|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 01 2016 09:52 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2016 08:57 biology]major wrote:On August 01 2016 08:45 Nyxisto wrote:
Trump's completely chaotic course on anything goes pretty much against the Washington dogma of being predictable above anything else as far as foreign policy is concerned. I remember the kind of criticism Obama received for not following through on his 'red line'. Compared to this Trump is pure entropy. There's not even any point to argue about what he's potentially going to do because it's all conjecture. Our foreign policy up to this point has been awful, and your country especially has seen the aftermath via refugee influx due to all of the power vacuums that the USA helped create. Isolationist conjecture is actually an improvement over what we have currently. On a side note the EU needs to restrict immigration completely from a lot of the high risk countries in the middle east for Trump's immigration ban to be effective. Otherwise they will just abuse the open border policy of the EU before infiltrating the US. Either way this vetting process needs to be improved, and I am curious on how we can accomplish that. Just like the wall, Trump's ban on immigration at the moment is going to be marginally effective and more symbolic than anything. However I'd say it's at least the right direction. The vetting process is in fact very thorough, and doesn't really need any changes. The problem with Syria is that, due it being an unstable war zone, you can't do the usual kind of vetting. You can't go check up on their claims, check in with their friends/neighbours, look through town records.
Yeah banning Syrian refugees is a given.
|
Actually the majority, almost all, of Syrian refugees to have made it to the US are women and children. The majority of Muslim immigrants who are not refugees tend to be very well educated compared to what Europe has seen.
The United States is a very difficult destination to get to.
|
On August 01 2016 09:05 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2016 08:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:How are people complaining of an offshore site 40 miles out in the ocean? The deep waters off the coast of California could become home to the country’s largest offshore wind energy project and a test case for a technology that is still in its infancy.
The 765-megawatt project, proposed by Seattle-based Trident Winds, would sit about 25 miles off California’s central coast, near the town of Cambria. If built, it will be larger than the 630-megawatt London Array off the coast of Kent, – the world’s largest working offshore wind farm that began operating in 2013.
The Trident project, which could power more than 200,000 homes, reflects an interest by the US to embrace offshore wind energy as part of a broader strategy to develop low-carbon electricity sources. The country has no offshore wind farms, though a number of projects are in the research phase to determine their profitability. The very first project to come online in the US is under construction off the coast of Rhode Island: the 30-megawatt Block Island wind farm that is expected to begin operating later this year.
Offshore wind development already has taken off in Europe and other parts of the world. The UK, for example, has installed more than 5 gigawatts of offshore wind power plants, meeting 10% of its total energy demand.
“It’s just another very valuable resource that not only will be benefiting energy generation, but will create a new industry in the state of California,” says Alla Weinstein, CEO of Trident Winds.
Trident is proposing an unprecedented project in a state that has frowned on coastal energy development ever since a 1969 blowout at an offshore oil drilling platform near Santa Barbara, which released more than 3m gallons of crude oil into the waters. The resulting images of soiled beaches and oily seabirds were splashed around the world and helped launch the modern environmental movement.
Recent attempts to build machines to harness the power of ocean currents off the state’s coast also drowned in failure as they ran into technical and financial problems and protests from local communities.
California has some of the world’s toughest coastal development regulations. The state’s first large seawater desalination project, for example, took more than six years to win government approval and survived 14 lawsuits before construction started. Source Because wind turbines in the ocean are a complete unknown in terms of environmental impact. We simply don't know how the sound effects the marine life and what long term effects it will have on that ecosystem.
Well there's only one way to find out what the effects are... Surely it is safer for marine life than offshore oil drilling with the US does an insane amount of.
|
On August 01 2016 08:05 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2016 08:00 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2016 07:58 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 01 2016 07:55 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2016 07:27 Velr wrote:
If you support trump and your reason isn' "i want to see the world burn" or among these lines your either not thinking and just vote for the d/r or you are retarded. I've always noted that people who vote to see the world burn have already done the calculation that they aren't likely to get burned themselves. I'm currently deployed right now and believe I'm more likely to have to deploy again under Clinton than Trump. Why do you assume every comment about voting for Trump is about you? You love to drop that anecdote about your brother having to deploy all the time as reason alone to support Clinton over Trump and ignorantly imply the people who would support Trump are those unaffected by his decisions. I'm someone who will be directly impacted by the decisions of the commander in chief and I trust Trump more than Clinton as my top boss, granted that isn't saying much, so I'm just telling you you're wrong.
I'm currently in the Navy reserves, and I have coworkers in the Army, Air Force, and Marine reserves (we all used to be active) and we universally agree that Trump would be far more likely to send us to war and we all trust any other current candidate over him.
Anecdotes are anecdotes.
|
On August 01 2016 10:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2016 08:05 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 01 2016 08:00 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2016 07:58 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 01 2016 07:55 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2016 07:27 Velr wrote:
If you support trump and your reason isn' "i want to see the world burn" or among these lines your either not thinking and just vote for the d/r or you are retarded. I've always noted that people who vote to see the world burn have already done the calculation that they aren't likely to get burned themselves. I'm currently deployed right now and believe I'm more likely to have to deploy again under Clinton than Trump. Why do you assume every comment about voting for Trump is about you? You love to drop that anecdote about your brother having to deploy all the time as reason alone to support Clinton over Trump and ignorantly imply the people who would support Trump are those unaffected by his decisions. I'm someone who will be directly impacted by the decisions of the commander in chief and I trust Trump more than Clinton as my top boss, granted that isn't saying much, so I'm just telling you you're wrong. I'm currently in the Navy reserves, and I have coworkers in the Army, Air Force, and Marine reserves (we all used to be active) and we universally agree that Trump would be far more likely to send us to war and we all trust any other current candidate over him. Anecdotes are anecdotes.
Do you ever bother to read parent quotes when you decide to comment on things or just assume something stupid and post without context
|
On August 01 2016 10:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2016 10:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 01 2016 08:05 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 01 2016 08:00 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2016 07:58 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 01 2016 07:55 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2016 07:27 Velr wrote:
If you support trump and your reason isn' "i want to see the world burn" or among these lines your either not thinking and just vote for the d/r or you are retarded. I've always noted that people who vote to see the world burn have already done the calculation that they aren't likely to get burned themselves. I'm currently deployed right now and believe I'm more likely to have to deploy again under Clinton than Trump. Why do you assume every comment about voting for Trump is about you? You love to drop that anecdote about your brother having to deploy all the time as reason alone to support Clinton over Trump and ignorantly imply the people who would support Trump are those unaffected by his decisions. I'm someone who will be directly impacted by the decisions of the commander in chief and I trust Trump more than Clinton as my top boss, granted that isn't saying much, so I'm just telling you you're wrong. I'm currently in the Navy reserves, and I have coworkers in the Army, Air Force, and Marine reserves (we all used to be active) and we universally agree that Trump would be far more likely to send us to war and we all trust any other current candidate over him. Anecdotes are anecdotes. Do you ever bother to read parent quotes when you decide to comment on things or just assume something stupid and post without context
Perhaps you'd better explain how that context invalidates his post, because I am not seeing it.
|
Impressed to ear that you guys are militaries ; I would never have the guts to do your job. Maybe when I was younger, now I have a wife and a cat and I am fully aware that I'm a pussy.
I'm not sure Hillary would drive the US in a real armed conflict anyway ; i think she learned the people don't want that anymore.
|
On August 01 2016 10:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2016 10:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 01 2016 08:05 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 01 2016 08:00 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2016 07:58 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 01 2016 07:55 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2016 07:27 Velr wrote:
If you support trump and your reason isn' "i want to see the world burn" or among these lines your either not thinking and just vote for the d/r or you are retarded. I've always noted that people who vote to see the world burn have already done the calculation that they aren't likely to get burned themselves. I'm currently deployed right now and believe I'm more likely to have to deploy again under Clinton than Trump. Why do you assume every comment about voting for Trump is about you? You love to drop that anecdote about your brother having to deploy all the time as reason alone to support Clinton over Trump and ignorantly imply the people who would support Trump are those unaffected by his decisions. I'm someone who will be directly impacted by the decisions of the commander in chief and I trust Trump more than Clinton as my top boss, granted that isn't saying much, so I'm just telling you you're wrong. I'm currently in the Navy reserves, and I have coworkers in the Army, Air Force, and Marine reserves (we all used to be active) and we universally agree that Trump would be far more likely to send us to war and we all trust any other current candidate over him. Anecdotes are anecdotes. Do you ever bother to read parent quotes when you decide to comment on things or just assume something stupid and post without context
You explicitly stated that you did precisely what you were were implying you don't do; you're voting for a volatile candidate when you don't think you'll get burned (compared to the other candidate).
So you were either trying to create false authority by being one of the only ones here in the service or you were too stupid to think about what you were posting.
Get off your high horse. You don't post intelligently enough to talk with that tone.
|
On August 01 2016 11:01 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2016 10:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 01 2016 10:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 01 2016 08:05 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 01 2016 08:00 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2016 07:58 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 01 2016 07:55 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2016 07:27 Velr wrote:
If you support trump and your reason isn' "i want to see the world burn" or among these lines your either not thinking and just vote for the d/r or you are retarded. I've always noted that people who vote to see the world burn have already done the calculation that they aren't likely to get burned themselves. I'm currently deployed right now and believe I'm more likely to have to deploy again under Clinton than Trump. Why do you assume every comment about voting for Trump is about you? You love to drop that anecdote about your brother having to deploy all the time as reason alone to support Clinton over Trump and ignorantly imply the people who would support Trump are those unaffected by his decisions. I'm someone who will be directly impacted by the decisions of the commander in chief and I trust Trump more than Clinton as my top boss, granted that isn't saying much, so I'm just telling you you're wrong. I'm currently in the Navy reserves, and I have coworkers in the Army, Air Force, and Marine reserves (we all used to be active) and we universally agree that Trump would be far more likely to send us to war and we all trust any other current candidate over him. Anecdotes are anecdotes. Do you ever bother to read parent quotes when you decide to comment on things or just assume something stupid and post without context You explicitly stated that you did precisely what you were were implying you don't do; you're voting for a volatile candidate when you don't think you'll get burned (compared to the other candidate).
I explicitly stated I find Clinton to be less dangerous than Trump.
This is anecdotal evidence to refute the implied generalization made by Plansix that people okay with voting for Trump are doing so because they stand to lose nothing if he boils over.
|
On August 01 2016 11:07 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2016 11:01 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 01 2016 10:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 01 2016 10:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 01 2016 08:05 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 01 2016 08:00 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2016 07:58 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 01 2016 07:55 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2016 07:27 Velr wrote:
If you support trump and your reason isn' "i want to see the world burn" or among these lines your either not thinking and just vote for the d/r or you are retarded. I've always noted that people who vote to see the world burn have already done the calculation that they aren't likely to get burned themselves. I'm currently deployed right now and believe I'm more likely to have to deploy again under Clinton than Trump. Why do you assume every comment about voting for Trump is about you? You love to drop that anecdote about your brother having to deploy all the time as reason alone to support Clinton over Trump and ignorantly imply the people who would support Trump are those unaffected by his decisions. I'm someone who will be directly impacted by the decisions of the commander in chief and I trust Trump more than Clinton as my top boss, granted that isn't saying much, so I'm just telling you you're wrong. I'm currently in the Navy reserves, and I have coworkers in the Army, Air Force, and Marine reserves (we all used to be active) and we universally agree that Trump would be far more likely to send us to war and we all trust any other current candidate over him. Anecdotes are anecdotes. Do you ever bother to read parent quotes when you decide to comment on things or just assume something stupid and post without context You explicitly stated that you did precisely what you were were implying you don't do; you're voting for a volatile candidate when you don't think you'll get burned (compared to the other candidate). I explicitly stated I find Clinton to be less dangerous than Trump. This is anecdotal evidence to refute the implied generalization made by Plansix that people okay with voting for Trump are doing so because they stand to lose nothing if he boils over.
I never fucking said that. You need to learn to read before blaming me for your shitposting.
|
You and stratos are actually the worst
|
|
|
On August 01 2016 11:12 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
You and stratos are actually the worst
Amusing considering you routinely try to call out people for substandard posting, yet you consistently throw out personal attacks and don't have a shred of intellectual integrity yourself.
|
On August 01 2016 11:07 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2016 11:01 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 01 2016 10:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 01 2016 10:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 01 2016 08:05 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 01 2016 08:00 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2016 07:58 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 01 2016 07:55 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2016 07:27 Velr wrote:
If you support trump and your reason isn' "i want to see the world burn" or among these lines your either not thinking and just vote for the d/r or you are retarded. I've always noted that people who vote to see the world burn have already done the calculation that they aren't likely to get burned themselves. I'm currently deployed right now and believe I'm more likely to have to deploy again under Clinton than Trump. Why do you assume every comment about voting for Trump is about you? You love to drop that anecdote about your brother having to deploy all the time as reason alone to support Clinton over Trump and ignorantly imply the people who would support Trump are those unaffected by his decisions. I'm someone who will be directly impacted by the decisions of the commander in chief and I trust Trump more than Clinton as my top boss, granted that isn't saying much, so I'm just telling you you're wrong. I'm currently in the Navy reserves, and I have coworkers in the Army, Air Force, and Marine reserves (we all used to be active) and we universally agree that Trump would be far more likely to send us to war and we all trust any other current candidate over him. Anecdotes are anecdotes. Do you ever bother to read parent quotes when you decide to comment on things or just assume something stupid and post without context You explicitly stated that you did precisely what you were were implying you don't do; you're voting for a volatile candidate when you don't think you'll get burned (compared to the other candidate). I explicitly stated I find Clinton to be less dangerous than Trump. This is anecdotal evidence to refute the implied generalization made by Plansix that people okay with voting for Trump are doing so because they stand to lose nothing if he boils over.
Actually, I think what Plansix (and Velr) said was that people ok with voting for Trump do so because either "they want to see the world burn" (and according to Plansix believe they will not get burned), or they are the kind of voter who will only ever vote Republican, or they are "retarded".
So, according to Plansix, there are other reasons why people would vote for Trump besides believing they stand to lose nothing if the world burns.
|
On August 01 2016 11:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2016 11:12 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
You and stratos are actually the worst Amusing considering you routinely try to call out people for substandard posting, yet you consistently throw out personal attacks and don't have a shred of intellectual integrity yourself.
My first interaction with you is you coming into this quoting me in the middle of a discussion and insulting me.
Every time I see you post youre personally attacking someone and pointing out how stupid they are
You can dress your posts in as much fluff as you want but what you just projected on to me is literally a description of you - whining about others posting, personal attacks, and no intellectual integrity
|
On August 01 2016 11:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2016 11:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 01 2016 11:12 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
You and stratos are actually the worst Amusing considering you routinely try to call out people for substandard posting, yet you consistently throw out personal attacks and don't have a shred of intellectual integrity yourself. My first interaction with you is you coming into this quoting me in the middle of a discussion and insulting me. You can dress your posts in as much fluff as you want but what you just projected on to me is literally a description of you - whining about others posting, personal attacks, and no intellectual integrity
On August 01 2016 10:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2016 08:05 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 01 2016 08:00 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2016 07:58 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 01 2016 07:55 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2016 07:27 Velr wrote:
If you support trump and your reason isn' "i want to see the world burn" or among these lines your either not thinking and just vote for the d/r or you are retarded. I've always noted that people who vote to see the world burn have already done the calculation that they aren't likely to get burned themselves. I'm currently deployed right now and believe I'm more likely to have to deploy again under Clinton than Trump. Why do you assume every comment about voting for Trump is about you? You love to drop that anecdote about your brother having to deploy all the time as reason alone to support Clinton over Trump and ignorantly imply the people who would support Trump are those unaffected by his decisions. I'm someone who will be directly impacted by the decisions of the commander in chief and I trust Trump more than Clinton as my top boss, granted that isn't saying much, so I'm just telling you you're wrong. I'm currently in the Navy reserves, and I have coworkers in the Army, Air Force, and Marine reserves (we all used to be active) and we universally agree that Trump would be far more likely to send us to war and we all trust any other current candidate over him. Anecdotes are anecdotes.
How is this post an insult to you Templar?
|
On August 01 2016 11:25 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2016 11:07 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 01 2016 11:01 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 01 2016 10:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 01 2016 10:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 01 2016 08:05 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 01 2016 08:00 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2016 07:58 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 01 2016 07:55 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2016 07:27 Velr wrote:
If you support trump and your reason isn' "i want to see the world burn" or among these lines your either not thinking and just vote for the d/r or you are retarded. I've always noted that people who vote to see the world burn have already done the calculation that they aren't likely to get burned themselves. I'm currently deployed right now and believe I'm more likely to have to deploy again under Clinton than Trump. Why do you assume every comment about voting for Trump is about you? You love to drop that anecdote about your brother having to deploy all the time as reason alone to support Clinton over Trump and ignorantly imply the people who would support Trump are those unaffected by his decisions. I'm someone who will be directly impacted by the decisions of the commander in chief and I trust Trump more than Clinton as my top boss, granted that isn't saying much, so I'm just telling you you're wrong. I'm currently in the Navy reserves, and I have coworkers in the Army, Air Force, and Marine reserves (we all used to be active) and we universally agree that Trump would be far more likely to send us to war and we all trust any other current candidate over him. Anecdotes are anecdotes. Do you ever bother to read parent quotes when you decide to comment on things or just assume something stupid and post without context You explicitly stated that you did precisely what you were were implying you don't do; you're voting for a volatile candidate when you don't think you'll get burned (compared to the other candidate). I explicitly stated I find Clinton to be less dangerous than Trump. This is anecdotal evidence to refute the implied generalization made by Plansix that people okay with voting for Trump are doing so because they stand to lose nothing if he boils over. Actually, I think what Plansix (and Velr) said was that people ok with voting for Trump do so because either "they want to see the world burn" (and according to Plansix believe they will not get burned), or they are the kind of voter who will only ever vote Republican, or they are "retarded". So, according to Plansix, there are other reasons why people would vote for Trump besides believing they stand to lose nothing if the world burns.
Oh god thanks for clarifying. How much better that sounds wow
Okay well I don't always vote Republican and I'm not retarded so my anecdotal evidence still serves as a counterexample
|
On August 01 2016 11:26 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2016 11:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 01 2016 11:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 01 2016 11:12 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
You and stratos are actually the worst Amusing considering you routinely try to call out people for substandard posting, yet you consistently throw out personal attacks and don't have a shred of intellectual integrity yourself. My first interaction with you is you coming into this quoting me in the middle of a discussion and insulting me. You can dress your posts in as much fluff as you want but what you just projected on to me is literally a description of you - whining about others posting, personal attacks, and no intellectual integrity Show nested quote +On August 01 2016 10:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 01 2016 08:05 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 01 2016 08:00 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2016 07:58 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 01 2016 07:55 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2016 07:27 Velr wrote:
If you support trump and your reason isn' "i want to see the world burn" or among these lines your either not thinking and just vote for the d/r or you are retarded. I've always noted that people who vote to see the world burn have already done the calculation that they aren't likely to get burned themselves. I'm currently deployed right now and believe I'm more likely to have to deploy again under Clinton than Trump. Why do you assume every comment about voting for Trump is about you? You love to drop that anecdote about your brother having to deploy all the time as reason alone to support Clinton over Trump and ignorantly imply the people who would support Trump are those unaffected by his decisions. I'm someone who will be directly impacted by the decisions of the commander in chief and I trust Trump more than Clinton as my top boss, granted that isn't saying much, so I'm just telling you you're wrong. I'm currently in the Navy reserves, and I have coworkers in the Army, Air Force, and Marine reserves (we all used to be active) and we universally agree that Trump would be far more likely to send us to war and we all trust any other current candidate over him. Anecdotes are anecdotes. How is this post an insult to you Templar?
It isn't. That isn't our first interaction. That's just him thinking I was doing something I wasn't
|
On August 01 2016 11:30 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2016 11:25 Aquanim wrote:On August 01 2016 11:07 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 01 2016 11:01 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 01 2016 10:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 01 2016 10:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 01 2016 08:05 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 01 2016 08:00 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2016 07:58 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 01 2016 07:55 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I've always noted that people who vote to see the world burn have already done the calculation that they aren't likely to get burned themselves. I'm currently deployed right now and believe I'm more likely to have to deploy again under Clinton than Trump. Why do you assume every comment about voting for Trump is about you? You love to drop that anecdote about your brother having to deploy all the time as reason alone to support Clinton over Trump and ignorantly imply the people who would support Trump are those unaffected by his decisions. I'm someone who will be directly impacted by the decisions of the commander in chief and I trust Trump more than Clinton as my top boss, granted that isn't saying much, so I'm just telling you you're wrong. I'm currently in the Navy reserves, and I have coworkers in the Army, Air Force, and Marine reserves (we all used to be active) and we universally agree that Trump would be far more likely to send us to war and we all trust any other current candidate over him. Anecdotes are anecdotes. Do you ever bother to read parent quotes when you decide to comment on things or just assume something stupid and post without context You explicitly stated that you did precisely what you were were implying you don't do; you're voting for a volatile candidate when you don't think you'll get burned (compared to the other candidate). I explicitly stated I find Clinton to be less dangerous than Trump. This is anecdotal evidence to refute the implied generalization made by Plansix that people okay with voting for Trump are doing so because they stand to lose nothing if he boils over. Actually, I think what Plansix (and Velr) said was that people ok with voting for Trump do so because either "they want to see the world burn" (and according to Plansix believe they will not get burned), or they are the kind of voter who will only ever vote Republican, or they are "retarded". So, according to Plansix, there are other reasons why people would vote for Trump besides believing they stand to lose nothing if the world burns. Oh god thanks for clarifying. How much better that sounds wow
I never said they were complimentary towards people intending to vote for Trump (and I would say that "retarded" is a far less diplomatic term than "mistaken as to the likely consequences of Trump becoming POTUS" - the latter is what I think you probably are).
EDIT: As a corollary, I don't think that you think you "stand to lose nothing if he boils over", and I doubt Plansix does either, because that particular reason isn't why you are voting for Trump.
|
On August 01 2016 11:33 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2016 11:30 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 01 2016 11:25 Aquanim wrote:On August 01 2016 11:07 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 01 2016 11:01 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 01 2016 10:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 01 2016 10:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 01 2016 08:05 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 01 2016 08:00 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2016 07:58 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
I'm currently deployed right now and believe I'm more likely to have to deploy again under Clinton than Trump. Why do you assume every comment about voting for Trump is about you? You love to drop that anecdote about your brother having to deploy all the time as reason alone to support Clinton over Trump and ignorantly imply the people who would support Trump are those unaffected by his decisions. I'm someone who will be directly impacted by the decisions of the commander in chief and I trust Trump more than Clinton as my top boss, granted that isn't saying much, so I'm just telling you you're wrong. I'm currently in the Navy reserves, and I have coworkers in the Army, Air Force, and Marine reserves (we all used to be active) and we universally agree that Trump would be far more likely to send us to war and we all trust any other current candidate over him. Anecdotes are anecdotes. Do you ever bother to read parent quotes when you decide to comment on things or just assume something stupid and post without context You explicitly stated that you did precisely what you were were implying you don't do; you're voting for a volatile candidate when you don't think you'll get burned (compared to the other candidate). I explicitly stated I find Clinton to be less dangerous than Trump. This is anecdotal evidence to refute the implied generalization made by Plansix that people okay with voting for Trump are doing so because they stand to lose nothing if he boils over. Actually, I think what Plansix (and Velr) said was that people ok with voting for Trump do so because either "they want to see the world burn" (and according to Plansix believe they will not get burned), or they are the kind of voter who will only ever vote Republican, or they are "retarded". So, according to Plansix, there are other reasons why people would vote for Trump besides believing they stand to lose nothing if the world burns. Oh god thanks for clarifying. How much better that sounds wow I never said they were complimentary towards people intending to vote for Trump (and I would say that "retarded" is a far less diplomatic term than "mistaken as to the likely consequences of Trump becoming POTUS" - the latter is what I think you probably are).
That's fine. Maybe I am mistaken. Maybe I'm not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
