The Pitifully Flawed, Unreliable Judgment Behind Voting for Trump for "No War"

[Revoltingest]

Good for you on objecting to the assassination after helping put into office the man responsible for it. Now go ahead and convince both sides not to go to war based on your loud objection.

So far, they're not listening to me.

It's so easy to extricate oneself when the significantly harmful effects don't affect one directly.

Whuh?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

When it was military targets, it was one thing. After he attacked an embassy his removal from the board was unavoidable.

So... trump supporters now claiming that targeting non-military targets justifies targeted assassination.

Anyone else want to tell him?

Trump defends ‘war crime’ threat to target cultural sites in Iran

 

[McBell]

In context, "lashing out" and "venom" seem overly dramatic terms to describe the points I made. There's sometimes a fine line between viciousness and plain realism.

The true viciousness and venom I see are in continually defending such a corrupt and unreliable leader and demonizing his critics until he got us to this point. Few things can match how disastrous and ill-advised that is.

Dropping to his level while claiming to be better is counter productive.

 

[Debater Slayer]

That you claim it a redundant question reveals much.

Fact is, the details have as yet to come out.
Regardless of your claims that they have.

My belief that you are right does not change the fact that you do not have all the details.

Now I understand the appeal to using buzz words like murder and assassination, but the fact is it has not yet been determined if ether word applies.

I believe it was an assassination (what else to call it?) and an avoidable one. Nowhere did I claim the specifics had come out or call it a "murder," though.

But let's see what will develop next. If any details surface that demonstrate it was necessary, that will be better than the situation we currently have, even though it's already too late to prevent violence.

 

[Revoltingest]

In context, "lashing out" and "venom" seem overly dramatic terms to describe the points I made. There's sometimes a fine line between viciousness and plain realism.

The true viciousness and venom I see are in continually defending such a corrupt and unreliable leader and demonizing his critics until he got us to this point. Few things can match how disastrous and ill-advised that is.

I called the assassination out as wrong before you jumped on the bandwagon.
Same for his moving the embassy in Israel, & scrapping the nuclear deal.
So I find your post's petulant sanctimony most hollow.

You're staff. Your posts set a standard here. You're evading this.
You made it more about personal enmity with those of us who voted
for Trump than the issue. This goes directly against the spirit of RF.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Dropping to his level while claiming to be better is counter productive.

I see Trump apologetics as venomous and substantially toxic, so I don't think anyone "drops" to anyone's levels if they point that out.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But in this analysis you entirely ignore the fact that his
opponent voted to start & continue the wars.

No. It shows that there was, like other things Trump promised, no reason to believe him. He gave too many indications he'd do what he wants and what favors him, with crap reasoning skills, a highly self centered personality, and lots of indications he was talking out of his ***. Like his obviously not that great IQ he claimed is one of the highest, his overall wealth is contested and doubted, and the taxes he said he'd release but had no intentions of doing so.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I called the assassination out as wrong before you jumped on the bandwagon.
Same for his moving the embassy in Israel, & scrapping the nuclear deal.
So I find your post's petulant sanctimony most hollow.

... and then you and many of his voters went on to defend him in many other situations after the whole Israeli embassy fiasco anyway, not to mention that all of this was on top of his other misdeeds that most of his base dismissed while putting him into office.

Claiming "sanctimony" isn't hard. What's harder is showing that such morally questionable stances aren't indeed deserving of being called out and looked down upon.

 

[McBell]

I believe it was an assassination (what else to call it?) and an avoidable one. Nowhere did I claim the specifics had come out or call it a "murder," though.

It is getting difficult taking you seriously when you do not know the definitions of the words you use...

Post number 5 is the first time you claim to have specifics you do not have.

Post number five is your first claim of murder.
You repeat it right here in the above quoted bit...

How about you call it a killing until such time as you actually get details enough to call it murder?

But let's see what will develop next.

I was already doing just that when you created this thread.

If any details surface that demonstrate it was necessary, that will be better than the situation we currently have, even though it's already too late to prevent violence.

I am not holding my breath that details will emerge to show this killing is justified in the manner in which it was carried out.

 

[McBell]

I see Trump apologetics as venomous and substantially toxic, so I don't think anyone "drops" to anyone's levels if they point that out.

If all you had done was point it out..
But you did more than merely point it out.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It is getting difficult taking you seriously when you do not know the definitions of the words you use...

Post number 5 is the first time you claim to have specifics you do not have.

Post number five is your first claim of murder.
You repeat it right here in the above quoted bit...

How about you call it a killing until such time as you actually get details enough to call it murder?

As much as I dislike semantic arguments, this is how I'm using the word "assassination," for clarity:

Assassination is the act of killing a prominent person for either political, religious, or monetary reasons.[1]

(Source.)

I am not holding my breath that details will emerge to show this killing is justified in the manner in which it was carried out.

Same here.

 

[Revoltingest]

No. It shows that there was, like other things Trump promised, no reason to believe him. He gave too many indications he'd do what he wants and what favors him, with crap reasoning skills, a highly self centered personality, and lots of indications he was talking out of his ***. Like his obviously not that great IQ he claimed is one of the highest, his overall wealth is contested and doubted, and the taxes he said he'd release but had no intentions of doing so.

Your argument still doesn't consider the alternative.
The OP attacks us for voting for Trump. You supported the OP.
Yet the OP criticizes without any attempt to understand the
other side of the coin. This is just blind opposition borne of rage.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Your argument still doesn't consider the alternative.
The OP attacks us for voting for Trump. You supported the OP.
Yet the OP criticizes without any attempt to understand the
other side of the coin. This is just blind opposition borne of rage.

Still attributing the criticism to anger/rage? Okay. I suppose that's more convenient than addressing the reasons for the criticism.

 

[Revoltingest]

... and then you and many of his voters went on to defend him in many other situations after the whole Israeli embassy fiasco anyway, not to mention that all of this was on top of his other misdeeds that most of his base dismissed while putting him into office.

You say I've defended him "in many other situations" but you
don't cite a single purported example. And I don't recall your
ever weighing in on one. I'm calling you on this falsehood.
Feel free to find an example to address.

Claiming "sanctimony" isn't hard. What's harder is showing that such morally questionable stances aren't indeed deserving of being called out and looked down upon.

With your opening & continued hostility, this thread is made
about your disdain for us...fellow posters who voted for him.
In a way, you're evading..or distracting from the real issue,
which is this dangerous policy towards Iran.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Your argument still doesn't consider the alternative.

The alternative was someome calm, rational, and not a chest beating ape. Not perfect, by any means, but not such a national embarassment that Bush Jr. now looks a bit better (and he had shoes thrown at him). The alternative also didnt come with an attached theocrat. And a lack if authoritarian fantasies and dreams.

 

[Revoltingest]

Still attributing the criticism to anger/rage? Okay. I suppose that's more convenient than addressing the reasons for the criticism.

Your language speaks for itself.
I have in this & many other threads addressed the US vs Iran situation.
I've criticized it in great deal in threads in which you've been silent.
You've either not read any of my posts, it's disingenuous deflection.

 

[Revoltingest]

The alternative was someome calm, rational, and not a chest beating ape. Not perfect, by any means, but not such a national embarassment that Bush Jr. now looks a bit better (and he had shoes thrown at him). The alternative also didnt come with an attached theocrat. And a lack if authoritarian fantasies and dreams.

You still don't speak to her Senate record on the wars.
I find it disconcerting that anti-Trumpers don't consider who
they vote for...only who they vote against. Despite having
been flamed in the OP, I say that objectively looking at both
candidates is the only rational way to decide on a vote.
Reasonable people may still disagree, but it's the best method.

 

[Debater Slayer]

You say I've defended him "in many other situations" but you
don't cite a single purported example. And I don't recall your
ever weighing in on one. I'm calling you on this falsehood.
Feel free to find an example to address.

I'm not going to quote other posts in this thread just to show you how you defended him. I think you and most regular posters in political threads have already seen the examples anyway.

Not to mention that such a tangent would be way too focused on one poster for my liking.

With your opening & continued hostility, this thread is made
about your disdain for us...fellow posters who voted for him.
In a way, you're evading..or distracting from the real issue,
which is this dangerous policy towards Iran.

It would be most helpful to distinguish between disdain for someone's political judgment and their character. Kind of like how I'm sure you don't have disdain for your fundamentalist Christian friends even if you aren't exactly a fan of their beliefs.

One of the most significant issues that led to this situation in the first place is the subject of the OP: the flawed judgment of many voters concerning voting decisions. As long as so many people lack the political discernment to not put someone like Trump into office, this may well be far from the last time we'll see such a mess.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Your language speaks for itself.
I have in this & many other threads addressed the US vs Iran situation.
I've criticized it in great deal in threads in which you've been silent.
You've either not read any of my posts, it's disingenuous deflection.

I thought you wanted examples of defending Trump full stop, not just on the topic of Iran vs. the U.S.? The principal problem is giving someone like him power to begin with despite all of the red flags. What comes after consists of mere details.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You still don't speak to her Senate record on the wars.

Im aware of them. Even with those she didn't encourage violence in the audience while campaigning.