• 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 .
CaptainCourtesy said:
A terrorist is a terrorist. Associating with one for whatever reason demonstrates support for the terrorist.
Click to expand...
So Democrats support terrorism at some level. OK... I accept the obvious.

Tell me... you're a professional psychobabbler... how do you explain this? Is it power at all costs? Did the voters believe Ayers was not associated with Obama? Did they think he used Nerf Bombs? How does a political party promote someone who sought out a domestic terrorist for assistance up the Democrat Party ladder? How does that happen, when something like Bush 43's supposed AWOL story or DUI was grounds to disqualify him from office?

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 changing goal posts, and there would have been no need for this thread had a simple question not been sent to the nether-lands.

As some here realized (right from the start)... it was a lawyerly move of asking the same question in a manner that appeases the court. As we went along... I made clarifications to questions asked. You failed to realize this... are you telling me the post went over your head?

I'm not surprised.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
So Democrats support terrorism at some level.
Click to expand...

Pretty much every administration and Congress the US has supported some form of terrorism against someone. Pretty much every STATE in HISTORY has supported some form of terrorism against someone.

Terrorism once again is a method. Noble or not goals do not change the methods.

No changing goal posts, and there would have been no need for this thread had a simple question not been sent to the nether-lands.
Click to expand...

Nether-lands? Under your OWN CRITERIA, Reagan and Bush qualify. You voted for both, how about you explain why you voted for candidates with terrorist relationships?

Your bait thread has collapsed under its own pathetic framework. Rather then make this about Obama, your own criteria has backfired and in a way that makes one of your idols look really bad. You can't stand this, nor do you want to admit it, so you are now trying to pretend it was about "before" their time in office even thought your OP said nothing of the sort. Own up for a change.

As some here realized (right from the start)... it was a lawyerly move of asking the same question in a manner that appeases the court. As we went along... I made clarifications to questions asked. You failed to realize this... are you telling me the post went over your head?
Click to expand...

Too bad this is not how it's done here. Furthermore, even if we still do it, Bush qualifies as he had strong ties to the House of Saud. You voted for him despite that. Explain why.

Furthermore, at this point, I am assuming based on your adamant refusal to clarify your position of the Contras that you consider the rape and murder of children to be less bad than Obama's old relationship with Mr. Ayers.
 
zimmer said:
So Democrats support terrorism at some level.
Click to expand...

So, Republicans support terrorism at some level.


No changing goal posts, and there would have been no need for this thread had a simple question not been sent to the nether-lands.
Click to expand...

Of course you did. Your OP had no qualifications. Once you got pwned, you altered your parameters to meet your agenda.

As some here realized (right from the start)... it was a lawyerly move of asking the same question in a manner that appeases the court. As we went along... I made clarifications to questions asked. You failed to realize this... are you telling me the post went over your head?

I'm not surprised.
Click to expand...

You tried to bait people into a specific response... and when that didn't work out for you, you changed the parameters of your question. You are now being dishonest... which is not surprising.
 
DA60 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Maybe they had similar political sentiments and forged a kinship where one sought out and gained from the experience and connections of the other. Is this the type of candidate you would vote for?
 
DA60 said:
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.
Click to expand...

In the context of the OP, my post is on target. As is yours.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
So, Republicans support terrorism at some level.
Click to expand...

Tell me of a candidate before coming to office that forged a relationship with a known and unrepentant terrorist, or even a known and repentant terrorist.

I recall the Republicans put up a firewall against former Democrat David Duke.


Of course you did. Your OP had no qualifications. Once you got pwned, you altered your parameters to meet your agenda. You tried to bait people into a specific response... and when that didn't work out for you, you changed the parameters of your question. You are now being dishonest... which is not surprising.
Click to expand...

No... I clarified when people asked questions... and you well know why the OP is phrased as it is... but honesty was never your strong suit, though it is a bit stronger than OC.

Or are you so ignorant as to believe the claim quoted above?
 
zimmer said:
Maybe they had similar political sentiments and forged a kinship where one sought out and gained from the experience and connections of the other. Is this the type of candidate you would vote for?
Click to expand...

Nowhere as bad as someone who puts a man who started a rumor that his primary candidate opponent's adopted daughter was really the illegitimate child with a black stripper in charge. And that was relatively recently. And he kept that same person on staff for years. Really, a man with effectively no morals whatsoever running your various campaigns, including your Presidential election and reelection, doesn't that cause more red flags then the guy you used to hang around with decades ago who you don't talk to anymore?

As opposed to Ayer's relationship which was literally decades ago.

People change. But the company you keep says much. I'd put far more emphasis on the current hired help then on the guy you talked to when you first started.

That said, I vote for "Maybe they like the same porn."
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
Tell me of a candidate before coming to office that forged a relationship with a known and unrepentant terrorist, or even a known and repentant terrorist.

I recall the Republicans put up a firewall against former Democrat David Duke.
Click to expand...

I already posted a picture of one.

No... I clarified when people asked questions... and you well know why the OP is phrased as it is... but honesty was never your strong suit, though it is a bit stronger than OC.

Or are you so ignorant as to believe the claim quoted above?
Click to expand...

You are dishonest enough to alter your parameters when you don't get the answer you want. It's how you debate. You wanted an answer. You didn't get it... so you attempted to change your question to GET the answer you want. EVERYONE sees it zim. You are so transparent.
 
zimmer said:
No... I clarified when people asked questions... and you well know why the OP is phrased as it is... but honesty was never your strong suit, though it is a bit stronger than OC.
Click to expand...

You have to be completely gullible to believe that.

You got PWNED and now you are trying to change the framework to get the answers you want.
 
zimmer said:
Maybe they had similar political sentiments and forged a kinship where one sought out and gained from the experience and connections of the other. Is this the type of candidate you would vote for?
Click to expand...

If a candidate chooses to hang around with ANYONE - so long as they are not wanted by American authorities - then it is none of my business.

I care about how they stand on the issues that matter to me - virtually nothing else.
 
zimmer said:
Maybe they had similar political sentiments and forged a kinship where one sought out and gained from the experience and connections of the other. Is this the type of candidate you would vote for?
Click to expand...

This is known as the "association logical fallacy". Let's see a few others who "associated" with known terrorist:

Thatcher and Arafat.jpg
Thatcher and Arafat

ronald-reagan-meets-the-taliban.jpg
Reagan and the Taliban

bush_noriega.jpg
Bush with Noriega

See how easy it is? The association logical fallacy. Great way to make a non-existent point... exactly what zimmer is doing.
 
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...

I'm not so thinking so much about the relationship with the 'idiot' as making some sort of symboliic statement on the kind of friends we have so political opponents can use that as fodder during elections as say 'such and such pals around with fill-in-the-blank but an enabling relationship that made us complicit in atrocities ongoingly against innocent people. US supported rape rooms and mass graves.

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...

Translation: we're addicted to oil, we been addicted to oil for decades and people who actively resist breaking the oil oligopoly should be ashamed of themselves and need to think about all the people who have suffered unspeakable cruelty because we've not only refused to support other personal transportation options but have actively opposed them.

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...

I can't help but to think of the blatant double standards we apply to 'their' candidates while ignoring our own. Right and wrong isn't about principle but who's team are they on.
 
DA60 said:
If a candidate chooses to hang around with ANYONE - so long as they are not wanted by American authorities - then it is none of my business.

I care about how they stand on the issues that matter to me - virtually nothing else.
Click to expand...

So an admitted, unrepentant terrorist who said he didn't do enough, an unrepentant terrorist who got off on a technicality is none of your business when a political candidate seeks out this individual's assistance up the political ladder? Really? Has no impact?

That isn't an "issue" for you?
OK.
 
Smeagol said:
I'm not so thinking so much about the relationship with the 'idiot' as making some sort of symboliic statement on the kind of friends we have so political opponents can use that as fodder during elections as say 'such and such pals around with fill-in-the-blank but an enabling relationship that made us complicit in atrocities ongoingly against innocent people. US supported rape rooms and mass graves.
Click to expand...

Who your friends are reflects who you are. Obama chose Ayers knowing full well the idiot was a terrorist.

I don't know of a Republican candidate that sought out an unrepentant terrorist who hated his country so much as to bomb it, and then use said idiot to help make his way up the Democratic Party ladder. Do you?
 
Personally, I could care less about being seen in the same photo with a despot. IMHO that's political gotcha junk. What matters to me is did we offer material support for despots that were used to committ murder and rape after knowing full well these are the kind of things they do with their power.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
This is known as the "association logical fallacy". Let's see a few others who "associated" with known terrorist:

View attachment 67146448
Thatcher and Arafat

View attachment 67146449
Reagan and the Taliban

View attachment 67146450
Bush with Noriega

See how easy it is? The association logical fallacy. Great way to make a non-existent point... exactly what zimmer is doing.
Click to expand...

Not so easy... were they in their roles as elected officials? Yes.

Obama was seeking office and sought out Ayers... a terrorist who hated his country so much as to bomb it.

Nice try at psychobabbling... we are making progress... we are getting a peek into the Lib mind and how they rationalize the Ayers/Obama relationship. If you were on the board reviewing whether criminals should be released... I think many would want you on their case.
 
zimmer said:
Who your friends are reflects who you are. Obama chose Ayers knowing full well the idiot was a terrorist.

I don't know of a Republican candidate that sought out an unrepentant terrorist who hated his country so much as to bomb it, and then use said idiot to help make his way up the Democratic Party ladder. Do you?
Click to expand...

I respect your position but I think there's a difference between 'using' someone who did bad things decades ago and helping people do bad things going forward after knowing the tpe of people they are.
 
zimmer said:
So an admitted, unrepentant terrorist who said he didn't do enough, an unrepentant terrorist who got off on a technicality is none of your business when a political candidate seeks out this individual's assistance up the political ladder? Really? Has no impact?

That isn't an "issue" for you?
OK.
Click to expand...

So long as the 'terrorist' is not wanted by the authorities in any way - then what he does with the candidate...providing it is legal and does not interfere with how a candidate stands on an issue that is important to me...is virtually irrelevant to me.

How many times do I have to say it before you understand?
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
Who your friends are reflects who you are. Obama chose Ayers knowing full well the idiot was a terrorist.

I don't know of a Republican candidate that sought out an unrepentant terrorist who hated his country so much as to bomb it, and then use said idiot to help make his way up the Democratic Party ladder. Do you?
Click to expand...

No it doesn't - not necessarily.

I have friends that do things that I do not agree with.

I like them as people, but I do not agree with what they do, nor would I support that part of their lives in any way.
 
zimmer said:
Not so easy... were they in their roles as elected officials? Yes.

Obama was seeking office and sought out Ayers... a terrorist who hated his country so much as to bomb it. Nice try at psychobabbling... we are making progress... we are getting a peek into the Lib mind and how they rationalize the Ayers/Obama relationship.
Click to expand...

Terrorists who these important conservatives associated with. We are getting a peak into the hypocritical and dishonest mind with each and every one of your posts, zim. See, in your world, it's OK for a conservative to associate with a terrorist... who just might be a powerful dictator and give him some aid to continue his terrorism or dictatorship. Where's your outrage, zim? Reagan HELPED the Taliban. Was he stupid? Did he do it for political gain? Why would he help terrorists? Why did Thatcher associate with Arafat a KNOWN terrorist? And look at how buddy-buddy Bush is with Noriega. These conservative leaders had a direct impact on these terrorists/dictators staying in power. Where's your outrage, zim?

This thread didn't turn out as you expected, did it? :lol: So easy to pwn, you are.
 
DA60 said:
So long as the 'terrorist' is not wanted by the police in any way - then what he does with the candidate...providing it is legal and does not interfere with how a candidate stands on an issue that is important to me...is virtually irrelevant to me.

How many times do I have to say it before you understand?
Click to expand...

Even if you say it a million, he won't. He has an agenda. His agenda has been exposed so he's now altering his premise to fit it.
 
Smeagol said:
I respect your position but I think there's a difference between 'using' someone who did bad things decades ago and helping people do bad things going forward after knowing the tpe of people they are.
Click to expand...

You see, in the world of presidential politics things like this do matter. Hell, such a deviant playing the role of King Maker at the local level should be denounced as ferociously as at the national level.

The problem is more than compounded as Ayers used bombs as a weapon of terrorism, and he is unrepentant.

It's no small character flaw on the part of Obama and others.
 
DA60 said:
No it doesn't - not necessarily.

I have friends that do things that I do not agree with.

I like them as people, but I do not agree with what they do, nor would I support that part of their lives in any way.
Click to expand...

None of your friends are terrorists, and I doubt you would associate with an unrepentant terrorist, unless it was your duty to do so.

The questions continue... why would a political party turn a blind eye to a blatant cancer like that?
 
zimmer said:
You see, in the world of presidential politics things like this do matter. Hell, such a deviant playing the role of King Maker at the local level should be denounced as ferociously as at the national level.

The problem is more than compounded as Ayers used bombs as a weapon of terrorism, and he is unrepentant.

It's no small character flaw on the part of Obama and others.
Click to expand...

IMHO you're having selective amnesia to hold Obama to account for using Bill Ayers to advance his political career in light of the sometimes troubling reality of Chicago politics when someone like Ayers can believe or not actually help you get elected to local office. Then turn a blind eye to not just PAST acts but associating with some of the most evil people alive in assisting them in carrying out future atrocities. Its difficult for me to think the political apologists who operate with two very different standards have any credibility and are either woefully ignorant of the histories of their side's heroes or they actually think the people they talk to are dumb as rocks and can be easily manipulated into despising anybody on the other team's side who decide to carry out a vilification campaign against. Again, using someone who did bad things in the past for your own gain is way different that helping someone do far more horrible things in the present (rape rooms, mass graves, torture, decapitations and chopping off limbs all on a grand scale and ongoingly) cannot even be compared but they ignore the later. Then they want me to take the pandering that insults my intelligence they're handing me and vote for their side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom