I added "and if they could be trusted to deliver on that". In the real world, campaign promises are worth Jack and shit (and Jack left town), and I'm not dumb enough to think Gingrich could realistically be expected to deliver.Syzygy23 said:You don't respect people for believing in God yet you would have voted for somebody based on the fact that they promised a moonbase in 8 years?Rowan93 said:God does not exist, and when I discover someone believes in god my respect of them drops considerably.
Yeah, that's a pretty common "upopular opinion", but still.
For a less common unpopular opinion... When I heard that Newt Gingrich promised a moon base by the end of his second term, I decided if he actually meant that, I didn't care what his other policies were.
And that's actually true, if a potential leader (I'm not American, so I should probably be talking about hypothetical Prime Ministers so it's my own country's freedom on the line) promised a permanent moon base in eight years, and could be trusted to deliver on that, I wouldn't care if the candidate was actually Adolf Hitler, I would vote for him and advise any Jewish or homosexual friends of mine to flee while they can.
So yeah, I guess I either care that little for other people's lives, or that much about space. Probably a bit of both.
Oh, one more, which I'm not sure if it's unpopular or not: The singularity is near. I put about a 50% chance on "by the mid-2030s".
Sorry, but that is just... that is just plain stupid.
But, on the other hand, I'm not American, so my vote doesn't exist, doesn't count for much, and there's much less risk if he actually gets into power, so he can still have my imaginary vote based on that promise alone.
Or are you actually talking about a moonbase in 8 years not being worth it?