[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sanji Himura
  • 10,343 comments
  • 525,541 views

The party nominees are named. Now who do you support?


  • Total voters
    278
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lookie at what Hillary was caught wearing last night at the Presidential Forum:

Cr1FrM1WcAAzjMz.jpg


In case you don't know what that pearl thing is in her ear, that is an earpiece, not a hearing aid, as many I am sure are bound to suggest. This was a leaked email from Huma Abedin back in 2009 that suggested that Hillary wore one while Secretary of State.

earpiece.png
 
If he doesn't know the name of the craphole he's less likely to drag the US into said craphole.
I think we could probably agree that we'd rather he know about it and deliberately not drag the country into a craphole, than to be in the dark about said craphole and not get involved due to ignorance:lol:. I thought it was a little off the rails the other day when he flipped out about an interviewer using the term "illegal aliens".
 
I think we could probably agree that we'd rather he know about it and deliberately not drag the country into a craphole, than to be in the dark about said craphole and not get involved due to ignorance:lol:.

He's not ignorant of what's going on in Syria, he's just not memorizing every last detail. Fine, good, stay out of it. I want the President to focus on things the US government should actually do. He or she does not need to know the name of every craphole in the world. Even the US has too many crapholes to know the name of each one. So once again I say good, that's the right answer... what is Aleppo... I give it an A+.


I don't know about the flipping out episode. Please link.

Edit: Alright, found it. Both sides have a point. Something ticked him off.
 
Last edited:
He's not ignorant of what's going on in Syria, he's just not memorizing every last detail. Fine, good, stay out of it. I want the President to focus on things the US government should actually do. He or she does not need to know the name of every craphole in the world. Even the US has too many crapholes to know the name of each one. So once again I say good, that's the right answer... what is Aleppo... I give it an A+.


I don't know about the flipping out episode. Please link.

Edit: Alright, found it. Both sides have a point. Something ticked him off.
It reminded me of SJW's flipping out over semantics rather than just focusing on the subject at hand and dealing with the truth.
 
It reminded me of SJW's flipping out over semantics rather than just focusing on the subject at hand and dealing with the truth.

These guys do a lot of interviews. At some point someone is going to get on your nerves. That one is still preferable to any Trump or Clinton interview.
 
I had no idea where or what Aleppo is either, nor do I really care. I don't think the US needs to get involved in yet another conflict in the Middle East that will end up costing American lives and tax dollars.

I do find it funny how irritated people are getting over this. I'm guessing if you stopped and asked a 100 random people on the street if they knew where or what Aleppo was, most of them wouldn't have a clue.

I admit Johnson is far from perfect, but there are actual legitimate things you can fault him for instead of running him through the wringer over a slip up during an interview. I'm sure I could easily find an interview of Trump or Clinton slipping up too...oh wait, Clinton doesn't actually give interviews so maybe I can't.
 
I had no idea where or what Aleppo is either, nor do I really care. I don't think the US needs to get involved in yet another conflict in the Middle East that will end up costing American lives and tax dollars.

I do find it funny how irritated people are getting over this. I'm guessing if you stopped and asked a 100 random people on the street if they knew where or what Aleppo was, most of them wouldn't have a clue.

I admit Johnson is far from perfect, but there are actual legitimate things you can fault him for instead of running him through the wringer over a slip up during an interview. I'm sure I could easily find an interview of Trump or Clinton slipping up too...oh wait, Clinton doesn't actually give interviews so maybe I can't.

Too late, we already got involved just no that involved if you know what I mean.
 
I've been searching and haven't come up with an article on that. Could you or @Johnnypenso be so kind as to supply a link?


I had no idea where or what Aleppo is either, nor do I really care. I don't think the US needs to get involved in yet another conflict in the Middle East that will end up costing American lives and tax dollars.

I do find it funny how irritated people are getting over this. I'm guessing if you stopped and asked a 100 random people on the street if they knew where or what Aleppo was, most of them wouldn't have a clue.

I admit Johnson is far from perfect, but there are actual legitimate things you can fault him for instead of running him through the wringer over a slip up during an interview. I'm sure I could easily find an interview of Trump or Clinton slipping up too...oh wait, Clinton doesn't actually give interviews so maybe I can't.
I think there's a fairly high expectation that any candidate for POTUS is going to be aware of all the global hotspots for various issues. What they do about those hotspots is a different matter.

EDIT: Tree'd:) Same link too!
 
I think there's a fairly high expectation that any candidate for POTUS is going to be aware of all the global hotspots for various issues. What they do about those hotspots is a different matter.

I'm sure he knows where Aleppo is and it's significance, people can easily get thrown off during interviews especially if they aren't wearing a wire that feeds them answers like Clinton. He admitted to his mistake and I'm sure if he was given the chance to actually debate, he'd offer some clarity regarding his slip up.

 
I think there's a fairly high expectation that any candidate for POTUS is going to be aware of all the global hotspots for various issues.

Not from me there isn't. There are a lot of barbarians shooting at each other around the world, I don't think our president needs to know every detail about all of them, nor do I want them to. Should someone somewhere on the president's staff know what Aleppo is? Yea. Does the president need to know? Not unless we're actually going to get involved... and we shouldn't... so no.

This, to me, underscores how out of touch the American public is with the job of running this country. We do not run the world people, nor should we. The notion that our president should know everything about the world stems from the notion that we should have our fingers in everything in the world... and we should not. We can't afford it, it's not our responsibility, and in many cases we're not justified.

So once again, and I differ from Gary Johnson when I say this, does Gary Johnson need to know what Aleppo is? No. I don't want him to. Should he know what the constitutional limitations are on congress and himself? Yes, absolutely. But for some reason the finer details of the constitution are something we think the President need not be well versed in (like... for example... Trump referring to Articles of the constitution that don't exit. Or, for example, when Hillary referred to a clause in the Declaration of Independence as rights (ie: from the Bill of Rights)).

Ok I'm getting myself worked up now. I need to go calm down for a minute. The American public just.... sometimes... pull your head out!!!!
 
Last edited:
I think there's a fairly high expectation that any candidate for POTUS is going to be aware of all the global hotspots for various issues.

And he is. He just didn't know what the (frankly irrelevant) name of the specific city that marked the flashpoint for the garbage that's overtaken the entire country since. People in America know what is going on in Syria right now. I daresay most of the people who are reading about this interview today knew what Aleppo was before it came up in that interview, which makes the interviewer's almost Alan Alda-esque smarminess at the confusion Johnson gave all the more ridiculous. It'd be like if someone asked Trump a question about the drug wars in Mexico by asking what he would do about Monterrey.



The interviewer was looking for a "gotcha" sound bite like a glorified drivetime radio host, and Johnson fell into it.
 
Here is that Johnson video. Wow, just wow.


Shows such compassion about meaningless terminology only to admit in the end it's wrong, and takes away from the original question. I'd take Clinton in a heartbeat over this guy; the last thing the country needs is a SJW in charge.
 
Shows such compassion about meaningless terminology only to admit in the end it's wrong, and takes away from the original question. I'd take Clinton in a heartbeat over this guy; the last thing the country needs is a SJW in charge.

Because of one statement that wins you over...makes sense, in the irrational sort of way that is
 
I wonder if Gary Johnson would get mad if someone told him "All lives matter"?
 
Given he is from New Mexico it's probably an emotional subject for him as he probably has grown up with "illegals".

I also don't like that video that cuts out when he looks like he is explaining his situation.
 
Because of one statement that wins you over...makes sense, in the irrational sort of way that is
This guy had a meltdown over "illegal immigrant" & then admitted the interviewer was still correct using it. Lord knows what else would trigger him, but from judging by a quick Google search, it appears he hasn't won over his fellow Liberterians either by supporting ideas that go directly against their views.

Given he is from New Mexico it's probably an emotional subject for him as he probably has grown up with "illegals".

I also don't like that video that cuts out when he looks like he is explaining his situation.
If he had grown up with them, he'd probably know a large chunk of Hispanics would not agree with his PC term. Legal Hispanics tend to have a lot of resentment towards "undocumented immigrants".
 
This guy had a meltdown over "illegal immigrant" & then admitted the interviewer was still correct using it. Lord knows what else would trigger him, but from judging by a quick Google search, it appears he hasn't won over his fellow Liberterians either by supporting ideas that go directly against their views.

I understood that the first time you wrote it, that doesn't change the fact that you take issue with his libertarian stance and not 100% aligning with his user base. He wasn't full on libertarian to begin with, so that was their and your mistake in that thought. Even if he was close to 100% and still made this statement, it doesn't change the fact that a SJW ideal came to your mind after seeing this. Said ideal led you to say you'd vote for a person who isn't even close to libertarian. So it's confusing and illogical to jump from one direction and do a 180. If you were looking to vote for him to start with and this made you think otherwise, it'd make sense to look for a libertarian or not vote.

So that leads me to conclude you were't looking to vote libertarian based or close to it, and then it becomes even more confusing because it just seems your voting on whimsy and nothing else really. Also as much as I dislike the SJW movement more so than anything else, your complaint almost sounds like Trump speak in how irritated you are in how Johnson approached this topic.

If he had grown up with them, he'd probably know a large chunk of Hispanics would not agree with his PC term. Legal Hispanics tend to have a lot of resentment towards "undocumented immigrants".

This is news to me...I would know since it's a subject I'm pretty close to and have been since birth
 
I understood that the first time you wrote it, that doesn't change the fact that you take issue with his libertarian stance and not 100% aligning with his user base. He wasn't full on libertarian to begin with, so that was their and your mistake in that thought. Even if he was close to 100% and still made this statement, it doesn't change the fact that a SJW ideal came to your mind after seeing this. Said ideal led you to say you'd vote for a person who isn't even close to libertarian. So it's confusing and illogical to jump from one direction and do a 180. If you were looking to vote for him to start with and this made you think otherwise, it'd make sense to look for a libertarian or not vote.

So that leads me to conclude you were't looking to vote libertarian based or close to it, and then it becomes even more confusing because it just seems your voting on whimsy and nothing else really. Also as much as I dislike the SJW movement more so than anything else, your complaint almost sounds like Trump speak in how irritated you are in how Johnson approached this topic
The mistake you're making is assuming him being a Libertarian has anything to do with my view on him. This guy could be a Republican and I'd still pick Hillary over him, even as a Republican myself.

SJW are scum. No one needs one in the White House.
This is news to me...I would know since it's a subject I'm pretty close to and have been since birth
I've grown up and worked with a wide range of Hispanics from teens to elders as well; you're not in a unique situation. Most of them, mainly older men, do not care for illegal aliens because they shortcut the process to get into the US whilst they spent years doing it legally. Legal immigrants who support illegals typically only do so because they hate the time it takes become a legal citizen of the US, and more than likely know someone who is/has tried to go through it. Despite the media proclaiming Trump as a racist because he said the trigger word, "Wall", there are a lot of latinos who will support his campaign based on his hard stance against illegal aliens.
 
The mistake you're making is assuming him being a Libertarian has anything to do with my view on him. This guy could be a Republican and I'd still pick Hillary over him, even as a Republican myself.

SJW are scum. No one needs one in the White House.

I'm not though, what I'm saying is you're using the argument, not anything to do with if you actually care or not, hence why I say you're perspective is confusing as all hell. More so when you say "SJW supposed babble, Hillary it is!!!". Him stating a stance doesn't make him SJW, which is why I find your vehement claim of such illogical, and then borderline irrational when you see another PC hero (even if lying about it) the best choice for office.

I've grown up and worked with a wide range of Hispanics from teens to elders as well; you're not in a unique situation. Most of them, mainly older men, do not care for illegal aliens because they shortcut the process to get into the US whilst they spent years doing it legally. Legal immigrants who support illegals typically only do so because they hate the time it takes become a legal citizen of the US, and more than likely know someone who is/has tried to go through it. Despite the media proclaiming Trump as a racist because he said the trigger word, "Wall", there are a lot of latinos who will support his campaign based on his hard stance against illegal aliens.

Never said I was, but living with them and coexisting in neighbor hoods with them as well as at a work space tends to lend quite a lot of info. Also your argument of older men don't care seems misplaced, when it's mainly the older people who came here illegally in the 60s and 70s and are now actually permanent residents, I know, I have a parent that is one after being illegal. I've met others as such due to growing up in Latin dominated areas, and meeting people from not just Mexico but Honduras, Belize, Venezuela and so on all starting or still claiming to be illegal.

Now this isn't to say that everyone I've met is of this, my grand mother visits the states to see my family via visa all the time. And I have cousins that come here on worker permits, but there isn't some vast alienation between them and those who are here illegally. So I'm yet again confused. Also the notion of the "beautiful big wall" is always humorous.

No Trump doesn't have much to any ethnic support, but if you want to try again in face of @Sanji Himura go ahead.

You really can't tell them apart.

Can't tell who apart, legal immigrants and illegal immigrants? It depends, my mother doesn't sound or seem Hispanic at all, in fact she seems quite Americanized in all meaning of the word. Yet my "legal" uncle hardly speaks English, the ideas are far more blurry then MSNBC or Fox news would spin them either way.

So if you take what I grew up with along with friends, neighbors, and even other extended family. No I can't say I could easily point out who is or isn't legal/illegal.
 
Last edited:
No Trump doesn't have much to any ethnic support, but if you want to try again in face of @Sanji Himura go ahead.
Actually, in his defense, there are plenty of states that do grant illegals drivers licenses, California chief among them. If an illegal can get a license, then welfare and the right to vote in said states will come quickly.
 
Actually, in his defense, there are plenty of states that do grant illegals drivers licenses, California chief among them. If an illegal can get a license, then welfare and the right to vote in said states will come quickly.

Then don't move to said states, simple.
 
Excuse me, but Pew Research Center would like to disagree. According to data taken in June, Pew said that Trump is actually being blown out in the Hispanic vote, 66-24.

Source: http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/6-hispanic-voters-and-the-2016-election/
I said a lot, not a majority. I'm also going by recent news articles claiming he's seeing a surge in Hispanic support. But, I will concede to your link.

I'm not though, what I'm saying is you're using the argument, not anything to do with if you actually care or not, hence why I say you're perspective is confusing as all hell. More so when you say "SJW supposed babble, Hillary it is!!!". Him stating a stance doesn't make him SJW, which is why I find your vehement claim of such illogical, and then borderline irrational when you see another PC hero (even if lying about it) the best choice for office.
Wanting to use the term "undocumented immigrant" isn't a stance; the idiot admitted they were still illegals by technical definition. You're attempting to create some sort of debate so, let's rewind so you don't have to write another paragraph.

Johnson got upset because someone said the word "illegal". That's it; didn't answer the question at hand, just went off on a choice of word. That's what SJWs do when they get upset & if that's all it takes to get Johnson upset, yes, I would vote Hillary over him for that alone; don't want to know what other words upset him. Blacks? Fat people? Retarded? Whether or not you question why that's enough for me to vote that way doesn't bother me in the bit. His political stance has no influence on the decision either nor does it mean I somehow think Hillary is the "best" choice. They're all idiots and we're screwed for the next 4 years.

But, as far as the Johnson goes, I have no patience for people who try to do what he did in that video. Googling him even further to see his actual stance did nothing to sway me from my original view. You're not going to change that trying to question me.

Never said I was, but living with them and coexisting in neighbor hoods with them as well as at a work space tends to lend quite a lot of info. Also your argument of older men don't care seems misplaced, when it's mainly the older people who came here illegally in the 60s and 70s and are now actually permanent residents, I know, I have a parent that is one after being illegal. I've met others as such due to growing up in Latin dominated areas, and meeting people from not just Mexico but Honduras, Belize, Venezuela and so on all starting or still claiming to be illegal.
Perhaps that's how it is in Arizona, but it's been an opposite experience in Texas up until this year & everyone taking Trump's debates as "deport all Mexicans".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back