More than 1 in 5 Trump SUPPORTERS think he will involve the US in a nuclear war

[jackstar7]

You do realize that you can flippantly dismiss any type of data point that uncomfortably disagrees with your core assumptions, right?

yes, F your life, indeed. Progressives really have made life difficult for you. Such a poor, poor victim of progressives. I hope your safe space has enough guns and bibles to protect you from the evil progressive and blacky wave that is headed your way. 🙁

That safe space is also full of pearls for which to clutch.

 

[Rumble Fish]

You do realize that you can flippantly dismiss any type of data point that uncomfortably disagrees with your core assumptions, right?

yes, F your life, indeed. Progressives really have made life difficult for you. Such a poor, poor victim of progressives. I hope your safe space has enough guns and bibles to protect you from the evil progressive and blacky wave that is headed your way. 🙁

Dude, are you all right? Projecting much?

 

[Rumble Fish]

That safe space is also full of pearls for which to clutch.

You guys got some serious hatred and angst brewing. And then you point at these so-called gun-toting, pearl-clutching weirdos and say they're hateful and brewing angst. You're exactly the same as those you're acting like you're condemning.

 

[zinfamous]

You guys got some serious hatred and angst brewing. And then you point at these so-called gun-toting, pearl-clutching weirdos and say they're hateful and brewing angst. You're exactly the same as those you're acting like you're condemning.

No.

We mock. You hate--and hope to shoot/kill.

There's a difference. 😀

 

[Rumble Fish]

No.

We mock. You hate--and hope to shoot/kill.

There's a difference. 😀

What the heck are you talking about?

 

[fskimospy]

You guys got some serious hatred and angst brewing. And then you point at these so-called gun-toting, pearl-clutching weirdos and say they're hateful and brewing angst. You're exactly the same as those you're acting like you're condemning.

Speaking of projection you've got some serious issues going on here. You apparently joined the forums to say something to the effect of 'polls don't mean anything'. This is a transparently stupid argument to make.

If you think that poll was conducted in a way that invalidated the outcome then say how, specifically. All the inputs you need are there, from the question wording to the methodology used. Crack the case! 🙂

 

[Rumble Fish]

Speaking of projection you've got some serious issues going on here. You apparently joined the forums to say something to the effect of 'polls don't mean anything'. This is a transparently stupid argument to make.

If you think that poll was conducted in a way that invalidated the outcome then say how, specifically. All the inputs you need are there, from the question wording to the methodology used. Crack the case! 🙂

I don't know anything about the poll. Neither do you. Just like I have no idea if, when someone was asked this question, just said, "Yeah" because they were trolling or just stupid or if they really actually believed it.

People say crap all the time they don't believe. A question like this? Its just ridiculous to begin with. Its like saying, 1 in 5 people think Hillary Clinton will bomb Assad forces right before they're about to battle ISIS troops. Oh right. It doesn't matter how many people believe if that will happen or not because it already did.

 

[Rumble Fish]

If you want to foam at the mouth with your hate hard-ons for Trump and Hulk-rage all about it, sure, have it, buck. But at least get an argument? At least take into consideration that Trump is contending against someone else, and well, logic dictates it might be kind of important to understand who the 'someone else' is in this case considering one or the other is going to win.

Your hate of Trump doesn't dismiss you from requiring an argument to be taken seriously and it doesn't dismiss you from being apparently blind to the abomination that is this creature we call Hillary Clinton, who has played Washington corporatist politics for her entire career.

You want to hate Trump? Well I sure as hell can't stop you. But this poll is just sensational garbage. It's the Kardashians of politics. The fact you don't see how obvious that is disturbs me deeply. Even more so than the ones who at least know what they believe in and why - no matter how disgusting or deplorable it may be to you.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't know anything about the poll. Neither do you. Just like I have no idea if, when someone was asked this question, just said, "Yeah" because they were trolling or just stupid or if they really actually believed it.

Ah so you're going with the 'it's not possible to know anything' route. That's very convincing! Of course I know things about the poll! I know the questions that were asked and the methods used. Are you saying that people were more likely to be trolls or stupid if they were Trump supporters? If so, that's an interesting fact too!

You've said repeatedly that this poll is bad/garbage/whatever. All I'm asking you to do is provide literally any evidence to back up your claim. That's not too much to ask, is it? I assume as someone who wants people to take arguments seriously that you understand the value of evidence.

People say crap all the time they don't believe. A question like this? Its just ridiculous to begin with. Its like saying, 1 in 5 people think Hillary Clinton will bomb Assad forces right before they're about to battle ISIS troops. Oh right. It doesn't matter how many people believe if that will happen or not because it already did.

Why is asking if you believe a president will employ nuclear weapons ridiculous? Whether or not you believe someone will participate in a nuclear war sure sounds like an important question to me!

As far as Clinton bombing Assad's forces this is very interesting indeed! Can you explain how Clinton accomplished this feat considering that 1) she was the Secretary of State and they don't control our bombers and 2) the US didn't start bombing Syria until after she was no longer the Secretary of State? I'm all ears.

 

[Rumble Fish]

Ah so you're going with the 'it's not possible to know anything' route. That's very convincing! Of course I know things about the poll! I know the questions that were asked and the methods used. Are you saying that people were more likely to be trolls or stupid if they were Trump supporters? If so, that's an interesting fact too!

You've said repeatedly that this poll is bad/garbage/whatever. All I'm asking you to do is provide literally any evidence to back up your claim. That's not too much to ask, is it? I assume as someone who wants people to take arguments seriously that you understand the value of evidence.



Why is asking if you believe a president will employ nuclear weapons ridiculous? Whether or not you believe someone will participate in a nuclear war sure sounds like an important question to me!

As far as Clinton bombing Assad's forces this is very interesting indeed! Can you explain how Clinton accomplished this feat considering that 1) she was the Secretary of State and they don't control our bombers and 2) the US didn't start bombing Syria until after she was no longer the Secretary of State? I'm all ears.

By proxy? Clinton represents the armed mafia of corporatism that currently controls our federal structure and has for more than a decade if not longer. We can go over things she was directly involved with but you're right, that was by proxy. That was by the paradigm she represents, the very same paradigm that shuts out and censors the media, the very same paradigm that recklessly turned Libya upside down igniting a chain of 'unfortunate' events. What the heck do you think is going on here? I get you don't like Trump, all right, but you realize, there were many, many, many things, many bad-bad things that happened w/o Trump disturbing your ears w/o so much as a "believe me".

You know - lots of bad, bad, bad stuff was going on already, right? Do you get that? The royal Clinton family has always been an integral part of globalization and the wars it causes. That is their legacy. A legacy Hillary pines to continue for what reasoning I can not tell you.

Evidence for the claim that I don't know the minds of the every specific and unique individual who was asked an incredibly sensational question that really has no bearing on reality? Dude, if you think Trump wants to nuke the planet, then have fun with that. Why even bother haggling my dumbass? You got it all figured out I guess. What the heck is there to say to something that ridiculous?

"Will Trump nuke the planet, yes or no!?"
"Uhhhh YEAH!"
"Uhhhh NO!"

???? - Why is this even being discussed?

 

[ivwshane]

By proxy? Clinton represents the armed mafia of corporatism that currently controls our federal structure and has for more than a decade if not longer. We can go over things she was directly involved with but you're right, that was by proxy. That was by the paradigm she represents, the very same paradigm that shuts out and censors the media, the very same paradigm that recklessly turned Libya upside down igniting a chain of 'unfortunate' events. What the heck do you think is going on here? I get you don't like Trump, all right, but you realize, there were many, many, many things, many bad-bad things that happened w/o Trump disturbing your ears w/o so much as a "believe me".

You know - lots of bad, bad, bad stuff was going on already, right? Do you get that? The royal Clinton family has always been an integral part of globalization and the wars it causes. That is their legacy. A legacy Hillary pines to continue for what reasoning I can not tell you.

Evidence for the claim that I don't know the minds of the every specific and unique individual who was asked an incredibly sensational question that really has no bearing on reality? Dude, if you think Trump wants to nuke the planet, then have fun with that. Why even bother haggling my dumbass? You got it all figured out I guess. What the heck is there to say to something that ridiculous?

"Will Trump nuke the planet, yes or no!?"
"Uhhhh YEAH!"
"Uhhhh NO!"

???? - Why is this even being discussed?

Globalization causes wars? That's news to me. When do you expect a war with China? Is India on the shortlist of countries who will be starting wars? What about north Korea? Oh, I forgot they aren't part of the global economy.

You sure write a lot but you seem to say very little. You also don't appear to have a good grasp of history, especially in terms of historical timelines. Are you supposed to be a good example of a good intellectual who is on the right side of the political spectrum?

 

[Rumble Fish]

Globalization causes wars? That's news to me. When do you expect a war with China? Is India on the shortlist of countries who will be starting wars? What about north Korea? Oh, I forgot they aren't part of the global economy.

You sure write a lot but you seem to say very little. You also don't appear to have a good grasp of history, especially in terms of historical timelines. Are you supposed to be a good example of a good intellectual who is on the right side of the political spectrum?

I have no idea what spectrum I'm on but if you don't think we're not and already have been at war with China ever since Clinton and the republican congress campaigned and succeeded to get them into the World Trade Organization then you and I just aren't even close to be able to connect on any wavelength of intelligent thought.

And yes, globalization is about stripping power from the local authorities and mainstreaming it through a federal super structure. This obviously and blatantly leads to war of all sorts, whether it be financial or by the gun.

Lemme tell you something. When a BLM activist goes to Wal-Mart and buys an electronic music player and on the back of that electronic music player it says "Made in China" you do realize that the new owner of that music player is by proxy a slave owner, yes? That piece of equipment they got such a good deal on good very well have been made by a child's hands. A slave child's hands. A child that will grow up into an adult slave, still making cheap and ready-made devices for the West. Modern globalization is a front for slavery. You must look at how the sausage is made. This is why I can't stand progressives by default. But I consider myself a good deal to the left of center. I believe local governments should have far more power over their own provinces rather than a federal structure that knows nothing of that locale or its unique problems and thinks it can solve everything with some fancy fascism that's been wrapped up in a pretty little gift box.

 

[Rumble Fish]

Globalization causes wars? That's news to me. When do you expect a war with China? Is India on the shortlist of countries who will be starting wars? What about north Korea? Oh, I forgot they aren't part of the global economy.

You sure write a lot but you seem to say very little. You also don't appear to have a good grasp of history, especially in terms of historical timelines. Are you supposed to be a good example of a good intellectual who is on the right side of the political spectrum?

I could just repeat this post of yours back at you and it would be just as useless as it was when you aimed it at me.

 

[fskimospy]

By proxy? Clinton represents the armed mafia of corporatism that currently controls our federal structure and has for more than a decade if not longer. We can go over things she was directly involved with but you're right, that was by proxy. That was by the paradigm she represents, the very same paradigm that shuts out and censors the media, the very same paradigm that recklessly turned Libya upside down igniting a chain of 'unfortunate' events. What the heck do you think is going on here? I get you don't like Trump, all right, but you realize, there were many, many, many things, many bad-bad things that happened w/o Trump disturbing your ears w/o so much as a "believe me".

You know - lots of bad, bad, bad stuff was going on already, right? Do you get that? The royal Clinton family has always been an integral part of globalization and the wars it causes. That is their legacy. A legacy Hillary pines to continue for what reasoning I can not tell you.

So in other words when you said that Clinton bombed Assad you didn't mean that she bombed Assad but that some nebulous, nefarious cabal that you've decided Clinton is a part of bombed Assad? That's some Infowars level nuttiness right there. You realize how insane you sound, right?

You're right that I don't like Trump. He's the single least competent/qualified candidate for the presidency in history. That has nothing to do with how crazy your posts are though.

Evidence for the claim that I don't know the minds of the every specific and unique individual who was asked an incredibly sensational question that really has no bearing on reality? Dude, if you think Trump wants to nuke the planet, then have fun with that. Why even bother haggling my dumbass? You got it all figured out I guess. What the heck is there to say to something that ridiculous?

"Will Trump nuke the planet, yes or no!?"
"Uhhhh YEAH!"
"Uhhhh NO!"

???? - Why is this even being discussed?

So you really are going with 'it's impossible to know anything', haha. It's pretty hilarious that you think a president's choice to employ nuclear weapons has no bearing on reality though... jesus. Thankfully scientific analysis disagrees with you on that front, so I'm going to stick with that if that's ok by you.

 

[Rumble Fish]

If I were to take you seriously, it would mean I would have to go in under the assumption that you refuse to even speak a word of Clinton.

You defensively maintain a very aggressive and hateful slant versus Trump and have no aim toward understanding any other facet of this incredibly complicated prism.

It is you who hates.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

If you want to foam at the mouth with your hate hard-ons for Trump and Hulk-rage all about it, sure, have it, buck. But at least get an argument? At least take into consideration that Trump is contending against someone else, and well, logic dictates it might be kind of important to understand who the 'someone else' is in this case considering one or the other is going to win.

Your hate of Trump doesn't dismiss you from requiring an argument to be taken seriously and it doesn't dismiss you from being apparently blind to the abomination that is this creature we call Hillary Clinton, who has played Washington corporatist politics for her entire career.

You want to hate Trump? Well I sure as hell can't stop you. But this poll is just sensational garbage. It's the Kardashians of politics. The fact you don't see how obvious that is disturbs me deeply. Even more so than the ones who at least know what they believe in and why - no matter how disgusting or deplorable it may be to you.

Ironically, drumpf is the kardashians of candidates.

 

[Rumble Fish]

And no, our empirical wars are very well known, very well documented and even happening right now. I can't make you read the news. You have to do that yourself. If you haven't noticed, the West has been turned into a globalist war machine.

 

[fskimospy]

If I were to take you seriously, it would mean I would have to go in under the assumption that you refuse to even speak a word of Clinton.

You defensively maintain a very aggressive and hateful slant versus Trump and have no aim toward understanding any other facet of this incredibly complicated prism.

It is you who hates.

I genuinely have no idea what this post even means. It's word salad.

 

[LegendKiller]

Ironically, drumpf is the kardashians of candidates.

So what does that make hill? Some hag on orange is the new black?

 

[nakedfrog]

Ironically, drumpf is the kardashians of candidates.

Confirmed.

 

[Rumble Fish]

Ironically, drumpf is the kardashians of candidates.

Ironically, it is you, and those "progressives" like you who refuse to even address Hillary Clinton. Not a single thing about her will your type discuss. It is and always is ONLY Trump.

You make your own opinion null all on your own, I didn't even have to do anything. You actually seem to want it to be null. I can always feel the apathy, angst and hatred, those chips on the shoulders, ALWAYS steaming from so-called "progressives". My argument is simple. Very simple.

This is one poll that implies something sensational.
This poll could be recreated to imply an infinite number of sensational things.
There are two candidates here. Trump and ________ . Fill in the blank. The blank is important to understand.

 

[LegendKiller]

Ironically, it is you, and those "progressives" like you who refuse to even address Hillary Clinton. Not a single thing about her will your type discuss. It is and always is ONLY Trump.

You make your own opinion null all on your own, I didn't even have to do anything. You actually seem to want it to be null. I can always feel the apathy, angst and hatred, those chips on the shoulders, ALWAYS steaming from so-called "progressives". My argument is simple. Very simple.

This is one poll that implies something sensational.
This poll could be recreated to imply an infinite number of sensational things.
There are two candidates here. Trump and ________ . Fill in the blank. The blank is important to understand.

The people are beginning to understand and they are rejecting her.

This whole poll could be done against any number of candidates and could produce the same result, especially if people consider the actual peril these clowns have put us in over the last few years with the fomenting the Arab spring, enabling iran, worsening ties with Russia and allowing china to take over the south china sea.

 

[fskimospy]

The people are beginning to understand and they are rejecting her.

This whole poll could be done against any number of candidates and could produce the same result, especially if people consider the actual peril these clowns have put us in over the last few years with the fomenting the Arab spring, enabling iran, worsening ties with Russia and allowing china to take over the south china sea.

It was literally done with another candidate, Hillary Clinton, and did not produce the same result.

lol. How could you not know this.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Ironically, it is you, and those "progressives" like you who refuse to even address Hillary Clinton. Not a single thing about her will your type discuss. It is and always is ONLY Trump.

You make your own opinion null all on your own, I didn't even have to do anything. You actually seem to want it to be null. I can always feel the apathy, angst and hatred, those chips on the shoulders, ALWAYS steaming from so-called "progressives". My argument is simple. Very simple.

This is one poll that implies something sensational.
This poll could be recreated to imply an infinite number of sensational things.
There are two candidates here. Trump and ________ . Fill in the blank. The blank is important to understand.

um... nope, hillary has numerous problems, but nothing compared to drumpf and his ideologies, whatever they happen to be today. he's a vapid, walking, talking bloviating mess. Your argument is what? drumpf is a successful businessman? debatable.
drumpf cares about the blue collar workers, the average working joe? HA!
drumpf will make jobs at home his #1 priority? he'd need to close his plants in china, mexico and elsewhere to make that even remotely believable.
I will never forgive hillary for voting for the war in iraq, but if you recall, those that did not vote were summarily tagged as un-american, un-patriotic, etc. Still, she could have voted against it.
drumpf was for it, and then he was against it, and then he lied about being for it.
But that's his modus operandi isn't it?

 

[soundforbjt]

Ironically, it is you, and those "progressives" like you who refuse to even address Hillary Clinton. Not a single thing about her will your type discuss. It is and always is ONLY Trump.

You make your own opinion null all on your own, I didn't even have to do anything. You actually seem to want it to be null. I can always feel the apathy, angst and hatred, those chips on the shoulders, ALWAYS steaming from so-called "progressives". My argument is simple. Very simple.

This is one poll that implies something sensational.
This poll could be recreated to imply an infinite number of sensational things.
There are two candidates here. Trump and ________ . Fill in the blank. The blank is important to understand.

You claim to be left of center yet for some reason you hate progressives, why is that? And why would anyone left of center even consider voting for Trump? Are you a single issue voter? Do you actually believe Trump will bring back jobs from China, etc.?