Would you Vote for Trump?

[Revoltingest]

Or, you're working hard to not be convinced.

I find it effortless.

Not sure why you can't acknowledge there might be some distinctions among US troops, Asad's troops, the Nazi SS, ancient Aztec warriors, the Mongols, etc. and instead lump them all together as "men who die in combat" (with a noble ring to it) and then go even further and refuse to acknowledge there might be a further distinction between that group and the unarmed civilians they kill. It must take a lot of effort to do that.

I don't deny the existence of distinctions.
They just don't add up to a convincing argument.

Okay. I guess we'll never know since you refuse to answer a simple question.

I'm not refusing to answer anything.
I might've missed one just because my eyes glaze over at a wall of text which appears to rehash this topic.
Discussions often reach a point where tis best to accept that different perspectives won't meld.

 

[Revoltingest]

In the news, Trump surges ahead.....
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/04/official-ted-cruz-mathematically-eliminated-gop-race/
http://www.politico.com/blogs/twelv...rump-popular-vote-record-222510#ixzz470kv1udt

 

[crossfire]

Can I move to Iceland?

 

[Revoltingest]

In the news....
http://time.com/4309786/read-donald-trumps-america-first-foreign-policy-speech/

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I find it effortless.

Perhaps due to a lack of effort.

I don't deny the existence of distinctions.

Great, that was my question.

So how would you acknowledge said distinctions if you called them all "victims" (the Nazis, the civilians, etc.)?

I'm not refusing to answer anything.
I might've missed one just because my eyes glaze over at a wall of text which appears to rehash this topic.
Discussions often reach a point where tis best to accept that different perspectives won't meld.

Yes, you did miss one. I certainly can't make you answer any if you wish not to.

 

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps due to a lack of effort.

If one isn't trying to justify a perspective, then one truly needs no effort.
One need merely observe, & let the impressions form.
Effort is a sign of forcing a square peg into a round hole.

I certainly can't make you answer any if you wish not to.

Strained hypotheticals which don't illuminate....I'll pass.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

If one isn't trying to justify a perspective, then one truly needs no effort.

Yes but if one insists on sharing one's perspective, as you have done, one should be prepared to justify it.

Strained hypotheticals which don't illuminate....I'll pass.

But, you already answered that question - never mind.

Your claim boils down to semantics. Swap "victims" out for "civilian casualties" or some other term and the whole fuss you've made about Clinton's quote evaporates. Just wanted to plant that flag where everyone can see it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes but if one insists on sharing one's perspective, as you have done, one should be prepared to justify it.

But, you already answered that question - never mind.

Your claim boils down to semantics. Swap "victims" out for "civilian casualties" or some other term and the whole fuss you've made about Clinton's quote evaporates. Just wanted to plant that flag where everyone can see it.

You're just going to just keep beating this poor dead horse, aren't you?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You're just going to just keep beating this poor dead horse, aren't you?

I was finished, but I admit that is an apt analogy of your argument and what I have done to it.

 

[freethinker44]

Your claim boils down to semantics. Swap "victims" out for "civilian casualties" or some other term and the whole fuss you've made about Clinton's quote evaporates. Just wanted to plant that flag where everyone can see it.

How is this a valid argument, at all?
I mean, swap "gas chambers" out for "lollipop wonderland" and you could say the same thing about the holocaust.
Swap "hate" for "love" and racists aren't racist anymore.
You can't just swap out what you don't like. Reality doesn't work like that.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

How is this a valid argument, at all?
I mean, swap "gas chambers" out for "lollipop wonderland" and you could say the same thing about the holocaust.
Swap "hate" for "love" and racists aren't racist anymore.
You can't just swap out what you don't like. Reality doesn't work like that.

I have no idea what you are saying here. Hate and love are opposites. Victims and civilian casualties, however, overlap to such an extent throughout the history of warfare that it would probably be accurate to say, as Clinton did, most victims (including all civilian casualties plus some debatable subset of soldiers who could be called victims) have been women. I'm saying the most generous interpretation of Revoltingest's criticism is that, the subset of soldiers who should rightfully be called "victims" as well as any unarmed civilian, is so large and the issue so debatable, that she should have used a more restrictive term like civilian casualties. Then it wouldn't even be debatable that most of them have been women. Mind you, I don't agree with that criticism, but even if I did it is not a profound criticism and gets nowhere near misandry.

 

[esmith]

How many troops have died in Syria? Do you want tons of troops or not? I bet you'll vote for someone who wants tons of troops. You can't complain about a few troops when you want tens of thousands. Obama is doing the responsible thing.

Well as of this date none, but that is a moot point, an additional 250 military personnel have been sent to Syria. No, I do not want a massive deployment of U.S. forces, at the present time, to be committed. I'll go with Mr. Trumps policy of committing U.S. troops.
Before you go ballistic I suggest you look at what Mr. Trump put forth as his foreign policy.
To make it easy for you I'll even provide the link
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/us/politics/transcript-trump-foreign-policy.html

 

[tytlyf]

Well as of this date none, but that is a moot point, an additional 250 military personnel have been sent to Syria. No, I do not want a massive deployment of U.S. forces, at the present time, to be committed. I'll go with Mr. Trumps policy of committing U.S. troops.
Before you go ballistic I suggest you look at what Mr. Trump put forth as his foreign policy.
To make it easy for you I'll even provide the link
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/us/politics/transcript-trump-foreign-policy.html

So you're a Trump supporter? I guessed you were more the Tea Party Cruz type.

 

[metis]

Well as of this date none, but that is a moot point, an additional 250 military personnel have been sent to Syria. No, I do not want a massive deployment of U.S. forces, at the present time, to be committed. I'll go with Mr. Trumps policy of committing U.S. troops.
Before you go ballistic I suggest you look at what Mr. Trump put forth as his foreign policy.
To make it easy for you I'll even provide the link
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/us/politics/transcript-trump-foreign-policy.html

And this morning on the "Today" show when asked if he would consider using nukes against ISIS, he said he would not take anything off the table, including them. So, are you seriously going to vote for someone who is even considering the possibility of using nukes there?

Are you also aware that Lindsey Graham referred to Trump's foreign policy speech as being "incoherent"? Heck, as minor as this is, he couldn't pronounce "Tanzania" correctly, so he about as astute in the foreign relations arena as he is in the theology area when he said "Two Corinthians".

This is the kind of guy you really want as president? So far, the only thing he has shown to be proficient at is insulting people, and what kind of foreign policy reaction do you think that'll lead to? Without much of a doubt he suffers from "narcissistic personality disorder", which is a form of mental illness, and yet you want this guy to have his finger on "the button"?

 

[tytlyf]

I support Trump 100% as the republican nominee. Conservatives have a choice, give the establishment the middle finger and vote Trump. Or vote Cruz and continue the corruption, special interests and establishment ignoring the people.

I've warned everyone here for years that no one in the middle class should be voting republican. The establishment uses Fox and Rush to convince 'heartland' Americans to support the corporate republican party.

Both Roger Ailes and Rush are republican insiders doing the bidding of the establishment. Hell, Roger Ailes was an insider with Nixon, Reagan and GHWB. Don't be fooled by their 'conservative card.'

 

[metis]

Trump is not a conservative.

 

[esmith]

I support Trump 100% as the republican nominee. Conservatives have a choice, give the establishment the middle finger and vote Trump. Or vote Cruz and continue the corruption, special interests and establishment ignoring the people.

I've warned everyone here for years that no one in the middle class should be voting republican. The establishment uses Fox and Rush to convince 'heartland' Americans to support the corporate republican party.

Both Roger Ailes and Rush are republican insiders doing the bidding of the establishment. Hell, Roger Ailes was an insider with Nixon, Reagan and GHWB. Don't be fooled by their 'conservative card.'

Ah but one of your favorite boogeymen, Charles Koch, said he might support the Hillary..... Pulling your hair out and running amok at that?
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...ys-he-could-possibly-support-hillary-clinton/

Poor tytlyf, his dream candidate, Hillary, could be supported by his biggest nightmare, one of the Koch brothers, Charles. What say you now?

 

[Revoltingest]

Ah but one of your favorite boogeymen, Charles Koch, said he might support the Hillary..... Pulling your hair out and running amok at that?
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...ys-he-could-possibly-support-hillary-clinton/

Poor tytlyf, his dream candidate, Hillary, could be supported by his biggest nightmare, one of the Koch brothers, Charles. What say you now?

I saw that too.
Imagine our friends on the left siding with a Koch brother.....hah!
This is indeed an interesting election.

 

[esmith]

So you're a Trump supporter? I guessed you were more the Tea Party Cruz type.

No, I'm for the person who I think will change the direction that your idol, the Obama, has taken us. And, oh by the way that would be the wrong way.
Life Member NRA

 

[metis]

At least at this point, Obama appears to be leaving office with an approval rating higher than either Bush, along with the Pub's deity, Reagan, at the end of their terms in office. Higher than any of them was Clinton but, the last time I seem to remember, he wasn't a Republican.

Oh, and exactly how high is the Congressional Republican's "approval" rating? [that's a joke, in case one missed it]