I Would've Made A Good President.

All.

#1 One time incident from more than a decade ago (which you and others show just what kind of jerks you are by continuing to harp on it) is not a "history" but is an "outlier". And yes, if it was brought out in a presidential campaign I think it would matter no more than Clintons affairs or Bush's drunk driving.

#2 Garbage? You'll have to be more specific. One man's trash is anothers treasure.

#3 Poor history of job security? My changes in employers is roughly average for the typical person in my line of work. Two years IIRC.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/02/03/the-abortion-rate-is-at-a-30-year-low/

I'm still waiting to read yours.

Bill Clinton never struck his wife, Dayton. You're worse than Bill Clinton.

No Tucker. I've answered these questions in the past in various other threads. You and others seem to have no problem digging up my old posts. So you can find them.

I'm not obligated to answer your questions that are not being asked in good faith and are an attempt to sidetrack my thread and serve as a distraction.

So feel free to ask inane questions that make you feel superior.

Then you'll have to find it upon your own. The anti-abortion sites list only cases since Roe v. Wade, if they don't repeat the figures that I've already given. The CDC has no official figures prior to Roe v. Wade.

Oh yeah, repeated adultery over a period of decades. Betraying his wife repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly.......all that against a one time incident.

So you admit you have no evidence.

Yet no one cared.

I rest my case.

"Sidetrack"? Sorry, but there's simply no way that my questions can be considered a "sidetrack" by any stretch of the imagination. You posted this thread knowing that it would attract people to mock you. Because that's always what happens in these kinds of threads. You wanted people to pay attention to you, and you got it. Don't complain that we're not mocking you in the ways you want us to.

And I'm not going mucking about in old threads to find something which you might have said. If I didn't think those threads were worth reading then, I'm certainly not inclined to think that they're worth reading now.

Yanno, I always thought I'd make a good professional golfer. Except for the fact that I'm uncoordinated, amblyopic, and prone to second-degree burns when exposed to direct sunlight...clearly I lack Dayton's degree of Magical Thinking...

No, you just lost your case. You equated beating your wife with adultery.

And you do? Do think that abortions only happened after the legalization of Roe v. Wade? Finding figures prior to legalization from a "neutral source" is well-neigh impossible, because the only people who worried about abortion prior to legalization were pro-abortion. Indeed, the first estimates of abortions in the 1950s were done only by pro-abortion groups. Abortion was legal in the US up until the mid-1800s. The fact of the matter is, you're not going to find a "neutral" source on the subject, because no one's allowed to be neutral on it. Only an interested party is going to bother researching a subject which wasn't spoken of in "polite society," and in a time period when admitting to performing or having had an abortion was likely to result in jail time, no one's going to give information to those opposed to abortion, because they were worried about going to jail.

So, if you were to ever be able to run for any type of elected position anywhere, do you really think you'll be able to dodge questions by saying you're not obligated to answer them because you decide they're not in good faith, or that you'd be able to say that a figure or statement is not acceptable because you do not agree with it?

If you can't answer simple questions here without trying to deflect them or flat out ignore them, you'll never be able to get elected for enything. People will not accept you imposing limitations and standards on what can be asked. And neither will you saying "That is an outlier from a decade ago" be sufficient to excuse or explain anything.

So the thread is now a debate on who has higher moral standards, Dayton or Bill Clinton.

Ever heard of spin? This will be spun to be more than you see it as. What's more, you will have no credibility in the eyes of many female voters.

A majority of the people here and on the other boards you post at think your opinions are either stupid, ignorant or generally unrealistic. These are the people you need to vote for you.

"Your line of work"? This isn't the only type of job you've had is it? By your own admission you have a history of losing jobs, of being forced out of others, of being investigated for incompetence and of falling out with colleagues. Hardly inspiring to a prospective voter.

Beating someone is equally a betrayal....and I love how whenever this comes up you keep banging on about "one time". It's as if you think a rapist who rapes one time is less of a scumbag than one who does it three or so times.

That's more depressing than finding out Whitney Houston and Bobby Brown won a custody battle of Brown's son with another woman.

Dayton never cheated on his wife. Dayton never had sex with anyone. Even his wife. He's perfect!

Wait, so where did Dayton's kids come from then?

Wait a minute.....Clinton....Arkansas......

OH MY GOD!!!!!!!

Serious question. Have you ever seen a head doctor?

Just give someone some incentives and have them figure out how to make you more coordinated and less burn-prone. Voila -- you've solved the problem!

Oh yeah very big of you and the losers who agreed with you and lent you support on a post attacking a mans family.

This shows more about you and your ilk than it ever shows about me.

As a general rule, people are far more concerned about domestic violence than infidelity, and well they should be.

I made a list!

I hope you can hear me all the way up on that cross, but you really need to get over yourself. You come to a board where you're routinely mocked and vilified, start a thread entitled "I Would Have Made a Good President" and are, against all logic, shocked that people would mock you for it. Only a fool would think that they could start a thread with such a title and not be mocked, mercilessly for daring to start such a thread. Had you titled the thread "What I Would Do, Were I President" you'd have gotten slightly better treatment. Not much, mind you, because you have a decade's worth of baggage of saying things that most people find laughable, but they would have at least given you a shot.

Now, you're pretending to be appalled because El Chup has implied that Clinton diddled your wife. Frankly, I'm disappointed that no one's talked about diddling your mother by this point.

Do you think that anyone, who's ever held the office of POTUS has thought that they were a "bad" President? It doesn't matter how shitty of a job they did, they all thought that they were doing a "good" job. If they were a failure (and certainly some of them were), they no doubt put the blame somewhere else. For you to claim that you would have been a "good" President, is hubris. Especially when you can't offer anything other than vague generalities as for what you'd try to do. To be President, you either have to have charisma, which you lack in spades, or you have to be able to lay out your vision in excruciating detail when circumstances demand it. Something else you're unable to do. Al Gore didn't get to be VP and the Democratic nominee in '00 because people liked him, but because he could drone on with the detailed answer to bullshit questions. (BTW, I've heard plenty of comments from lefty types who worked with Al Gore, who're not afraid to say that they don't like him one bit, but they'd still vote for him. Because they know that he could do the job of President.)

Don't lash out at El Chup for what he said. It was a joke, and it was funny. I'd find it funny if he said that about Obama, my mother, or any of my girlfriends. Your, "You are such wretched people!" response illustrates perfectly why you're unqualified to be President. Obama has had to endure far worse things said about himself and Michelle than what El Chup said about your wife. Yet he ignores it. Why? He could have the IRS audit the people making the claims. He could have incriminating evidence planted on the people and then have them arrested. He could have the NSA go through their phone and internet records to see if they're up to anything illegal or immoral. But he doesn't. (Or if he does, he has yet to act upon any of them.) Why? Because he's smart enough to realize that by doing so, he'll damage his position. He'll never convince those people to like him, but if he attacks them, he's likely to alienate many of the people who do like him, or at least don't hate him to the point where they want to call his wife "Chewie" or what have you.

Again, we come back to why you started this thread. Did you honestly think that you'd have people agreeing with you? Given that you've mentioned that you know a great many people oppose your beliefs, I find that hard to believe. Did you think that you'd somehow "wow" us with your dazzling intellect? That's hard to do, when you won't answer our questions. I'm left to believe that you did it because you wanted the attention. I'd ask if there was another reason, but since you'd probably just say I wasn't asking that question in "good faith," I'm not going to bother. And in a way, that kind of sums your life up. "Not worth the bother." You can't be bothered to do more than the bare minimum, and somehow, its everyone else's fault. You remind me of the principal from The Breakfast Club. You want everyone to conform to your ideas, but you're not willing to even get to know them for who they are. But hey, at least you get summers off, right?

Why should it matter to you or anyone else what I post and where Tucker?

Just a wild guess here, but I'm going to go and say this is a public board where you post so others can read and comment.