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

[dead_smiley]

Made up how? Are you saying the results are falsified? If not, what are you saying?

Because no Trump supporter that I know has mentioned anything about nukes. And I know a lot, so where was this poll taken? I would also like to see the data, not just someone's interpretation of it.

Note that my choice for President is not on the ballot this year, but the only way to keep Hillary out of there is to vote for Trump.

Sent from my overpriced Galaxy S6 Edge +

 

[Jhhnn]

Because no Trump supporter that I know has mentioned anything about nukes. And I know a lot, so where was this poll taken? I would also like to see the data, not just someone's interpretation of it.

Note that my choice for President is not on the ballot this year, but the only way to keep Hillary out of there is to vote for Trump.

Sent from my overpriced Galaxy S6 Edge +

You're missing the point. They never thought about it but when questioned they were OK with it. That's disturbingly shallow at best.

It's like "Nuclear war? Who cares? Vote Trump! Vote Vulgarian! Make America White Again!"

 

[Brainonska511]

Because no Trump supporter that I know has mentioned anything about nukes. And I know a lot, so where was this poll taken? I would also like to see the data, not just someone's interpretation of it.

The poll is invalid because of your anecdotal evidence? Please tell us more.

Note that my choice for President is not on the ballot this year, but the only way to keep Hillary out of there is to vote for Trump.

Sent from my overpriced Galaxy S6 Edge +

And why do you need to keep Hillary out? Especially by voting for a clearly deranged, thin-skinned baby, and serial liar?

 

[fskimospy]

Because no Trump supporter that I know has mentioned anything about nukes. And I know a lot, so where was this poll taken? I would also like to see the data, not just someone's interpretation of it.

You realize 'I don't know people who say this' is not an actual counter argument, right?

The actual data was in my OP, which you apparently did not read. It was a nationwide poll.

Note that my choice for President is not on the ballot this year, but the only way to keep Hillary out of there is to vote for Trump.

Sent from my overpriced Galaxy S6 Edge +

I don't care who your preferred candidate is, Trump is a corrupt, ignorant, vindictive, incompetent man-child. Justify it however you want, that's what you're voting for.

 

[Knowing]

The method page of the study appears to be missing. Also, classic fspy one 'study' drive by. Finally, I'm going to go out on a limb and baselessly guess that there's no peer review.

 

[fskimospy]

The method page of the study appears to be missing. Also, classic fspy one 'study' drive by. Finally, I'm going to go out on a limb and baselessly guess that there's no peer review.

Peer review? It's an opinion poll, lol.

Are you just saying words that you think are related to statistics or something?

 

[JSt0rm]

Because no Trump supporter that I know has mentioned anything about nukes. And I know a lot, so where was this poll taken? I would also like to see the data, not just someone's interpretation of it.

Note that my choice for President is not on the ballot this year, but the only way to keep Hillary out of there is to vote for Trump.

Sent from my overpriced Galaxy S6 Edge +

You ask everyone you know about nuclear war? You are weird.

 

[Knowing]

Peer review? It's an opinion poll, lol.

Are you just saying words that you think are related to statistics or something?

It's an opinion, that's for sure. Without method its basically nothing but opinion.

Opinion polls are occasionally peer reviewed and journal published. I was hoping there was something to lend legitimacy to these numbers you found on the internet.

 

[glenn1]

Back on topic.

Here's why Trump and some of his supporters' views are scary: Trump genuinely doesn't understand why he shouldn't use nukes. And there's an interview where he asked why he shouldn't nuke ISIS. Large-scale atrocities? Mutually-assured destruction policies? Alienated allies? Centuries-long repercussions for the environment? The near-guaranteed retaliation that will follow, with attacks that make the past 15 years of terrorism seem timid? They don't even seem to register with him.

Combine that wanton disregard with a hot-headed, vindictive personality and you have a recipe for disaster. I don't think Trump would actually get to use nukes, but we could hear about an incident where he screamed for the use of nukes and had to be talked down (or outright refused) by the more rational people in his administration. That a fifth of his supporters genuinely see him pulling the trigger, and aren't deterred by it, is genuinely saddening.

Doesn't understand? Even the Democrats who currently have control of them don't understand either then. The point of nuclear weapons isn't "deterrence" although that's the best possible success criteria (not that it's deterred any number of wars just short of global ones). The point of nuclear weapons is to ensure we "win" any conflict we engage in even if nuclear weapons are used. The U.S. has never ruled out using a first strike with nukes.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/2016-donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-214160

 

[Jhhnn]

The method page of the study appears to be missing. Also, classic fspy one 'study' drive by. Finally, I'm going to go out on a limb and baselessly guess that there's no peer review.

It was a poll, not a study. What do you expect from Birther/Benghazi believers, anyway? From people who believe that we found a vast arsenal of WMD's in Iraq & that Obama might not have been born in this country?

 

[Paratus]

Doesn't understand? Even the Democrats who currently have control of them don't understand either then. The point of nuclear weapons isn't "deterrence" although that's the best possible success criteria (not that it's deterred any number of wars just short of global ones). The point of nuclear weapons is to ensure we "win" any conflict we engage in even if nuclear weapons are used. The U.S. has never ruled out using a first strike with nukes.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/2016-donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-214160

Let's see this is an opinion piece and MAD, ( which is based on deterrence), has been US strategic policy for half a century.

I'm pretty sure I know who doesn't understand nuclear weapons.

 

[Commodus]

It's true that it's not the most scientific study -- I wouldn't take it as gospel other than that "some Trump supporters expect him to use nukes."

And yeah, I'll have to echo what others are saying lately in this thread. Clinton is not the ideal candidate, but there's something that gives her an absolute, perpetual advantage over Trump: she's a rational, competent human being. She doesn't throw out childish insults, or threaten to expand libel laws simply to protect her fragile ego. She actually knows how politics work, and how to make election promises that stand a chance of coming true (whether or not they will is another matter). She intends to perform the duties of her office instead of dodging the responsibility and handing it to her VP.

What frustrates me most about many Trump backers: they're so determined to choose an outsider (as if a self-proclaimed real estate billionaire is a rebel) that they don't care about getting the right outsider. I get the frustration with politics as usual, and that Clinton won't change the system... but for goodness' sake, wait until there's an outsider candidate who knows what they're doing.

 

[fskimospy]

It's an opinion, that's for sure. Without method its basically nothing but opinion.

The methodology is present on the same site and it conforms to established scientific polling methods. Not sure how this was too difficult to find.

Opinion polls are occasionally peer reviewed and journal published. I was hoping there was something to lend legitimacy to these numbers you found on the internet.

Election public opinion polls are almost never peer reviewed and published in journals. By your logic every poll you've read this election season is illegitimate and nothing more than 'numbers you found on the internet'.

Even for you this is a stupid argument and that's saying a lot.

 

[agent00f]

Most elections the Democrats just routinely raise the specter of a warmongering Republican president as sort of stock character, only this time you guys seem to have bought into your own trope narrative and actually believe.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PresidentEvil

Doesn't understand? Even the Democrats who currently have control of them don't understand either then. The point of nuclear weapons isn't "deterrence" although that's the best possible success criteria (not that it's deterred any number of wars just short of global ones). The point of nuclear weapons is to ensure we "win" any conflict we engage in even if nuclear weapons are used. The U.S. has never ruled out using a first strike with nukes.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/2016-donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-214160

Just in case more evidence is necessary; from the 2nd place guy:

"I don't know if sand can glow in the dark, but we're going to find out"

 

[dead_smiley]

You ask everyone you know about nuclear war? You are weird.

Nope, that is not what I said. I said it wasn't discussed. As in not even on the radar.

Sent from my overpriced Galaxy S6 Edge +

 

[JSt0rm]

Nope, that is not what I said. I said it wasn't discussed. As in not even on the radar.

Sent from my overpriced Galaxy S6 Edge +

so you dont know what they are thinking then

 

[dead_smiley]

so you dont know what they are thinking then

That would be true.

Sent from my overpriced Galaxy S6 Edge +

 

[JSt0rm]

glad we settled this then.

 

[Knowing]

It was a poll, not a study. What do you expect from Birther/Benghazi believers, anyway? From people who believe that we found a vast arsenal of WMD's in Iraq & that Obama might not have been born in this country?

In this case I don't expect anything from them. I expect people trying to make a point to post information in support of it.

The methodology is present on the same site and it conforms to established scientific polling methods. Not sure how this was too difficult to find.



Election public opinion polls are almost never peer reviewed and published in journals. By your logic every poll you've read this election season is illegitimate and nothing more than 'numbers you found on the internet'.

Even for you this is a stupid argument and that's saying a lot.

I'm not here to prove your points or look for your data. Post a link to it or don't.

 

[fskimospy]

In this case I don't expect anything from them. I expect people trying to make a point to post information in support of it.

I'm not here to prove your points or look for your data. Post a link to it or don't.

I already did in my OP and my point has been proven just fine. It's not my job to go and disprove whatever asinine excuses you try to conjure up like peer reviewed election polls. (That still takes the cake)

 

[Jhhnn]

In this case I don't expect anything from them. I expect people trying to make a point to post information in support of it.

Information that was, unsurprisingly, presented in the OP.

Saying you don't believe it is one thing but saying it's not there is entirely another.

 

[jackstar7]

Possible Spoiler: Knowing = Scott Adams?

 

[0roo0roo]

Its funny I get dinged for posting unconventional sources, but this one is absurd

Methodology of their internet survey? None really, Survey Monkey where you "buy" an audience when you don't have enough people to fill in a survey

https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/audience/?ut_source=sma&ut_source2=home_en_us

While we keep finding out these guys are #imwithher

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...ooter-caught-suspect-allegedly-turkish-origin

 

[jackstar7]

Its funny I get dinged for posting unconventional sources, but this one is absurd

Methodology of their internet survey? None really, Survey Monkey where you "buy" an audience when you don't have enough people to fill in a survey

I like that you take the time to demonstrate how stupid you are with as many graphics as possible.

Makes it easier for people to ingest.

 

[fskimospy]

Its funny I get dinged for posting unconventional sources, but this one is absurd

Methodology of their internet survey? None really, Survey Monkey where you "buy" an audience when you don't have enough people to fill in a survey

https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/audience/?ut_source=sma&ut_source2=home_en_us

While we keep finding out these guys are #imwithher

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...ooter-caught-suspect-allegedly-turkish-origin

False, this was conducted with a random phone sample just like most scientific polls are. This is clearly stated in their methodology, which means you decided to criticize something you didn't understand.

That's why you get dinged, you idiot.