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

[Shadow Wolf]

I suspect it might have been a good idea to clarify in the OP that it is targeted at people who frequently repeated apologetics for Trump and supported him rather than merely throwing a vote in the ballot. It seems that expressing outrage at having one's political decisions criticized can drown out the ability to see nuance nowadays.

It didn't seem nuanced to me. Sure, Some Trump voters did it so they could see those tears that did flow when the EC awarded him the election. Some are woefully ignorant, ill informed, and under informed. Some were overly optimistic about the lack of a record suggesting no new wars would be a thing.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We don't fight wars any more. We now have "armed conflicts" officially (of course).

Until that falls out of favor and we have "munitions exchange programs."

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You said of me & others who voted for Trump....
"....anyone who knows such Trump voters to thoroughly dismiss and disregard
their political judgments in the future as unreliable, irrational, and flawed.
We would all be better served by ignoring their input on future matters...."

I've offered the loudest objection to the assassination
& all of Trump's handling of Iran leading up to it.
So find this judgement also irrational & flawed, eh

It's just a matter of course that people whose decisions end badly are less trusted for a time during which they are able to make better choices and gain/regain some better reputation. No need to take it so personally. It's going to happen whether you are upset or not.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't see any reason to limit the search to two days only. We're talking about a track record here.

I offered a way to ease your search.;
Broaden it all you please.
I'll gladly address whatever you find.

Not that I care much about arguing with you at this point....

For someone who doesn't care, you're sure telling me so
in voluminous posts....all of which dance around the issues.

...since I haven't seen and expect that I won't see a specific, minimum level of directness, but here are just a few examples of deflection, apologetics, and thinly veiled support:

You've yet to be direct about a single issue in this thread.
You've violated the spirit of the forum with personal invective,
making false claims about my positions, & while ignoring the issues..
Come on man....you say you disagree with my views.
Pick one.
Argue against it.

Just to sum this whole thing up, I know that you dislike certain economic policies to the point of possibly making them factor into voting (or not) for someone. That's fair, except when said policies include better tax regulations that you clearly oppose for personal reasons and then try to paint that as "the lesser evil."

If you were at least direct about valuing perceived economic security over some civil rights issues and also direct about other reasons for posting Trump apologetics, we would still disagree but be frank about where each of us stood. Instead, what I'm seeing here is a bunch of sugarcoating and denial. That renders any discussion fruitless, as far as I'm concerned, and as a result, I see no reason to engage this with you any further.

Good luck. You got your examples (even if only a few out of many others), which I won't be surprised to see you reject or deny as well. Oh well. At least I tried to help you feel better.

Sigh....you still tell me of my shortcomings, but you cannot
rise to the challenge of actually discussing them.
It's the kind of thing Donald Trump would do.

Edit:
I see that you've responded to this post in a <member announcement>
thread. You blame others for your disengaging from it, but you take no
responsibility for your personal attacks on others, & failure to address
the issues. It's a less than brave way to get in the self-righteous last word.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's just a matter of course that people whose decisions end badly are less trusted for a time during which they are able to make better choices and gain/regain some better reputation. No need to take it so personally. It's going to happen whether you are upset or not.

Whuh?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Whuh?

I think you misspelled whatever that is.

 

[Revoltingest]

Anyone who claims Trump wasn't an obvious warmonger before voting for him is a liar or a fool.

Hillary supporters are subject to the same criticism.
You rage against Trump, yet you support her with blind faith,
entirely ignoring her record of starting & supporting the wars.
Pull your head out of the sand, bruderherz. Both were bad,
but she had the governmental record of the greater evils.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think you misspelled whatever that is.

It means your post isn't clear to me.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It means your post isn't clear to me.

Distilled for clarity:

Making a mistake in political matters tends to stick to a person for a bit.

You seemed to find that a very unexpected consequence.

 

[Revoltingest]

Plenty of people did. It was, you know, obvious and ululant.

He claims prognostication.
Where's the post?

 

[Cooky]

So now conservatives and liberals are no longer talking...

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Hillary supporters are subject to the same criticism.

"Quick! Look over there!"

You rage against Trump, yet you support her with blind faith,

And where have I ever done that, exactly?

entirely ignoring her record of starting & supporting the wars.
Pull your head out of the sand, bruderherz. Both were bad,
but she had the governmental record of the greater evils.

Say whatever you want to support your obviously terrible decision that has had terrible consequences. What's important is you had the wake up call you needed to make the right decision come future elections.

 

[Revoltingest]

We’d hope so.

Oh, there is.
The problem is leaders finding that sweet spot between the extremes.

 

[Revoltingest]

And where have I ever done that, exactly?

You're doing it now, taking the side & tone of the OP.
Criminy, you even fruballed his abusive tantrum.
In a thread dedicated to flaming all who voted for Trump,
it's necessary to consider why. And that requires looking
at his alternative. Your refusal to look at her record, & what
it portended is blind tribal loyalty. It's shameful & dangerous.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You're doing it now, taking the side & tone of the OP.

Translation: "You've never done it, but I'm going to say you do anyway because it harms my point to admit you never had."

In a thread dedicated to flaming all who voted for Trump,
it's necessary to consider why.

Because people's votes had consequences?

Y
And that requires looking at his alternative.

Anywhere but at the people with whom the blame lies, eh?

Perhaps introspection is too much for you.

Y
Your refusal to look at her record, & what
it portended is blind tribal loyalty. It's shameful & dangerous.

I've never done any of that, so you're talking nonsense.

Your constant need to avoid responsibility for voting for an objectively terrible, war-mongering president is the real issue of the thread.

 

[Revoltingest]

I get that. How can you expect a bully who did encourage violence to not go to war?

That's a loaded question.
I saw both as a danger to peace.
You & I only disagree about which was worse.
But these other anti-Trumpers won't acknowledge
or even consider her record. Hating Trump is all
they know, hence the blind rage at us.

 

[Cooky]

Let it be known that I have always wanted war with Iran.

...There is no room left in this world for theocracies. It's time for them (theocracies) to go.

 

[Cooky]

...Because theocracies have created a migratory mess. And the world is too small now for this. And they are ideologically unstable.

 

[Revoltingest]

You seemed to find that a very unexpected consequence.

I saw both Hillary & Trump as poor candidates, each posing a
risk of war in their own way. I foresaw a range of possibilities,
including smaller military actions leading to ever larger ones.
If you understood what "the lesser of 2 evils" meant, you'd have
understood my foreboding.

 

[Revoltingest]

Translation: "You've never done it, but I'm going to say you do anyway because it harms my point to admit you never had."


Because people's votes had consequences?


Anywhere but at the people with whom the blame lies, eh?

Perhaps introspection is too much for you.


I've never done any of that, so you're talking nonsense.

Your constant need to avoid responsibility for voting for an objectively terrible, war-mongering president is the real issue of the thread.

Rawrrr!
OK, I'll respond in kind...
Your TDS has rendered you unable to understand any side other
than your own myopic tribe. And so you blindly support the
Democrat's hawkish offering, Hillary. Had she won, & started a
war with Iran, you'd praise her courage for wreaking righteous
death & destruction in an evil country of ignorant unbelievers.
Your fundamentalist war lust disgusts me. Have you no
humanity or shame?

That was fun.
It's a tongue in cheek post to illustrate how you guys come across,
all of you who support & frubal the OP's mindless & abusive rage.