Iran promised to not try to develop nuclear weapons before, and they broke that promise.
Maybe they mean it this time.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m horrified he’s my party’s candidate. I didn’t vote for him in the primary.
I’m seriously considering not voting in November. I can’t vote for Hillary and I won’t vote for Trump.
How the bloody hell did this happen?
Ask your party, not us.
You are so snarky. Stop threadshitting dude.
Why not Hillary? Buying into Roves lies?
Look, I can understand why Hillary might not be your first choice- Sanders or even maybe Kasich or a few others can look good.
But why allow Trump to get in?
I’m not threadshitting. It was and is solely the fault of the Republican Party. They backed down every time they could have done something because of their addiction to power at any cost. This time the cost was Trump, and they swallowed it.
Perhaps it’s time to reconsider which party you belong in. What specifically prevents you from voting for Hillary?
I feel like you can not even read. Go back, read the Op. Then read it again.
If you wanna cry about Trump there are an unlimited amount of places to do it in. You are acting like Manson did in that “Rocks are stupid” thing he did.
I’m not voting for Trump, but I could understand game theory on why he’d be a better pick for some rational people. A common mistake in analysis I see is that it is assumed that there are equal probabilities of enacting a particular agenda from each candidate. That’s simply not so.
Assume Clinton wants to pass X agenda, and Trump wants Y agenda. For any given person, they could ascribe a certain amount of utility to each, say Clinton’s X agenda has a negative 50, and Trump’s Y agenda has a negative 700. If the probability of Clinton executing her agenda is 75% and the probability of Trump executing on his agenda is 5%, then the expected outcome of a Clinton presidency would be worse than a Trump presidency. (-37.5 vs. -35)
It’s not simply the overall goodness or badness of either of their candidacies, but also the probability they’d be able to enact their agenda. Of course, individuals could weigh the utility and probability differently. There are scenarios where even if one recognizes Trump to be a terrible candidate, he could be a better choice.
I’m not going to vote for Trump, but that’s only because I live in Utah and he’s going to win Utah no matter who I vote for. Truthfully, I probably won’t vote for president this year. There’s a possibly that I vote for Evan McMullin.
However, if I lived in a swing state, I’d do the whole “hold my nose” routine and vote for Trump.
He’s right however. Trump won thanks to Republican voters turning out in the party’s primaries and casting their ballots for him.
Unless you are DrDeth, I don’t see how you would possibly know that. I’m pretty sure the point was to get people who would vote for Trump in here so we could argue with them about it.
Since the vast majority of reasons to support Trump are based on falsehoods, we would at the very least have to do the ignorance fighting thing.
Real smart. I can’t read minds, but this seems pretty obvious. I don’t know how you guys can’t read.
Asking you why you are voting for him isn’t necessarily an “attack”.
I don’t know why I bother. You were given reasons, you just couldn’t comprehend.
I didn’t attack you, or anyone, except for Trump (and David Duke!).
cite? source? For now, I’d even settle for a clear list of “the vast majority of reasons to support Trump”
I wasn’t talking to you. You were very respectful and had a very well written thought out thing to say. I just didn’t think this was the place for it. I did read it though and thank you for taking the time to draft it.
No, not quite. Ask them why, yes, but the idea was not to attack them or even give them a hard time.
So if someone sez “Yes, I am voting for The Donald” You can ask why, sure. Ask them to explain. Not saying no refutation should happen, of course. But this is a "true confessions’ or “Testify!” thread, not the PIT or Great Debates.
Attacking any open Trump supporters will ruin the purposes of the thread, which is to find out WHY? Not argue with them.
Dude, don’t you get it? On the 'Dope anything but full liberal support means that you eat little kids for dinner, hate poor people, are the worst racist on the planet, dress badly, cackle madly over giant piles of gold while orphans wail and die from hunger in the streets, and are a minion of Satan.
You can disagree with certain things, like implementation of a specific policy, but if you disagree with anything else you are to be insulted and assumed to be too stupid to breathe.
Additionally, if you do disagree and attempt to explain why you disagree, your explanations will be assumed to be lies hiding your ‘true agenda’. The ‘true agenda’ of anyone who disagrees with the 'Dope party line is, as every right thinking person on the 'Dope knows, to turn the pure of heart poor folk into wage slaves so that you can destroy the planet while shooting brown people (whom you force to have more babies by being anti-abortion) to steal their oil so that you can force the (now dead) brown people to read the bible (even if you are an atheist) while you profit from selling tanks to kill the already dead brown people again so that you can deny the poor (many of whom are brown and who are already dead thanks to being shot and ran over by tanks) housing and jobs so that they all turn into criminals so that you can put all the brown people in jails you own to make a profit.
Or something like that.
Slee