Presidential Candidates that are pro vaping?

[Jman8]

There was never a point in discussing. Not what this thread was made for. I'll understand if you are done trolling.

 

[aceswired]

Thinking differently from me = trolling.

Sigh.

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

 

[WhiteHighlights]

Aces, the OP asked:

I currently don't know of any candidates that are (for sure) pro vaping. So, I'm curious if anyone else does?

The point wasn't whether this is a significant issue or not compared to others. I'm not a single issue voter, but in my lovely state of MA, I have 2 senators (and an AG) who signed on to letters to the FDA urging control of e-cigs and one senator who said on the senate floor that e-cig companies should be put out of business. These actions tell me a lot about how they approach governance. There are many other reasons I won't vote for these lunatics but their position and actions about vaping are illuminating.

 

[aceswired]

I am aware. Threads evolve. Discussions digress and detour. Surely you aren't proposing that every thread be strictly limited to the precise point or question of the original post. What a dull and dreadful forum that would make.

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

 

[Luisa]

Grover Norquist still thinks it's gonna be a big issue in the 2016 Presidential elections.

Grover Norquist: Election Will 'Be Determined By The Vaping Community'

http://gawker.com/where-was-all-the-vape-talk-at-the-debate-demands-righ-1759063082

If you could decide which candidate will support us,and then all vapors vote for that person--it could make a huge difference in the election.

 

[Jman8]

I am aware. Threads evolve. Discussions digress and detour. Surely you aren't proposing that every thread be strictly limited to the precise point or question of the original post. What a dull and dreadful forum that would make.

Surely you aren't suggesting trolling is okay in this thread.

 

[aceswired]

Again, your definition of trolling appears to be, "having an opinion different from mine."

You're threadcopping. "Post the way I wish you to, and if you don't, I'll brand it trolling."

Is an opposing viewpoint really so threatening to you? Why are you so eager to label honest debate trolling? Do you know what trolling actually is? (Here's a hint - in that I'm trying to discuss, while you're just posting dismissive comments, you're closer to it than I am).

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

 

[Jman8]

Again, your definition of trolling appears to be, "having an opinion different from mine."

Not even close. You've stated that your opinion is this is not a big deal (for presidential elections). That was never the intent of this thread. You've stated this around 8 times. Your latest post before the trolling accusation by me said:

Like I said before, not much further point discussing. You've made your position clear that the president is irrelevant in foreign affairs, but the key to vaping regulation policy.
I see it differently.

So, let me know what you feel like discussing that is still on point with this thread.

You're threadcopping. "Post the way I wish you to, and if you don't, I'll brand it trolling."

I guess we could let a moderator sort things out if you feel I'm doing something grossly in error. I think you are trolling at this point. If there is something you still wish to discuss that is on point with what is stated in OP, please share. If it is off topic, and because I am OP, I may report it, especially given an attitude of I'm the one doing something wrong on this thread.

If you care to discuss how important of an issue vaping is in the scheme of things, I have another thread in this sub-forum just for that. There, whatever honest disagreements we might have would be able to be fully explored and not be trolling. I just wonder if you'd be handle that discussion.

 

[aceswired]

Not even close. You've stated that your opinion is this is not a big deal (for presidential elections). That was never the intent of this thread.

Ahh, so we're back to, "any discussion not 100 percent on line with the question in the original post is trolling." Gotcha. I think roughly 99 percent of the forum will disagree that threads should never evolve or detour. But Jman says talking about anything else--even a logical extension of the original post--is trolling. So there it is.

You can't make this stuff up.

You've stated this around 8 times.

In a fantastic turn of irony, I've not once been debating or discussing this with myself! So then, according to your logic, it's okay to express the opinion that it is important, but it's trolling to express the opinion that it's not.

Like I said. You're defining trolling as expressing an opinion different from your own. You seem to believe that you expressing your opinion is okay, but because mine is the opposite, that's trolling.

So, let me know what you feel like discussing that is still on point with this thread.

Let you know, or check in with you on what is allowed to be posted, according to Jman? Because dude, it pretty much feels like the latter.

guess we could let a moderator sort things out if you feel I'm doing something grossly in error.

Well that's the thing. You seem to be laboring under the impression that there's some great infringement here, that the sanctity of the forum is being violated by the expression of an opinion you don't like. Let's bear in mind that only one of us has taken up needless namecalling (hint: it's not me).

I'm just not sure how anything here remotely comes close to the threshold of needing a moderator. Can we not disagree like adults without resorting to namecalling and asking a moderator to moderate something that requires no moderation?

I think you are trolling at this point.

That's because you don't understand what trolling is. You think it's someone posting something you don't like. If arguing one side of this debate is trolling, then arguing the other side is trolling too. You don't get to just pick the side you like better, declare that okay, and say that any opposing viewpoints is trolling.

If there is something you still wish to discuss that is on point with what is stated in OP, please share. If it is off topic, and because I am OP, I may report it, especially given an attitude of I'm the one doing something wrong on this thread.

By all means. Report it. Do it now. Bring in a mod with the argument that, "yeah, but he's not agreeing with me, and it's MY thread!"

If you care to discuss how important of an issue vaping is in the scheme of things, I have another thread in this sub-forum just for that. There, whatever honest disagreements we might have would be able to be fully explored and not be trolling. I just wonder if you'd be handle that discussion.

Oh for god sake, get over yourself. When you post a thread to ECF, it becomes public discourse. You don't own it. Threads evolve. They detour and digress. A thread on whether politicians have declared their positions logically extends to whether they should. You act as if we're discussing whether Pluto should be considered a planet here. This is not a wild tangent. It was a logical growth out of the discussion at hand.

Get over the idea that you own the thread. It doesn't work that way. Once a thread is out and commented on, it's a community thread. You don't get to dictate which opinions are allowed, or how they're allowed. It's not your sole discretion to allow or disallow the track of the discussion. That's not how public forums work.

If you want to own it and dictate it, post it to your facebook page. Or start your own forum. Otherwise, grow a thicker skin and stop branding everything you don't like "trolling." It's ridiculous.

And finally, if you don't want me to express my side of the debate ... Stop. Engaging. Me. Really, this is extremely simple. I'm rather famous for not talking to myself. If you want the discussion to stop, then ... stop. Don't demand I stop when you're unwilling to do so yourself.

 

[nicnik]

Here's a particularly bad article that ends with this:

The time to act is now. Our current president has made clear he is willing to take on this fight, but who is to say that our next leader will understand the significant hazards vaping presents? As of yet, not a single candidate from either major party has taken a stance on vaping. We need to demand that if these people want our votes, they have to pledge to ditch the vape… before it’s too late.

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/281948/vaping-safety/

 

[retired1]

I am aware. Threads evolve. Discussions digress and detour. Surely you aren't proposing that every thread be strictly limited to the precise point or question of the original post. What a dull and dreadful forum that would make.

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

Forum Rules

13. Message conventions
Posts made by members must accord with certain conventions.
a. Posts must be in English, except in the International Language boards.
b. Off-topic digression: Stick to the topic. Do not deviate from the subject discussed in a thread as this is called off-topic (OT) posting. Open a new thread if a new issue arises from the discussion so others can always see by the title what the thread is about. Do not post the same topic in several forums (no double-posting / cross-posting).
c. Post titles: The title of a post should accurately refer to the content of the message.
d. Do not place links in the title. Example: " Find good resources at www.vaping.com ".
e. Do not place domain names in a post title. Example: " Vaping.com is a great site ".

'Nuff said.

 

[Jman8]

Here's a particularly bad article that ends with this:


http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/281948/vaping-safety/

Hate what this message is conveying, but like that it is on topic of this thread.

 

[aceswired]

Forum Rules

13. Message conventions
Posts made by members must accord with certain conventions.
a. Posts must be in English, except in the International Language boards.
b. Off-topic digression: Stick to the topic. Do not deviate from the subject discussed in a thread as this is called off-topic (OT) posting. Open a new thread if a new issue arises from the discussion so others can always see by the title what the thread is about. Do not post the same topic in several forums (no double-posting / cross-posting).
c. Post titles: The title of a post should accurately refer to the content of the message.
d. Do not place links in the title. Example: " Find good resources at www.vaping.com ".
e. Do not place domain names in a post title. Example: " Vaping.com is a great site ".

'Nuff said.

Deleted my response. This was a dead issue so no point starting again. Jman already invited me to another thread to insult me there.

 

[aceswired]

By the way, in the NET thread, the topic de jour is lower back pain....

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

 

[nicnik]

Here's some speculation about drug policy in a Trump administration. Some clues in both directions:

The Nightmare Scenario: President Donald Trump Dictates US Drug Policy

 

[Woofer]

Here's some speculation about drug policy in a Trump administration. Some clues in both directions:

The Nightmare Scenario: President Donald Trump Dictates US Drug Policy

But will he have a stand on hairoen?
The Crump getting down with a stirring rendition of "Da Ya Think I'm Sexy?"

 

[nicnik]

The Presidential Candidates’ Positions on Vaping: A Satire

Funny stuff! The best one:

5. Ted Cruz

I vow to shut this government down if people threaten your right to vape. You have a divine right to vape, and I will not let the federal government take that away from you. I will filibuster from now until the election if someone tries to mess with your vaping rights, I swear.

Have you ever vaped out of the end of a machine gun? It is better than bacon (and green eggs and ham); give it a try! I am convinced that smoking is a liberal conspiracy to attract Democrat voters, and I am positive that if the founding fathers were present they would vape, not smoke. I am Ted Cruz, your Strict Constructionist Hispanic Pro-Vaping Candidate™ for 2016, and I approve this message.

 

[Jman8]

Here's some speculation about drug policy in a Trump administration. Some clues in both directions:

The Nightmare Scenario: President Donald Trump Dictates US Drug Policy

I'd prefer more than inferences to be what I go on in determining where they stand.

I could see all candidates doing something that would strike us (vaping enthusiasts) as a wrong move, while I still think Dem candidates are more likely to tout themselves as anti-vapers who stood up to BT and thus deserve lots of praise for bringing harsh regulations against the eCig industry. Including Trump, I don't see any Pub candidates doing this.

 

[nicnik]

I'd prefer more than inferences to be what I go on in determining where they stand.

I could see all candidates doing something that would strike us (vaping enthusiasts) as a wrong move, while I still think Dem candidates are more likely to tout themselves as anti-vapers who stood up to BT and thus deserve lots of praise for bringing harsh regulations against the eCig industry. Including Trump, I don't see any Pub candidates doing this.

I can certainly see Kasich doing that. He'd also have a very tough time trying to change his position and start being supportive of vaping. It'd be not only a flip-flop, but an admission that he made a dangerous mistake in trying to slap a huge tax on e-liquid in Ohio. What's he supposed to say, that he thanks God for the checks and balances in Government that saved the the thousands of lives of Ohioans his stupid idea would've wiped out?

 

[nicnik]

I wonder if SFATA got a form letter in response, or, maybe more likely, no response at all...

E-cig industry seeks support from 2016 presidential hopefuls

The Smoke-Free Alternatives Trade Association (SFATA), one of the vapor industry's largest groups, sent letters Wednesday to Democratic and Republican presidential candidates asking them to advocate for the use of vapor products and help clarify public misconceptions.