Show of HandsShow of Hands

polster2 December 23rd, 2016 1:38pm

According to a Harvard survey, 48% of people who planned to vote for Donald Trump supported continuing federal funding for Planned Parenthood; 47% did not. Considering that Trump campaigned on defunding Planned Parenthood, does this make sense?

0 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

Krystina Let Freedom Reign
12/26/16 11:42 am

Yes, it makes sense. It shows most people don't vote based on Planned Parenthood funding alone. That's only one of many issues and I'd say it's far less important to most people than many other issues.

callen002 Cincinnati
12/23/16 6:57 pm

Not sure he was campaigning on funding planned parenthood. Regardless, not constitutional

Ebola1 Florida
12/23/16 1:11 pm

It should be obvious that most voters are not one issue voters.

polster2 US
12/23/16 1:43 pm

Trump voters don't seem to know where he stands on most things though.

susanr Colorado
12/23/16 12:48 pm

It makes sense because there were probably a number of other reasons they felt compelled to vote for him - that one issue wasn't a deal breaker for them.

polster2 US
12/23/16 1:03 pm

What about all the other issues that they don't understand Trump's position on?

12/23/16 9:07 am

This user is currently being ignored

12/23/16 7:15 am

Some people aren't one issue voters.

polster2 US
12/23/16 7:17 am

I understand that. However, many Trump voters are already regretting their votes after learning what Trump actually believes on a wide variety of issues.

MrAmerica Peaceful protestor
12/23/16 7:22 am

I don't believe for one minute that many Trump voters are regretting their vote, for a lot of Trump voters it was also a vote against Hillary Clinton and I bet 99% of the people who voted for him would not change it if they could

polster2 US
12/23/16 7:24 am

Give it a few years.

12/23/16 8:24 am

Does anyone actually know what trump stands for? I'm not convinced he actually has a real stance on anything. I do know that HRC wasn't much better 😂

polster2 US
12/23/16 8:27 am

Clinton would not be tweeting incendiary messages at 3 AM.

MrAmerica Peaceful protestor
12/23/16 8:30 am

Yeah instead she would probably be deleting emails

polster2 US
12/23/16 8:31 am

Which is worse than saying the world needs more nukes?

polster2 US
12/23/16 3:33 pm're trolling. Now I understand.

FloridaPopulist Nationalist Right
12/23/16 4:49 pm

No ones regretting anything that's a lie perpetuated by left wingers. He's not even in office yet. He's survived a media misinformation onslaught before and he'll do it again

Ebola1 Florida
12/23/16 6:10 pm

I'm serious. It's incumbent upon us to update our nuclear arsenal just like Russia and China are doing.

polster2 US
12/24/16 10:58 am

Russia and China have been reducing their nuclear stockpiles for forty years.

MrAmerica Peaceful protestor
12/24/16 11:07 am

China did not even have nuclear weapons 40 years ago?

polster2 US
12/24/16 11:09 am

"China made remarkable progress in the 1960s in developing nuclear weapons. In a thirty-two-month period, China successfully exploded its first atomic bomb (October 16, 1964), launched its first nuclear missile (October 25, 1966), and detonated its first hydrogen bomb (June 14, 1967."

MrAmerica Peaceful protestor
12/24/16 11:14 am

Sorry didn't know that, I admit I was wrong about how long they have had nuclear weapons l.

Ebola1 Florida
12/24/16 11:29 am

@polster2 Putin just announced that Russia is updating its nuclear arsenal. That is what prompted the tweet from Trump. Try reading or listening to the news and you'll find that you're better informed

polster2 US
12/24/16 11:30 am

Same to you, Ebola. You think unbiased news is fake.

Ebola1 Florida
12/24/16 11:39 am

So you're saying that Putin didn't say that?

polster2 US
12/24/16 11:41 am

I'm saying that you are generally uninformed.

Ebola1 Florida
12/24/16 11:42 am

So you admit to being ignorant of the facts.

Ebola1 Florida
12/24/16 11:49 am

Well, did Putin say that Russia is updating its nuclear arsenal or not?

polster2 US
12/24/16 11:51 am

Of course he did. That's not in dispute.

Ebola1 Florida
12/24/16 12:02 pm

So, you prove my point. Thanks.

polster2 US
12/24/16 12:04 pm

No, you haven't. To disprove my point, you'd have to prove that the Russians are actively increasing their nuclear stockpile.

Ebola1 Florida
12/24/16 12:07 pm

I believe Putin. Besides BO gave them the uranium to do it with. What is your point btw?

polster2 US
12/24/16 12:09 pm

Why in the world would you believe Putin?