You make it sound illogical.
As a religious conservative, I do really want that supreme court seat.
The President has to really ask for permission for everything else (laws, budgets, wars, etc.), but justice nomination is very largely his choice. Don't be surprised if that factors heavily in my decision.
Apparently not, since Obama hasn't been able to make the nomination...
His average is 35 days, compared to 10-20 days for recent presidents. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/obama-has-waited-longer-f...
I just don't understand how someone invests themselves into a conversation like this without having the first clue about the territory.
Reason magazine editorial made the same argument that Bernie was the best choice for libertarians. Basically he aligns with libertarians on social issues, and everything else he could not get done anyway.
> As a religious conservative, I do really want that supreme court seat. That factors heavily in the decision.
Sorry, that's my bias seeping in. I respect your choice.
> The President has to really ask for permission for everything else (laws, budgets, wars, etc.), but justice nomination is very largely his choice. Don't be surprised if that factors heavily in my decision.
Not nuclear. He could launch with approval of his self-chosen cabinet, or choose not to defend our allies, resulting in more tensions in areas prone to nuclear war.
Personally I think the risks posed by Trump with his thumb on the nuclear button are greater than the lives saved by repealing abortion rights. May God bless you and all of us through these tough times.
That's a tall order.
To put that claim in perspective, more Americans die in abortions every year than have died in combat in the entire history of the US.
(Whether a fetus is a person is of course the point debated, but anyway, those are the numbers.)
More pedantically, they are surely not Americans either, since citizenship is conferred at birth?
I'm talking about residency, not citizenship. Citizenship is more arbitrary:
* Does citizenship include Native Americans?
* Does citizenship include slaves?
* Which of the Revolutionary War casualties were U.S. citizens?
I'm not sure if this was a subtle way to imply that, although the risk of Trump using the bomb is negligible, it's still greater than zero, which is the number of lives you consider lost to abortion. Impressive accidental troll. :)
Realistically, what evidence do you have that Trump has any more likelihood of using a nuclear bomb against the wishes of congress than Hillary? Has he shown an inclination towards mass murder in other scenarios? Did he vote for the Iraq war?
Trump reportedly asked three times why we could not use nuclear weapons in a private briefing.
More importantly, he threatens to change the landscape of our deployed military so drastically that the moves would create opportunities for non-allies to take more aggressive positions against our allies.
If we failed to protect our allies, the US economy would tank, due to all the outstanding treasuries.
> Did he vote for the Iraq war?
Obviously Trump could not have voted on the Iraq war. That's an invalid question.
No, he's never served as a politician and so has no platform record. He's never demonstrated an ability to serve his country so I don't understand why we should entrust him with our most powerful station.
> Has he shown an inclination towards mass murder in other scenarios?
I don't believe there's any evidence of that.
> What evidence do you have that Trump has any more likelihood of using a nuclear bomb against the wishes of congress than Hillary?
To me it's his lack of temperament. I'm confident he means what he says that he doesn't want to use nuclear weapons. But in dire situations which may arise, I personally do not trust his temperament or judgement in dealing with foreign powers. This is because he's shown many times that he only cares for the most short-term benefits. His tax plans demonstrate this, his inability to explain many of his plans demonstrates this, and his history in business demonstrates this.
10 to 1 you're wrong.
What are the two scenarios you're referring to? That Trump does or does not contribute to a nuclear war?
Trump trashes everyone who disagrees with him. He will likely increase tensions on the world stage.
Yes as a second consideration you can also take the view of the world will end, but that is not the point of the XKCD.
And then drawing it to this discussion, yes the odds that Trump would be willing to start a nuclear war might be high, but combined with the odds of an actual nuclear war occurring the odds of it happening is still neglible.
While Trumps opponent openly warns Russia of consequences. Lets be objective now.
> While Trumps opponent openly warns Russia of consequences. Lets be objective now.
Yes, let's. Russia is not an ally. There are consequences to its aggression.
Trump, on the other hand, has repeatedly said we should extract more money from our allies in east asia, and that we should threaten to withdraw from Japan and South Korea. These are scenarios China and Russia would love to see play out.
Trump argues NATO is obsolete. He defends Russia's annexation of Crimea, and he thinks we should give up Aleppo to Russian-friendly Assad.
He thinks he knows more than the generals. At the same time, he claims he never thought about this stuff during his time as a businessman.
The alternative to nuclear war is the proxy wars you see playing out in the middle east. Any concessions are gobbled up by whichever side backs down.
I see NATO bases all around the planet.
> The alternative to nuclear war is the proxy wars you see playing out in the middle east.
True. We also know who started that with leaders not bowing to the western interests. While Assad isn't exactly prince charming, his country wasn't in ruins as it is now. Same stands for Gaddafi and Hussein.
FTFY
Does your religious conservatism mean that you support the Citizens United decision? Or does it mean that you're opposed to Loving v. Virginia? How about Shelby County v. Holder?
1. How is that going to affect your decision? Who can you vote for that will ensure the SC seat goes to a conservative?
2. How do you feel about the unprecedented blocking of the President from doing this Constitutional duty of appoint SC justices for 9+ months? Or is that just a small price to pay to get your religious beliefs installed in the highest court in the land?
I don't know why you were downvoted, but I would like to point out that many laws are based on religion, like marrying only one person, or not stealing and killing. We take these for granted because we grew up with them.
So, I'm not sure the argument that they are "installing religious beliefs" does much to convince religious people that they are overreaching. Their feeling is that they are saving people, and they feel this can be done through politics as well as it can be done in person.
I'm not sure I agree with those who vote this way. I just wanted to throw it out there since I doubt you'll get a reply from a religious person.
Too much cognitive dissonance for people who are probably already completely overwhelmed at this point in the cycle, given the turmoil on that side of the aisle.
That's why I won't get a reply from any of the small downvoters.
Like gerrymandering and fillbustering, it's one of these stupid games that the sides play.
I agree. I think we're seeing a sharp rise in foreign "soft power" online in America this election.
It's being supported by the evangelicals who will not remove their vote from Trump on the grounds that they really want that supreme court seat.
After the election, foreign influence will dwindle. The credibility of such websites cannot be maintained while pushing so much unverified or simply false information. This is the strength of our first amendment.