWNED so now you're trying to somehow get Reagan out of the question. Your bait thread is one of the worst threads DP has ever seen. This *** really should get sewer flushed. You can't even make a decent trap. I'm embarrassed.

You mean to tell me the ouster of Russians from Afghanistan was brought about by terrorists? Interesting.
Click to expand...

Again, terrorism is a method. Whether your goals are noble or not has no bearing upon whether your methods are terrorism or not. The phrase "one man's freedom fighter is anothers terrorist" comes to mind.

It's a tool, an action and can be a systematic method used by people like Bill Ayers and his merry group of terrorists and Democrat Consultants.
Click to expand...

HAHAHA. Ayers is a terrorist but the Contras weren't? You're a riot.

No fabrication... there is a thread on DP illustrating your grand delusions. The best delusion was watching you self destruct on taxes in your first post. It was thanks to your level of arrogance.
Click to expand...

You may want to revisit the past few pages. You got PWNED and everyone knows it.

You try so hard OC... but trying hard and failing is still failing.
Click to expand...

I dunno, right now it looks like you're implicitly saying that the rape and murder of little girls was less bad then palling around with Ayers. You can't be serious. Let's see you come out and STATE that what the Contras did was terrorism and way worse then Ayers. Otherwise, we have no choice but to assume you think the rape and murder of little girls was less worse. You don't want us thinking that do you? Do you?

And there have been clarifications to the OP you obviously chose to ignore.
Click to expand...

Oh I see them. You got PWNED and that's what you're changing your topic. It's also irrelevant.

So... would you vote for a candidate who had a relationship with an unrepentant terrorist? Someone who sought out the relationship with said terrorist? Someone like... Bill Ayers (as was noted on pg 3 of this thread and which you either chose to ignore or failed to read)?
Click to expand...

I didn't and probably wouldn't. But I know you did. So how about you explain why you voted for Bush and Reagan?
 
obvious Child said:
Hahha. CC PWNED you so bad that you are now rewriting history as to what you meant. Typical dishonest Zimmer.
Click to expand...

OC... you are the one being dishonest... read the thread.

Provide links to prove Bush (I & II) and Reagan sought out terrorists before being elected to office. With such a claim, the internet will be full of press stories about their ties to terrorism. Have at it.
 
zimmer said:
...sought out terrorists...
Click to expand...

I can see the Craigslist advert now.

"Future president seeks terrorist advisor to help achive political power. Non-terrorists need not apply."

Problem is, your spin of the story is far removed from the truth. Dig far enough into anyones past and you'll almost always find some dubious connections, especially if they've been involved in politics from a more early age - and if you've a mind to cherrypick from someone's history, you can make them out as whoever you want them to be. That doesn't mean, though, that your descriptions will be an accurate portrayal of their whole character.
 
iangb said:
I can see the Craigslist advert now.

"Future president seeks terrorist advisor to help achive political power. Non-terrorists need not apply."
Click to expand...
One candidate only had to look into his political party machinery to find such a tool.

Problem is, your spin of the story is far removed from the truth. Dig far enough into anyones past and you'll almost always find some dubious connections, especially if they've been involved in politics from a more early age - and if you've a mind to cherrypick from someone's history, you can make them out as whoever you want them to be. That doesn't mean, though, that your descriptions will be an accurate portrayal of their whole character.
Click to expand...

Nice try.
If a republican had sought out a terrorist and then made a lame excuse about being 8 when the terrorist activities occurred... they would have been laughed out of the country for such a juvenile reply, and they would have scorch earthed said candidate... and rightly so!

I think the whole character of someone that seeks out a terrorist that uses bombs is beyond low. This past week reveals what that type of physical carnage terrorism wreaks, and it says nothing for the mental anguish and what it does to society. If someone struggles to understand that... they are not fit for office, and I surely wouldn't want to associate with such a dreg.
 
zimmer said:
Those working in government securing our freedom and using one group of idiots (like Saddam) as a counterweight to the Iranians during the Cold War doesn't qualify. Agree or disagree, these decisions are in the interest of the nation whether you or I particularly like their choice or not.

I'm looking more at the tolerance level of private individuals who sought the assistance or a relationship with an unrepentant terrorist or terrorists. Could someone... and why would someone vote for an individual with so little character or judgment?
Click to expand...

A terrorist is a terrorist. Associating with one for whatever reason demonstrates support for the terrorist. Changing the goalposts now just demonstrates your dishonesty and how badly you've been pwned in this thread. EVERYONE'S seen it and now you are desperately trying to redact you OP. Total failure, zim. You really should think these things through a bit better.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
OC... you are the one being dishonest... read the thread.
Click to expand...

Did. I see you getting repeatedly PWNED. It's blantantly obvious you only added "before" after you got PWNED.

And yes, I'm enjoying this very much. <--- Yes, this is a Youtube Link to the song "Schadenfreude" From the Broadway Show, Avenue Q. Enjoy.

Provide links to prove Bush (I & II) and Reagan sought out terrorists before being elected to office. With such a claim, the internet will be full of press stories about their ties to terrorism. Have at it.
Click to expand...

Oh I ain't playing your dishonest game.

Your OP explicitly stated "Would you vote for a candidate who had a relationship with an unrepentant terrorist?"

Nothing about "before."

And as we have elected Obama, Bush and Reagan, the answer is the American people will and do.

Furthermore, why are you refusing to explain why you voted for candidates who had a relationship with an unrepentant terrorist?

Let's see I wrote this:
"I dunno, right now it looks like you're implicitly saying that the rape and murder of little girls was less bad then palling around with Ayers. You can't be serious. Let's see you come out and STATE that what the Contras did was terrorism and way worse then Ayers. Otherwise, we have no choice but to assume you think the rape and murder of little girls was less worse. You don't want us thinking that do you? Do you?"

As you have explicitly removed that from your reply and refused to state what you believe, I have no choice but to assume you believe the rape and murder of little girls is explicitly LESS BAD to you then Obama's relationship with Ayers. Unless you explicitly clarify this, I will be forced to assume this going forward.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
One candidate only had to look into his political party machinery to find such a tool.

Nice try.
If a republican had sought out a terrorist and then made a lame excuse about being 8 when the terrorist activities occurred... they would have been laughed out of the country for such a juvenile reply, and they would have scorch earthed said candidate... and rightly so!

I think the whole character of someone that seeks out a terrorist that uses bombs is beyond low. This past week reveals what that type of physical carnage terrorism wreaks, and it says nothing for the mental anguish and what it does to society. If someone struggles to understand that... they are not fit for office, and I surely wouldn't want to associate with such a dreg.
Click to expand...
Again, you are implying that Obama deliberately went looking for someone who was a terrorist. I'm certainly not aware of any evidence that this is the case - not even any evidence that Obama went looking for Ayers, never mind that he was on a terrorist-hunt at the time.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
A terrorist is a terrorist. Associating with one for whatever reason demonstrates support for the terrorist. Changing the goalposts now just demonstrates your dishonesty and how badly you've been pwned in this thread. EVERYONE'S seen it and now you are desperately trying to redact you OP. Total failure, zim. You really should think these things through a bit better.
Click to expand...

No it does not.

It simply means that there is a reason that the person was associating with a person who happened to be a terrorist.

Maybe they were old friends - before the other guy became a terrorist.

Maybe they have a mutual friend.

Maybe they have the same accountant.

Maybe they like the same porn.

Maybe they have a mutual prostitute and they are comparing notes.

Maybe they belong to the same encounter group.


Or maybe if the authorities are looking for the terrorist - then it's your business.

But if the terrorist is not wanted by U.S. law enforcement agencies, then maybe it is none of your business who he associates with - including a political candidate.


I care how as candidate stands on the issues that matter to me.

I could care less what he does with his spare time - so long as it is legal.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom