3 ms·

So by supporting Clinton would you implicitly be agreeing to bombing children in Syria? That's just a silly line of reasoning

Mithaldu 10y ago
There is no subtlety in Pence's actions on the needle program. PS: Bernie would've been the sane choice for your country. But hey, what can you do in a two party system.
- flukus 10y ago
  You avoided the question entirely, does your vote for Clinton mean you implicitly agree to bombing children in Syria?
  - Mithaldu 10y ago
    I'm not entirely sure how exactly you get to that exact end result from her. To answer that i'd need to know more. Think you can provide an explanation?
    - flukus 10y ago
      OK, let's avoid hypotheticals entirely. I'm going to assume you voted for Obama? If so, does that mean that you implicitly agree to everyone killed (guilty and innocent) by his orders?
      - Mithaldu 10y ago
        I didn't vote for anyone, i'm a German. As to the question: I don't believe any other candidate would've had less people dead in the relevant conflict areas. Further, Obama himself wasn't actively aiming to have civilians suffer through his actions. Pence has unequivocally done so. There's a wide gulf between deaths caused despite one's best intentions, and deaths caused directly by one's intentions. I believe US laws put such deaths in two distinct categories. E: I also answered the syria question in a post further up.
      - mozumder 10y ago
        I voted for Obama, and yes, I agree with his orders.
Mithaldu 10y ago
After having educated myself with the help of people smarter than me on what you mean with the Syria comment: Your trying to claim your statement is equivalent to mine is silly. Syria is a conflict zone where the government has lost control and the USA along with 50 countries from the NATO is trying to help get the situation back under control. Nobody involved there is actually intending to hurt any civilians. In fact, the USA pulling out would likely cause a lot more deaths. (I'd like to remind you of the syrian government attacking their own civilians with chemical weapons.) Further, under no other candidate would substantially less deaths happen in that area, and particularly with Pence being a noted hawk there'll likely be more involvement there than under Clinton.
croon 10y ago
Trump has already killed American children in Yemen. However incompetent I think he is, I doubt that was deliberate though, and is besides the point. Every president will inevitably make military decisions that will lead to civilian casualties. It's never nice, and it's never "okay", but it's also extremely difficult to avoid, in a conflict. Repealing ACA is purely political, with very real effects on tens of millions of Americans losing coverage, benefitting only rich people. It's not an unavoidable side effect. Just fucking don't do it. Your comparison is ludicrous.

Mithaldu 10y ago

There is no subtlety in Pence's actions on the needle program. PS: Bernie would've been the sane choice for your country. But hey, what can you do in a two party system.

flukus 10y ago
You avoided the question entirely, does your vote for Clinton mean you implicitly agree to bombing children in Syria?
- Mithaldu 10y ago
  I'm not entirely sure how exactly you get to that exact end result from her. To answer that i'd need to know more. Think you can provide an explanation?
  - flukus 10y ago
    OK, let's avoid hypotheticals entirely. I'm going to assume you voted for Obama? If so, does that mean that you implicitly agree to everyone killed (guilty and innocent) by his orders?
    - Mithaldu 10y ago
      I didn't vote for anyone, i'm a German. As to the question: I don't believe any other candidate would've had less people dead in the relevant conflict areas. Further, Obama himself wasn't actively aiming to have civilians suffer through his actions. Pence has unequivocally done so. There's a wide gulf between deaths caused despite one's best intentions, and deaths caused directly by one's intentions. I believe US laws put such deaths in two distinct categories. E: I also answered the syria question in a post further up.
    - mozumder 10y ago
      I voted for Obama, and yes, I agree with his orders.

Mithaldu 10y ago

After having educated myself with the help of people smarter than me on what you mean with the Syria comment: Your trying to claim your statement is equivalent to mine is silly. Syria is a conflict zone where the government has lost control and the USA along with 50 countries from the NATO is trying to help get the situation back under control. Nobody involved there is actually intending to hurt any civilians. In fact, the USA pulling out would likely cause a lot more deaths. (I'd like to remind you of the syrian government attacking their own civilians with chemical weapons.) Further, under no other candidate would substantially less deaths happen in that area, and particularly with Pence being a noted hawk there'll likely be more involvement there than under Clinton.

croon 10y ago

Trump has already killed American children in Yemen. However incompetent I think he is, I doubt that was deliberate though, and is besides the point. Every president will inevitably make military decisions that will lead to civilian casualties. It's never nice, and it's never "okay", but it's also extremely difficult to avoid, in a conflict. Repealing ACA is purely political, with very real effects on tens of millions of Americans losing coverage, benefitting only rich people. It's not an unavoidable side effect. Just fucking don't do it. Your comparison is ludicrous.