Who would be a better president? Sean Penn vs Ted Cruz

[Anomalocaris]

Huh, no.

There is no indication Sean penn ever had to ask, three times in hour, during a briefing with national security advisors why the United States can't just use nuclear weapons whenever it wanted to.

Nothing is quite as reliable as an unnamed source quoted by MSNBC, eh?

Beats anything from fox.

[account_inactive]

Nothing is quite as reliable as an unnamed source quoted by MSNBC, eh?

Beats anything from fox.

I just knew someone was going to say that.

[CapnAwesome]

Nothing is quite as reliable as an unnamed source quoted by MSNBC, eh?

Beats anything from fox.

No, if Fox news had a source that you could go back and check for yourself, that would be better for sure. It's about the information itself, not the station. Joe Scarborough saying that an unnamed source told him months ago that Trump didn't know why we didn't use nuclear weapons (although he actually said two things, first that he asked three times about nuclear weapons in general, and then later sort of added that he didn't understand why we didn't use them, it was all very stammery and weird) it begs the obvious question:

If this source said this months ago, why didn't you say it months ago!?! Don't you think this is important information that the American people should know? Why is it only coming out when Hillary Clinton starts making nuclear weapons a talking point in her campaign?? Seems fishy, to say the least.

My point however is that how can people trash on Donald Trump and say that Sean Penn is more qualified then Ted Cruz? So people who don't understand why anybody would support Trump just have to imagine this scenario and why they would pick Sean Penn to understand Donald Trump's support. I thought the article was interesting and enlightening.

[chimp3]

I'd still vote Libertarian.

I can't vote in US elections. But if I could, I'd probably vote Libertarian too.

It's an international movement. Look on the Libertarian Party web site . There is a list of all the countries which have lib parties.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Beats anything from fox.

No, if Fox news had a source that you could go back and check for yourself, that would be better for sure. It's about the information itself, not the station. Joe Scarborough saying that an unnamed source told him months ago that Trump didn't know why we didn't use nuclear weapons (although he actually said two things, first that he asked three times about nuclear weapons in general, and then later sort of added that he didn't understand why we didn't use them, it was all very stammery and weird) it begs the obvious question:

If this source said this months ago, why didn't you say it months ago!?! Don't you think this is important information that the American people should know? Why is it only coming out when Hillary Clinton starts making nuclear weapons a talking point in her campaign?? Seems fishy, to say the least.

My point however is that how can people trash on Donald Trump and say that Sean Penn is more qualified then Ted Cruz? So people who don't understand why anybody would support Trump just have to imagine this scenario and why they would pick Sean Penn to understand Donald Trump's support. I thought the article was interesting and enlightening.

lol, ignorance of nuclear usage is not a disqualifier in your view?

You're looking a lot like Corporal Normal right now, Captain Awesome. You'd rather vote against a candidate because the media sat on a story, than vote against a candidate because he doesn't understand nuclear doctrine?

I'll vote for smarts, you can vote for ignorance, and Min can shit his Depends no matter who wins.

[CapnAwesome]

No, if Fox news had a source that you could go back and check for yourself, that would be better for sure. It's about the information itself, not the station. Joe Scarborough saying that an unnamed source told him months ago that Trump didn't know why we didn't use nuclear weapons (although he actually said two things, first that he asked three times about nuclear weapons in general, and then later sort of added that he didn't understand why we didn't use them, it was all very stammery and weird) it begs the obvious question:

If this source said this months ago, why didn't you say it months ago!?! Don't you think this is important information that the American people should know? Why is it only coming out when Hillary Clinton starts making nuclear weapons a talking point in her campaign?? Seems fishy, to say the least.

My point however is that how can people trash on Donald Trump and say that Sean Penn is more qualified then Ted Cruz? So people who don't understand why anybody would support Trump just have to imagine this scenario and why they would pick Sean Penn to understand Donald Trump's support. I thought the article was interesting and enlightening.

lol, ignorance of nuclear usage is not a disqualifier in your view?

You're looking a lot like Corporal Normal right now, Captain Awesome.  You'd rather vote against a candidate because the media sat on a story, than vote against a candidate because he doesn't understand nuclear doctrine?

I'll vote for smarts, you can vote for ignorance, and Min can shit his Depends no matter who wins.

I'm not voting for Trump, I'm just saying that a sourceless claim by MSNBC months after it supposedly happened is nonsense. I don't believe claims without evidence. That's my creed as an Atheist. Joe Scarbourgo sort of stammering something isn't evidence. Nobody would believe it if it the shoe was on the other foot, and Bill O'Reilly said it with no source about Hillary. You can't suspend your rationality just because you don't like someone.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm not voting for Trump, I'm just saying that a sourceless claim by MSNBC months after it supposedly happened is nonsense. I don't believe claims without evidence. That's my creed as an Atheist. Joe Scarbourgo sort of stammering something isn't evidence. Nobody would believe it if it the shoe was on the other foot, and Bill O'Reilly said it with no source about Hillary. You can't suspend your rationality just because you don't like someone.

Considering the personality involved, he lays himself open to exaggerated claims. He has, after all, made too many himself to retain much credibility. When a dumbass runs his mouth for months on end, I'm not going to volunteer for shovel-crew duty at the elephant parade -- he can pick up his own mess, and lose votes in the process.

My creed, as a rationalist, is that if it walks like a dumbfuck and talks like a dumbfuck, it's probably a dumbfuck. Occam's Razor and all that, you know? He hasn't once shown me that he possesses the nuance of mind to grasp not only nuclear issues -- which even Bush the Idiot understood wasn't an option. Trump has, however, talked about nukimg ISIS in Syria, which might appeal to the simple-minded but takes no measure of geopoliticism.

I don't know if I believe the claim in question or not, but it is believable, and he's made his own bed in that regard, running his mouth the way he does. Even if he weren't an extremist -- and I think he is one -- but even if he weren't, his stupidity in running his campaign this way should disqualify him. He can't run a staff of fifty people and he wants me to think he can run the country?

lol, troll moar, Donny boy.

[Excited Penguin]

Trump's critics do tend to exagerate and outright manipulate info sometimes, but Cap has a point. If people do it too much it's no wonder some will side with Trump because of this fact alone - especially those that sided with him merely because of his purported authenticity.

[CapnAwesome]

I'm not voting for Trump, I'm just saying that a sourceless claim by MSNBC months after it supposedly happened is nonsense. I don't believe claims without evidence. That's my creed as an Atheist. Joe Scarbourgo sort of stammering something isn't evidence. Nobody would believe it if it the shoe was on the other foot, and Bill O'Reilly said it with no source about Hillary. You can't suspend your rationality just because you don't like someone.

Considering the personality involved, he lays himself open to exaggerated claims. He has, after all, made too many himself to retain much credibility. When a dumbass runs his mouth for months on end, I'm not going to volunteer for shovel-crew duty at the elephant parade -- he can pick up his own mess, and lose  votes in the process.

My creed, as a rationalist, is that if it walks like a dumbfuck and talks like a dumbfuck, it's probably a dumbfuck. Occam's Razor and all that, you know? He hasn't once shown me that he possesses the nuance of mind to grasp not only nuclear issues -- which even Bush the Idiot understood wasn't an option. Trump has, however, talked about nukimg ISIS in Syria, which might appeal to the simple-minded but takes no measure of geopoliticism.

I don't know if I believe the claim in question or not, but it is believable, and he's made his own bed in that regard, running his mouth the way he does. Even if he weren't an extremist -- and I think he is one -- but even if he weren't, his stupidity in running his campaign this way should disqualify him. He can't run a staff of fifty people and he wants me to think he can run the country?

lol, troll moar, Donny boy.

There is no evidence for the claim. You are basically saying that it's credible because you don't like Trump or it seems like something that he would say. That's just not the way I look at evidence, regardless of the fact I don't like Trump either. An unnamed source months later? Why is this only brought up after the Clinton campaign makes nuclear weapons an issue? Nobody should take that seriously.

[Thumpalumpacus]

There is no evidence for the claim. You are basically saying that it's credible because you don't like Trump or it seems like something that he would say. That's just not the way I look at evidence, regardless of the fact I don't like Trump either. An unnamed source months later? Why is this only brought up after the Clinton campaign makes nuclear weapons an issue? Nobody should take that seriously.

So you don't think that a Presidential candidate should think about nuclear weapons usage? You don't think a candidate should have to bear the burden of running his mouth?

Listen, if you spent six months bragging to me about how badass you are, even as your sails are shown to be empty, if I later hear that you were ignorant of the actual issues at hand, who should I trust? You, who have spent six months spinning fabrications, or a source I can actually vet?

You're not giving him the benefit of the doubt, you're giving him the benefit of the mouth. I've heard nothing, not a single word, that indicates he's a thoughtful person, and now you want me to extend consideration? Sorry, that ain't happening. Credibility is earnt, and it seems I have higher standards than you in that regard.

I'm saying that I've heard Trump say so many stupid things that one more piece of idiocy which can be fact-checked doesn't merit my effort in so doing, because I already know he's a cunt.

If you haven't figured that out already, just say what it is that's confuzzling you about him. I'll be happy to clear things up, and provide the facts that put his alleged comment in context.

It's that whole "first impressions are lasting impressions" thing -- except with Trump, it's also the second, fourth, seventh, nineteenth, twenty-seventh impression ... fourty-fourth, eighty-sixth ... shall I go on?

I don't care if he said what is alleged, because I already know he's appealing to the lowest common denominator. He's painted himself with his own colors ... why are you crying about him not being seen clearly?

I believe Scarborough more than I believe Trump -- or you, for that matter. Trump has been shown to lie about things, and while you're a good guy here, I don't know you from a can of paint ... and I doubt you've got sources as good as Scarborough's.