CS 317 Shades of Grey

[StCapps]

SIFCLF who believes in Nuclear Hitler, but it isn't Trump, it's Clinton. You're as retarded as the idiots who think Trump is Nuclear Hitler.

[Speaker to Animals]

Your ignorance is out on display, capps. Do I need to remind you that you started using that dumbass epithet when you were caught denying basic physical science?

Maybe it would be best for you to just stop, enroll in a university, and catch up with the rest of us.

It's self-evident that a vote for a candidate is a vote in favor of their platform. We shouldn't even be arguing this and it's even more stupid than you denying electromagnetism.

[StCapps]

Back to the strawman, and a cross thread strawman to boot. Typical.

[ssu]

If a candidate is running on a platform to do <x>, then a vote for that candidate is literally a vote in support of <x>.

This isn't rocket science, capps. If you don't understand that, I don't know what to tell you.

It isn't rocket science either to understand that the other candidate/party <y>'s view on the competing candidates platform <x> may not be an objective view about reality.

But seems like scaring the Chicken littles worked here very well. ...As if Clinton Presidency would have meant WW3. (Something at the level of thinking that Trump presidency would create a huge outflow of people to Canada.)

[Speaker to Animals]

Back to the strawman, and a cross thread strawman to boot. Typical.

Oh, no. Don't try to back peddle out of this one too.

You said that a vote for a candidate is not a vote for the platform upon which they are campaigning. You literally said that, capps. If you are willing to admit you are wrong about that, then fine, we can move on. But don't pretend like I am straw manning you here. You actually argued this.

[StCapps]

If a candidate is running on a platform to do <x>, then a vote for that candidate is literally a vote in support of <x>.

This isn't rocket science, capps. If you don't understand that, I don't know what to tell you.

It isn't rocket science either to understand that the other candidate/party <y>'s view on the competing candidates platform <x> may not be an objective view about the reality.

But seems like scaring the Chicken littles worked here. ...As if Clinton Presidency would have meant WW3. (Something at the level of thinking that Trump presidency would create a huge outflow of people to Canada.)

Believing that Clinton or Trump is Nuclear Hitler, that's just the difference between SIFCLF-R and SIFCLF-D.
If you believe Hillary Clinton would start WWIII, you got SIFCLF-R.
If you believe Donald Trump would start WWIII, you got SIFCLF-D.

[Speaker to Animals]

If a candidate is running on a platform to do <x>, then a vote for that candidate is literally a vote in support of <x>.

This isn't rocket science, capps. If you don't understand that, I don't know what to tell you.

It isn't rocket science either to understand that the other candidate/party <y>'s view on the competing candidates platform <x> may not be an objective view about the reality.

But seems like scaring the Chicken littles worked here. ...As if Clinton Presidency would have meant WW3. (Something at the level of thinking that Trump presidency would create a huge outflow of people to Canada.)

Nice try, but no. We have to take a candidate's word for what they are running on. There is no point to the alternative. Hillary was running on increasing hostilities with Russia, and guess what cupcake, I believed her because she was already doing a fine job of that in Eastern Europe and Syria before she even ran for president. I had every reason to believe her on that. It was a continuation of what she was doing as Secretary of State.

[Speaker to Animals]

If a candidate is running on a platform to do <x>, then a vote for that candidate is literally a vote in support of <x>.

This isn't rocket science, capps. If you don't understand that, I don't know what to tell you.

It isn't rocket science either to understand that the other candidate/party <y>'s view on the competing candidates platform <x> may not be an objective view about the reality.

But seems like scaring the Chicken littles worked here. ...As if Clinton Presidency would have meant WW3. (Something at the level of thinking that Trump presidency would create a huge outflow of people to Canada.)

Believing that Clinton or Trump is Nuclear Hitler, that's just the difference between SIFCLF-R and SIFCLF-D.

Oh, please.

You are arguing that we just vote at random and the candidate's stated positions are irrelevant. Why not just go to a random lottery at that point, capps? You don't seem to grasp how retarded your position is.

If what you said were true, and it's not, then we would be better served using something similar to the Athenian system of drawing lots for public service.

[StCapps]

Oh, please.

You are arguing that we just vote at random and the candidate's stated positions are irrelevant. Why not just go to a random lottery at that point, capps? You don't seem to grasp how retarded your position is.

You don't to grasp how you're position is as retarded as the "Trump is Nuclear Hitler" crowd. Anyone who thinks either candidate is Nuclear Hitler, they are a Sky Is Falling Chicken Little Faggot, period. It does not get any easier to identify a SIFCLF than that.

[Speaker to Animals]

Oh, please.

You are arguing that we just vote at random and the candidate's stated positions are irrelevant. Why not just go to a random lottery at that point, capps? You don't seem to grasp how retarded your position is.

You don't to grasp how you're position is as retarded as the "Trump is Nuclear Hitler" crowd.

I didn't say she is nuclear Hitler, capps. I said her stated position was increasing hostilities with Russia, and her position on a no-fly zone in Syria in particular objectively requires a shooting war with Russia in order to happen.

What about the violent coups she fomented in Ukraine, Libya, and Syria don't confirm her willingness to do just that? We all had every reason to believe she would do it because it's what she was already doing as Secretary of State! Get over yourself already.

If you can't grasp this simple fact, then you really ought not vote for anything outside of your municipality.

There existed no rational alternative than to vote for Trump last year. There really wasn't.