The idea that I would be a rogue Senator is ridiculous. I wouldn't agree with you on every single thing, but that would in no way make me a rogue, having multiple viewpoints in a Senate is a good thing, not a bad one.I can't vote for Notolecta because I heavily disagree with him on policy, and there are things that the region needs to get done within the next two weeks that don't need the brakes put on them because of one rogue Senators. Both Drecq and Bryan are bright, able, and just the kind of newer member that traditionally grace the halls of the Senate, but Drecq's superior platform earned him my endorsement.
This is rouge:The idea that I would be a rouge Senator is ridiculous. I wouldn't agree with you on every single thing, but that would in no way make me a rouge, having multiple viewpoints in a Senate is a good thing, not a bad one.I can't vote for Notolecta because I heavily disagree with him on policy, and there are things that the region needs to get done within the next two weeks that don't need the brakes put on them because of one rogue Senators. Both Drecq and Bryan are bright, able, and just the kind of newer member that traditionally grace the halls of the Senate, but Drecq's superior platform earned him my endorsement.
Thank you, I think?Very cute, NES.
And holy Drecq!
I disagree with both a lot of your policy viewpoints and how you choose to go about pushing for them, therefore I will not be voting for you. It's that simple.The idea that I would be a rogue Senator is ridiculous. I wouldn't agree with you on every single thing, but that would in no way make me a rogue, having multiple viewpoints in a Senate is a good thing, not a bad one.I can't vote for Notolecta because I heavily disagree with him on policy, and there are things that the region needs to get done within the next two weeks that don't need the brakes put on them because of one rogue Senators. Both Drecq and Bryan are bright, able, and just the kind of newer member that traditionally grace the halls of the Senate, but Drecq's superior platform earned him my endorsement.
I don't expect he was planning to win your vote with his statement; rather I expect he was hoping to suggest that disagreeing with you doesn't make him a rogue.I disagree with both a lot of your policy viewpoints and how you choose to go about pushing for them, therefore I will not be voting for you. It's that simple.The idea that I would be a rogue Senator is ridiculous. I wouldn't agree with you on every single thing, but that would in no way make me a rogue, having multiple viewpoints in a Senate is a good thing, not a bad one.I can't vote for Notolecta because I heavily disagree with him on policy, and there are things that the region needs to get done within the next two weeks that don't need the brakes put on them because of one rogue Senators. Both Drecq and Bryan are bright, able, and just the kind of newer member that traditionally grace the halls of the Senate, but Drecq's superior platform earned him my endorsement.
What? :huh:Yayyy irrelevant arguments. Honestly, who votes for who and why someone doesn't vote for someone else shouldn't matter. They vote for their reason and we, as a separate person, shouldn't be concerned with their vote.
He is saying the reasons people vote for whom they vote for are irrelevant because they have the right to vote however they please. Nice sentiment, however, uniquely unsuited for politics.What? :huh:Yayyy irrelevant arguments. Honestly, who votes for who and why someone doesn't vote for someone else shouldn't matter. They vote for their reason and we, as a separate person, shouldn't be concerned with their vote.
He like McEntire misinterpreted my post as an attack on his reasoning for not voting for me, when it was instead a response to his misuse of a word and incorrect characterization of me, much as Oliver stated.What? :huh:Yayyy irrelevant arguments. Honestly, who votes for who and why someone doesn't vote for someone else shouldn't matter. They vote for their reason and we, as a separate person, shouldn't be concerned with their vote.
I know what he's saying, Drecq. I was remarking at what a silly stance it was to take. Why people do or don't vote for whom is all that matters.He is saying the reasons people vote for whom they vote for are irrelevant because they have the right to vote however they please. Nice sentiment, however, uniquely unsuited for politics.What? :huh:Yayyy irrelevant arguments. Honestly, who votes for who and why someone doesn't vote for someone else shouldn't matter. They vote for their reason and we, as a separate person, shouldn't be concerned with their vote.
My bad. I frequently misinterpret things.I know what he's saying, Drecq. I was remarking at what a silly stance it was to take. Why people do or don't vote for whom is all that matters.He is saying the reasons people vote for whom they vote for are irrelevant because they have the right to vote however they please. Nice sentiment, however, uniquely unsuited for politics.What? :huh:Yayyy irrelevant arguments. Honestly, who votes for who and why someone doesn't vote for someone else shouldn't matter. They vote for their reason and we, as a separate person, shouldn't be concerned with their vote.
Actually, I wasn't directing my comment towards you, sir, but rather towards the general assembly. Perhaps you shouldn't assume what others mean without knowing. It proves effective in many cases.He like McEntire misinterpreted my post as an attack on his reasoning for not voting for me, when it was instead a response to his misuse of a word and incorrect characterization of me, much as Oliver stated.What? :huh:Yayyy irrelevant arguments. Honestly, who votes for who and why someone doesn't vote for someone else shouldn't matter. They vote for their reason and we, as a separate person, shouldn't be concerned with their vote.
Not really. The only thing that matters is the end result. You won't gain anything by knowing who voted for who.I know what he's saying, Drecq. I was remarking at what a silly stance it was to take. Why people do or don't vote for whom is all that matters.He is saying the reasons people vote for whom they vote for are irrelevant because they have the right to vote however they please. Nice sentiment, however, uniquely unsuited for politics.What? :huh:Yayyy irrelevant arguments. Honestly, who votes for who and why someone doesn't vote for someone else shouldn't matter. They vote for their reason and we, as a separate person, shouldn't be concerned with their vote.
If you know why someone votes for candidates, you're halfway to winning any election.Not really. The only thing that matters is the end result. You won't gain anything by knowing who voted for who.I know what he's saying, Drecq. I was remarking at what a silly stance it was to take. Why people do or don't vote for whom is all that matters.He is saying the reasons people vote for whom they vote for are irrelevant because they have the right to vote however they please. Nice sentiment, however, uniquely unsuited for politics.What? :huh:Yayyy irrelevant arguments. Honestly, who votes for who and why someone doesn't vote for someone else shouldn't matter. They vote for their reason and we, as a separate person, shouldn't be concerned with their vote.