{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
10/4/2016 4:52:22 PM
2
The irony in this post sums up why you, and the rest of America, don't deserve to have an opinion.
English
-
And you're a colossal idiot for thinking your opinion matters anymore than his.
-
The original comment was never intended to establish the superiority of my opinion my apologies. You can't have a solid argument unless someone is on both sides. For the sake of argument I suppose I'm included in "the rest of America".
-
Riiighhht. Don't really think you're using the word "irony" correctly. Or how having a separate opinion from yours justifies the concept that I shouldn't be able to vote
-
The person that can't correctly use their and they're criticizing Trump supporters for being dumb is going to teach me about irony. I think I've made my point.
-
-
Nope, you haven't
-
He already edited his post. Take the L bud.
-
Haha you're the only one holding Ls pal
-
Not necessarily. Just because you're argument is only based on a single grammatical error shows that you have no argument otherwise to point out the obvious. If you had a legitimate, intellectual and comprehensive response, you would've given one. So no. You've made no point. Other than you can point something out a child can.
-
Also, you're name is fatwood. I'm not sure I should expect anymore from you to be honest.
-
Your* :)
-
Well if he made the same mistake twice, shame on him.
-
You realize that you yourself have not once made a point other than "Trump supporters are dumb because they don't know they are dumb"... You used larger words to complicate a simple thought while also making a judgement on my username. What's wrong with Trump supporters again? I'll wait.
-
It's not necessarily simply a question of what's wrong with Trump supporters (although where do I start with the massive list?), it's the inability of many people to cross over political lines and vote for the other party's candidate. If I felt that the Republican candidate had more to offer, better fiscal plans, better foreign policies, actual plans to create jobs and strengthen the economy, then I would probably vote Republican. The problem is though, that the candidate that the GOP has put forth is racist, a terrible businessman, and he has plans for economic changes that would put America into a worse recession than in 2008. Truth be told the decision for my vote is a very easy one this election. One candidate could be egged on into launching a nuclear weapon because he didn't like a disrespectful tweet. He should be nowhere near the nuclear football. Not to mention many of the blue collar workers that think Trump would help them out are the very people he would screw over the most. It boggles my mind that this election is even close (in reality).
-
I agree in regards to the political cross over, but the idea that Trump is a terrible businessman and a racist is majorly a product of modern media editing clips together. Turning a million dollars into a billion dollars is a task that the majority of us would fail at. Second, Hillary's foreign policy plan includes arming Iran and turning our backs to Israel, one of our oldest allies. It's not guaranteed to be bad, but surely you can't think that bodes well for us either. Third, the idea that one person can just push a button and launch a nuclear missile without any sort of clearance is rather naive. Last, I appreciate the intelligent response.
-
But the thing is, Trump is a terrible businessman. He inherited a fifth of a billion dollars and would have made more by simply investing that money in the stock market than many of the failed (bankrupt) business ventures he's had. Furthermore, he's proud of screwing people over and stiffing them for pay that he should have owed them for work completed. He is in fact a gigantic racist based off many things he's said and done (not media fabricated). He's had a silver spoon in his mouth his entire life and doesn't respect or appreciate the struggles of the average American, and if the president wanted to, he could order a nuclear strike (ex-NAVY here). Hillary's not great but she's a much better choice IMO.
-
I appreciate the insight and thank you for your service! Is it really that cut and dry though? I get that he could surely order the strike but wouldn't Congress also have to approve since it's an act of war? And I can understand that he's had failures in several business ventures or that maybe there was an easier way to get his riches, but with that being said I would never want someone to judge me on my failures rather than my successes so I won't do so to Trump. In that same regard I would have to say I respect a man who didn't take the path of least resistance wether he was spoon fed or not. Finally I think it's worth noting that people often times change a lot over the years. I'm only in my 20's but I would hate to miss out on an opportunity when I'm older for a lapse in judgement now. We are all human after all.
-
Actually, Congress has nothing to do with a nuclear strike. (It's amazing what you can find with a quick internet search.) Only a Trump appointed SECDEF would have to agree with Trump to launch a nuke (which is a terrifying proposition). Look, if I thought Trump was a better choice, I would vote for him. The following sentence is not hyperbole. A Trump presidency would be the single worst thing to ever happen for the future of America. Think about all of the middle class and poor working class getting f*u*cked over for decades, because that's what would happen. "Journalist Ron Rosenbaum has pointed out that the operational plan for nuclear strike orders is entirely concerned with the identity of the commanding officer and the authenticity of the order, and there are no safeguards to verify that the person issuing the order is actually sane." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_football
-
Unfortunately wikipedia is not a trusted source (not that I don't believe you). Hence why I wanted to ask you first before searching. I strongly disagree with the statement of Trump being the worst thing for America. The worst thing for America is to limit her democracy. Electing Hillary means that 5 out of 9 Justices will be Democrat (which is fine), but what isn't fine is that 4 of those justices will have been appointed by a president with the last name Clinton. Does that sound like democracy to you? The next generations will have no say in the laws that govern them because the supreme Court will be employees of the Clinton Foundation. Everyone can agree that she is a crooked individual. What do those types of people do when they have the potential to abuse power? That scares me far more than Trump misinterpreting a tweet.
-
I have no idea where to begin to dismantle your argument here. Just because the justices would have been appointed by someone with the last name Clinton, does not mean they are on the Clinton foundation's payroll. That is extremely rude and disrespectful to even entertain such a thought, not to mention a logical fallacy. It's true that some justices tend to be Liberal or Conservative but the best ones tend to be closer to the middle than any far extreme. You're spouting off the same BS that Trump wants you to spout out. Would it be better if Trump can choose the justices and then abortion rights are removed and Christianity is forced on the public? The Christian religion is made up BS based on the most brilliant propaganda ever conceived. Create a hodgepodge of Mythology like stories and then trick people into thinking it might be based in reality. Then scare those same people that if they don't believe they will be eternally punished. What a gigantic crock of crap. And crooked individual?? What politician out there isn't trying their darndest to get all their friends jobs and as much pork barrel as possible? Trump is no better, even though you think he may be as an "outsider." That argument is a ton of crap as well. Do some more research that isn't from Fox news, then get back to me. Until then, have a nice day.
-
I respected what you had to say until you bashed an entire religion simply because you don't follow it, then you talk about disrespect? You're crazy enough to think a man would nuke the world over a tweet, but too delusional to think Justices would rig the system for millions of dollars? Nice chat. Peace.
-
Rig what system how? You really just spew ignorance that Trump caters to. It's sad actually. And yes, I have a problem with any religion that brainwashes people into being delusional. Honestly, I don't care what people believe unless they're trying to force it on others. I may be an atheist, but I appreciate the freedom we have in America to choose and not be told what to believe or think. An all conservative Supreme Court would enact policies based on Christian beliefs and in practice they'd be effectively forcing their beliefs on other citizens and removing rights those citizens once had (based on fairy tale beliefs). That's what I have a problem with, but I was foolish to think I could convince a right-wing ultra conservative tard. At least I tried.
-
Not to mention you're pushing your atheist bullshit on me in the same way right now hahaha. Hypocrisy at its finest.
-
Edited by jlobue10: 10/4/2016 10:26:11 PMI could care less what you believe (but then I wouldn't care at all). I'm an atheist and don't care if you are or not, but I can poke holes in your religion all day and shake the foundation till your feeling uneasy about yourself. Seriously to each his or her own. I was pointing out that America is great due to our freedoms. An overly conservative Supreme court would potentially overturn many civil liberties that people enjoy and use, based on the collective justices' religious belief systems, which I have a serious problem with.
-
The only thing you have backing up your argument is that you hate Christianity? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA sad life isn't it
