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

[Subduction Zone]

I'm referring to Hillary calling people "deplorable", as well as the media going haywire over every detail on Trump -from calling him a paedophile who lusts over his own daughter, to other ridiculous things that only served to make the media look obnoxious.

...And now obnoxious anti-Trumpettes are trashing Trump supporters over Iran, and it appears to be a big nothing... How embarrassing!

How about, calming down a bit, unless people actually want to appear like:
View attachment 36142

Oh I was not fond of Hillary at all for that statement. But seriously is that the best that you have? You do realize that Trump is twice as bad in that particular regard, don't you?

I don't think anyone on the media called Trump a pedophile. They only pointed out his rather incestuous remarks he made about his own daughter.

And no, this is not a "big nothing". Trump murdered a man. The claim is that he is a terrorist, but I cannot find very much support for that claim.

And seriously you are projecting when it comes to requests of calming down. All you need to do is to face that fact that supporting Trump was a big error. It does not necessarily make you a bad person, but it is pretty hard to say that about someone that continue to support Trump.

 

[Revoltingest]

That’s a lot of whinin’, but no splainin’.

This self criticism is brave of you.

 

[Revoltingest]

Trump murdered a man. The claim is that he is a terrorist, but I cannot find very much support for that claim.

I say that "murder" is the wrong word. "Assassinate" is better. Both have negative
connotations, but the former connotes illegality in all venues, whereas the latter is
debatable because it depends upon when & where. Morally.... murder is generally
wrong, but assassination could be argued either way. It's about perspective.

Regarding the Iranian general, I see the major issue as being a trigger for war.
Right or wrong in the small context...I don't know. But very very wrong in the larger.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I say that "murder" is the wrong word. "Assassinate" is better. Both have negative
connotations, but the former connotes illegality in all venues, whereas the latter is
debatable because it depends upon when & where. Morally.... murder is generally
wrong, but assassination could be argued either way. It's about perspective.

Regarding the Iranian general, I see the major issue as being a trigger for war.
Right or wrong in the small context...I don't know. But very very wrong in the larger.

Yes, you are correct. Murder is an excessively emotional term as well. I genuinely would like to see some evidence that the general is a terrorist as claimed.

 

[Stevicus]

Oh, I know you like Bernie, but let’s suppose his heart stops, or something else gets him out of the race. The others are easily better than Trump by most reasonable measures. Would you pick one of the three I listed over Trump? Why or why not?
The floor is yours.

Every election is making a judgment call between the lesser of two evils.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, you are correct. Murder is an excessively emotional term as well. I genuinely would like to see some evidence that the general is a terrorist as claimed.

Alas, such evidence would come from sources with an ax to grind.
This makes their claims dubious. So I'll never know.

 

[Revoltingest]

View attachment 36142

That would be a good avatar for some here.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes, you are correct. Murder is an excessively emotional term as well. I genuinely would like to see some evidence that the general is a terrorist as claimed.

That would require government to be more transparent and forthcoming with information. Iran itself has often been accused of being the "biggest state sponsor of terrorism," although the term "terrorism" can also be used and misused in any number of ways.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That would require government to be more transparent and forthcoming with information. Iran itself has often been accused of being the "biggest state sponsor of terrorism," although the term "terrorism" can also be used and misused in any number of ways.

For me terrorism implies attacking civilians.

 

[Audie]

Oh I was not fond of Hillary at all for that statement. But seriously is that the best that you have? You do realize that Trump is twice as bad in that particular regard, don't you?

I don't think anyone on the media called Trump a pedophile. They only pointed out his rather incestuous remarks he made about his own daughter.

And no, this is not a "big nothing". Trump murdered a man. The claim is that he is a terrorist, but I cannot find very much support for that claim.

And seriously you are projecting when it comes to requests of calming down. All you need to do is to face that fact that supporting Trump was a big error. It does not necessarily make you a bad person, but it is pretty hard to say that about someone that continue to support Trump.

Not a pedophile but he is a murderer. Seriously?

As for what you can "find" we hear that same line
from the creos.

 

[Audie]

For me terrorism implies attacking civilians.

Ah so desu ka! So ifn some islamic guy goes into
an army base in the US, and shoots up some soldiers,
that is not a terr attack.

In fact, if he singled out servicemen at restaurants etc,
that wont be either.

As you might put it, "seriously?"

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not a pedophile but he is a murderer. Seriously?

As for what you can "find" we hear that same line
from the creos.

Granted, murderer is a bit strong. But he did order an assassination. Granted, the man is claimed to have be a terrorist, but I cannot find any evidence that supports that claim.

 

[Audie]

Granted, murderer is a bit strong. But he did order an assassination. Granted, the man is claimed to have be a terrorist, but I cannot find any evidence that supports that claim.

Yes but is not yes.
And dad cannot find evidence for ToE.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah so desu ka! So ifn some islamic guy goes into
an army base in the US, and shoots up some soldiers,
that is not a terr attack.

In fact, if he singled out servicemen at restaurants etc,
that wont be either.

As you might put it, "seriously?"

I would suggest you double check on your use of "seriously" . You did it wrong.

 

[Audie]

I would suggest you double check on your use of "seriously" . You did it wrong.

Uh, no. But an as feeble sidesteps go, you
wont get out of snakebite range with that one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes but is not yes.
And dad cannot find evidence for ToE.

No one here has even posted any claimed evidence. He may be a terrorist. I seriously do not know. But I would like to see some evidence or his crimes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Uh, no. But an as feeble sidesteps go, you
wont get out of snakebite range with that one.

Really? You could not see how he misconstrued my post?

 

[Revoltingest]

No one here has even posted any claimed evidence. He may be a terrorist. I seriously do not know. But I would like to see some evidence or his crimes.

I think it most likely that he was waging covert war.
Ameristan just calls every foe a "terrorist".
The language gets ruined so easily, eh.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think it most likely that he was waging covert war.
Ameristan just calls every foe a "terrorist".
The language gets ruined so easily, eh.

Whew! It is a good thing we never do that. Wouldn't want to look like hypocrites, don't you know.

 

[Cooky]

For me terrorism implies attacking civilians.

Arguing semantics isn't going to change the fact that he's dead because he was a threat to the U.S., and helped organize the embassy fire, as well as other nasty, annoying things.