I thought kidnapping Maduro was supposed to stop the drugs? What happened?

Ew. Why?

There’s probably some room for a class-action suit, here. This guy is definitely not the only Canadian they’ve “investigated” like this.

Wait. So, someone actually told him his idea to escort ships through his own blockade of Iran’s blockade, was stupid?

So would the Founding Fathers.

…and suffered no consequences, whatsoever.

I think it’s probably more because talking to Trump is like trying to talk to someone who’s high as fuck, and making no sense. To a sober observer, that conversation is meaningless.

These aren’t “age checks”…it’s identity tracking.

…says the fragile little teacup.

This law simply requires the president to follow what’s already in the Constitution. How is that “unconstitutional”?

“President Trump’s assets are in a trust managed by his children. There are no conflicts of interest,”

Ummm…that is the definition of a “conflict of interest”.

Windows XP was really the last decent version.

Under Siege was only worth watching, just to see Erika Eleniak.

And give up his position in Putin’s administration? No way.

Lol! I no longer believe you’re serious. Good troll, man. You got me.

Man, I don’t know if you realize just how ridiculous your argument even is, at this point. Your last message especially, really does sum up just how out-of-touch your worldview is.

You claim that you also wouldn’t trust me to have your back… literally BECAUSE I might risk my own life to save yours? What criteria would you trust, then? Would you rather someone just watch you die for from a safe distance? Would that be the kind of person you want watching your back in a life-or-death situation?

Lol!

Lol! Did you not read that blog? You might agree with the guy who wrote it, but he actually includes the data on which button most people choose to press…and it’s blue far more often than red.

So…knowing that those people exist…you would still push red and risk killing them all, just to ensure you survive? Claiming it “immoral” to save them, is about as bizarre an argument as claiming that it’s even possible for everyone to press red.

You are in a state of denial, my friend. I get it. You need to justify your decision to risk all those people’s lives somehow, right?

The fact that you keep circling back to that excuse, either means that you’re delusional, or simply don’t care that your decision is putting other people at risk.

Delusional if you seriously don’t understand that people will vote blue, whether you think they “should” or not. That means they will die if the majority presses red.

If you do know that those people do exist, then still pressing red just means that you don’t care if they die…as long as you personally, survive.

This entire thought experiment is intended to reveal the kind of person you are. Are you the kind of person that would risk your own life to save others…or are you the kind of person that would risk the lives of others, in order to guarantee your own survival.

I know for a fact, I wouldn’t trust someone like you to have my back in a dangerous situation. It’s pretty obvious that if my life was in danger, you’d gladly let me die rather than risk your own safety. What’s worse is, you’d turn around and blame me for “choosing to die”, when in reality you were the one that chose to let me die, instead of doing something to save me.

That’s pretty cold, man.

No.

Choosing red is choosing for you not to die. But, it is also choosing to potentially sacrifice other people in the process. That means choosing red, is choosing to kill others in exchange for guaranteed survival. That is the definition of “causing death”.

The only way choosing red doesn’t directly cause the death of others, is if the majority chooses blue.

If the majority chooses blue, then everyone lives. That means that choosing blue isn’t “choosing death”…it’s choosing to risk death in order to save everyone. Something that choosing red simply can’t achieve.

There are only two conditions to the experiment…and you are repeatedly ignoring both of them.

1. if the majority presses blue…EVERYONE LIVES

2. if the majority chooses red…everyone who didn’t choose red, dies.

You are the one attributing things to those conditions that don’t exist.

Everyone choosing red is also not the “only way that everyone lives”. That is clearly stated in the first condition. This makes your primary assertion, wrong.

Choosing blue is a risk…but, it is also the only choice where everyone lives. It really is that simple. It is not “choosing death”. That’s just something else you keep saying, that simply isn’t true.