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

[McBell]

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.

Which I find to be a pointless rant, honestly.
Trump LOST the popular vote by several million votes.
Thus he was not elected by the people.

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.

Hillary all but guaranteed we would be at war.
Trump promised no war.

So those who did not want more wr voted for the one saying no more wars.


How bad do you think you will look if no war come from this situation?

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not going to quote other posts in this thread just to show you how you defended him.

I knew that in advance.
How?
You won't find any.

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.

It's true because you assert it...not because you've any evidence.
You got caught making it up.

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.

Mein Gott! You get even this wrong.
I've no disdain for such friends, my opinion of religions notwithstanding.

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.

Your post attacks voters (& posters) more than Trump & his policies.
And you back it up without citing a single post from the plethora you
claim to exist. You even refuse to find one to cite, yet you stick to
your guns with the claim. It's devoid of reason.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Which I find to be a pointless rant, honestly.
Trump LOST the popular vote by several million votes.
Thus he was not elected by the people.

He was still elected by tens of millions of people who preferred him to the alternatives. The fact that he lost the popular vote is a different story.

Hillary all but guaranteed we would be at war.
Trump promised no war.

So those who did not want more was voted for the one saying no more wars.


How bad do you think you will look if no war come from this situation?

As far as I can see, the developments that have already taken place are enough to write Trump off as an impulsive showman who is willing to risk provoking a war, so the only thing that would happen if no war came from this situation is that I would feel relieved.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

But it hasn't figured into any analysis.
The OP criticized us all, & you agreed.
If you cite only your side, & refuse to see the other, is this reasonable?
No.
It's pure tribalism.
Now if you listed pluses & minuses for both candidates, weighted
each, & then argued for your choice, I'd be OK with it. But to
support an OP which is blind to one side is just plain wrong.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

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

Oh, because friendly, respectful, fact based discussion has worked so well to this point.

 

[McBell]

As far as I can see, the developments that have already taken place are enough to write Trump off as an impulsive showman who is willing to risk provoking a war, so the only thing that would happen if no war came from this situation is that I would feel relieved.

Trump said no war.
So until war breaks out, he has kept the promise.

 

[McBell]

Oh, because friendly, respectful, fact based discussion has worked so well to this point.

Seems you missed the "while claiming to be better" part...

 

[Revoltingest]

I thought you wanted examples of defending Trump full stop, not just on the topic of Iran vs. the U.S.?

You've still not provided one.
Yet you continue to claim that I have, & that the posts exist.
Your argument is based upon prejudice.
Sometimes, when confronted with an erroneous claim, it's best
to admit one is wrong, rather than to backpedal, hem, & haw

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The OP criticized us all, & you agreed.

Not entirely. Chunks of the OP I didn't. However, I have always thought it foolish to vote for someone so pathetic he did mock the physical deformity of a journalist, said women will let celebrities grab them by the *****, and did encourage violence. Among other things.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not entirely. Chunks of the OP I didn't. However, I have always thought it foolish to vote for someone so pathetic he did mock the physical deformity of a journalist, said women will let celebrities grab them by the *****, and did encourage violence. Among other things.

And I thought it wrong to vote for someone who voted to start & continue wars.
War is worse than unwanted touching....or at least it is to some of us.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Seems you missed the "while claiming to be better" part...

Nope. IMHO changing tactics when the other guy won't abide by the basic principles or civil discourse and discussion doesn't preclude one from "being better".

 

[Debater Slayer]

I knew that in advance.
How?
You won't find any.

It's true because you assert it...not because you've any evidence.
You got caught making it up.

Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

Mein Gott! You get even this wrong.
I've no disdain for such friends, my opinion of religions notwithstanding.

That's the point I was making about distinguishing disdain for people's beliefs from their character. Maybe you mistook my post for sarcasm.

Your post attacks voters (& posters) more than Trump & his policies.
And you back it up without citing a single post from the plethora you
claim to exist. You even refuse to find one to cite, yet you stick to
your guns with the claim. It's devoid of reason.

If you don't see how some of your posts come across as Trump apologetics, then I believe that's an indication of either lack of enough awareness of how they present or mere denial of said presentation. Either way, it's not my own problem to solve.

You've still not provided one.
Yet you continue to claim that I have, & that the posts exist.
Your argument is based upon prejudice.
Sometimes, when confronted with an erroneous claim, it's best
to admit one is wrong, rather than to backpedal, hem, & haw

See above.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Trump said no war.
So until war breaks out, he has kept the promise.

Two sovereign nations are currently exchanging lethal munitions. You want to hide behind semantics and ignore the fact?

 

[Revoltingest]

Nope. IMHO changing tactics when the other guy won't abide by the basic principles or civil discourse and discussion doesn't preclude one from "being better".

It's a matter of personal style & ethics.
Many people find Trump's boorish behavior offensive.
I do. Many get angry. Some remain civil. Others take
Trump's cue, & descend to his level. That's their right.
But there's odd irony in becoming what they decry.

 

[McBell]

Two sovereign nations are currently exchanging lethal munitions. You want to hide behind semantics and ignore the fact?

Ah, so every conflict is a war then...
Making the word completely useless.
Well, thanks for that.

But then you cloud it with your claim of ignoring facts...
You do know what a fact is, right?
I feel the need to ask because your usage of the word in your above quoted post indicates you do not.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Not entirely. Chunks of the OP I didn't. However, I have always thought it foolish to vote for someone so pathetic he did mock the physical deformity of a journalist, said women will let celebrities grab them by the *****, and did encourage violence. Among other things.

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.

 

[Revoltingest]

Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

Can't argue against such eloquent deflection.
Well.....yes I can.
I caught you making an unsupported allegation.
You will neither support it nor fess up.
This awkwardness will linger til one or the other.

That's the point I was making about distinguishing disdain for people's beliefs from their character. Maybe you mistook my post for sarcasm.

The OP was about people (including me) rather than our beliefs.
(You didn't mention my beliefs in the OP.)
You should re-read it. You'll see.

If you don't see how some of your posts come across as Trump apologetics, then I believe that's an indication of either lack of enough awareness of how they present or mere denial of said presentation. Either way, it's not my own problem to solve.

When I've criticized yours, I've actually quoted them.
This is the reasonable, clear, & fair way.
Pick a post of mine.
It's easy.
Try searching thru my posts just the last couple days for "Trump".
Let's address it.
I double dog dare you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're angry at us. I get it.
But you're going off the deep end with the hostility & derision.
You're staff. Set a better example.

When we voted, we had the information we had at the time.
And don't pretend that his alternative was any peacenik.
At the time of that election, you didn't offer your prediction
of this latest debacle. Don't pretend you foresaw it.
We have more data now. It will affect votes in 2020.
.

Even back then I could see that if Hillary got us into war it would be for "half decent" reasons, and I did not think that too likely. Right from the start I could see Trump getting us into war for stupid reasons.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Ah, so every conflict is a war then...
Making the word completely useless.
Well, thanks for that.

But then you cloud it with your claim of ignoring facts...
You do know what a fact is, right?
I feel the need to ask because your usage of the word in your above quoted post indicates you do not.

Semantics and ignoring the fact. Got it.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Even back then I could see that if Hillary got us into war it would be for "half decent" reasons, and I did not think that too likely. Right from the start I could see Trump getting us into war for stupid reasons.

I'm sure the trumpettes think distracting from the impeachment is a pretty decent reason.