Elizabeth Warren said she will pledge to never use a nuke unless one is first used on us FIRST, do you agree with her? (lawyer, poll)

[bmw335xi]

.

During the recent debate, Warren said she would sign a pledge to not use a nuclear weapon unless one is used on us first.

This to me is a deal breaker... it's like having a gun and pledging you will never shoot unless you get shot first. Why do we need to see NYC blown up before we can protect ourselves?

.

[TexasLawyer2000]

This poll is set up with a bias that makes it useless in gathering anything of value. Might want to rephrase it without the bias.
For example:

Do you support Warren's proposal that we should only use nukes in retaliation of nukes being used against us?

Yes
No

It's unfortunate that such a good question got butchered into something completely useless.

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by TexasLawyer2000

For example:

Do you support Warren's proposal that we should only use nukes in retaliation of nukes being used against us?

"Yes, we should announce to the world we won't use a nuke until one is first used on us"


If you agree with Warren, there is no false setup by answering the YES option, it's almost word for word what you said.

[TexasLawyer2000]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

"Yes, we should announce to the world we won't use a nuke until one is first used on us"


If you agree with Warren, there is nothing bias by answering the YES option, it's almost word for word what you said.

Did you look at the alternate option?

"No, we shouldn't handcuff ourselves saying a city first has to be destroyed before we can use our most powerful weapons"

This is why people need to go to college. They don't understand how to do basic research and data gathering.

edit: Didn't expect the massive uptick in reps for the first post... Thanks strangers.

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by TexasLawyer2000

Did you look at the alternate option?

"No, we shouldn't handcuff ourselves saying a city first has to be destroyed before we can use our most powerful weapons"

This is why people need to go to college. They don't understand how to do basic research and data gathering.

So you agree with Warren I take it?


People who vote NO is because they don't want to see a city destroyed before being able to use our nukes.


People who vote YES want to announce to the world thinking it will take away the fear.


Typical 2019 Democrat, when you have no answer, make personal attacks, lol. Soon you'll be calling me a racist.

[ohhwanderlust]

So you're clamouring to be able to drop nukes around the world for less serious reasons?

[TexasLawyer2000]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

So you agree with Warren I take it?


People who vote NO is because they don't want to see a city destroyed before being able to use our nukes.


People who vote YES want to announce to the world thinking it will take away the fear.


Typical 2019 Democrat, when you have no answer, make personal attacks, lol. Soon you'll be calling me a racist.

There's no personal attack here. I made a suggestion.

Also, I'm a conservative. I'm not surprised as you liberals like to make all sorts of assumptions rather than trying to understand.

I'd never vote for Warren, too extreme for me.

[RowingFiend]

I think Elizabeth Warren is a fool. The rest of what I think about her isn't allowed on C-D.

[ohhwanderlust]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

So you agree with Warren I take it?


People who vote NO is because they don't want to see a city destroyed before being able to use our nukes.


People who vote YES want to announce to the world thinking it will take away the fear.


Typical 2019 Democrat, when you have no answer, make personal attacks, lol. Soon you'll be calling me a racist.

Pretty presumptuous to assume people's reasons for voting yes or no.

[moneill]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

.

During the recent debate, Warren said she would sign a pledge to not use a nuclear weapon unless one is used on us first.

This to me is a deal breaker... it's like having a gun and pledging you will never shoot unless you get shot first. Why do we need to see NYC blown up before we can protect ourselves?

.

I get the gesture -- it is a gesture. She's not saying she would get rid of nukes -- just that the USA would not initiate nuclear war.

It's a gesture ------ as the USA is asking everyone else to not make nukes -- it's the little things.

No it isn't a deal breaker -- it's a gesture.

Why would we nuke first?

No have nuclear weapons is not like having a gun at all.

And I assume law abiding citizens would only use a gun first if they were under attack or threatened.

See how that works.