Why Attacks on Trump Don't Work

I ask you again, are you arguing in the affirmative for expanding torture and the targeting of non-combatants, making our military men into war criminals?

Are you arguing that you trust these powers in the hands of government. A government which has also begun to wall you in. A government which has begun to target the media. That these powers can also be contained.

No I’m not.

Now are you going to answer my question?

Hmm, thinking about it now…

Blames the mother-land’s problems on “the other.”
Wants to wall us in “them” out.
Prefers nationalistic mother-land first entitlement state
Wants to restrain the media with new legal constraints
Wants to expand torture and target non-combatants

1 Like

Then you’re obligated to oppose Trump. What question?

I asked the above…

In what way? Perhaps criminally if they actually participated in some point of the planning, staging, and/or execution. But Trump’s idea is that they are direct targets simply for being family. To deliberately target them to get back at the terrorists.

Trump has 30+ years experience in politics, he has only never held office.

No I mean if they 100% knew what was going to take place (the attack) but did nothing to stop it meaning report it. No planning, no execution just full knowledge of it

Then nothing. There are likely nearly entire villages and cities that know about the terrorists residing in them. Do you want those leveled in retribution? Is that us now?

1 Like

No, but I’m more interested in this policy with respect to attacks on US soil like say the San Bernardino attackers. Realistically if the family is abroad the US has little to no chance to get to them so it’s pretty much a moot point.

Trump said “taking them out” which could mean what you are saying, or removing them from circulation (holding them so they can’t communicate to outside groups), to hitting them financially. It’s not really clear. In Russia for instance they make terrorist families pay the damages for whatever damages the terrorist caused or hold them until the terrorist gives up, among other things.

Let’s say terrorists take over a large concert hall with hundreds of hostages in the US, would you oppose the US government putting any sort of pressure on the terrorist’s families to get them to give up? I’m talking about family locally in the US.

[quote=“therajraj, post:635, topic:217419, full:true”]

Trump said “taking them out” which could mean what you are saying, or removing them from circulation (holding them so they can’t communicate to outside groups), to hitting them financially. [/quote]

No, no, no he didn’t mean anything but killing them. Once more, watch the debate video. Watch the question posed to him. It is clearly about his ordering our troops to kill non-combatants. The questioner isn’t talking about troops possibly having an issue detaining them. That’s nonsense. He’s talking about illegal orders. He’s talking about deliberately targeting and killing them. To which he simply says they WILL follow his orders. Please, the context is crystal clear. He doesn’t even try to downplay what he means, he flat out defends it.

1 Like

Yes. Would you shoot his 9 year old in the head? Would you cut off the fingers of his wife (who lives as a subservient lifestyle in the first place)? Would you order one of our young servicemen to do it?

Just as an observation from someone who doesn’t like Trump in the slightest… The whole Hitler comparison is so over-played it’s about to start working in his favor, if it hasn’t already.

As in, it’s unnecessary and is just going to play into his hand much like the riots are going to.

If people want him to lose, they need to start taking him serious and laying off the Hitler shit and rioting.

Interestingly I didn’t say Hitler. I simply pointed out verifiable (which point isn’t true) points of interest in Trump’s campaign. Indeed, interesting.

I was thinking more of Beta-Male fantasy Fascism, not Nazism.

I mean, which point do I not have a legitimate argument for? I’m prepared to repost, re-cite, re-source, every single one of them, yet again. Taken all together…

It’s the go-to bullshit rhetoric right now.

It’s to the point were Libertarian and libertarians a-like are starting to seem as defending Trump in their relentless heckling of the Hitler scare tactic. And the only person liked less than Trump in those camps is Hillary, and Sanders is a notch about Trump in that he’s just a silly old batshit Uncle at Thanksgiving.

It’s not your points man. It’s the assumed Hitler reference.

1 Like

[quote=“Sloth, post:636, topic:217419, full:true”]

He also clarified:

“I will use every legal power that I have to stop these terrorist enemies,” the statement issued by his campaign said. “I do, however, understand that the United States is bound by laws and treaties and I will not order our military or other officials to violate those laws and will seek their advice on such matters. I will not order a military officer to disobey the law. It is clear that as president I will be bound by laws just like all Americans and I will meet those responsibilities.”

I would have no problem holding their families until the terrorist gave up. I also would consider putting in a policy that forced the terrorists families to pay for damages caused by the terrorist. This would work as an incentive for the terrorist families to report them to the police

[quote=“therajraj, post:643, topic:217419, full:true”]

That IS NOT clarification: That is him doing a complete 180 after he took a beating for having said he’d order our servicemen to carry out illegal acts, and they’d listen. Proof is in the video. That statement above is the opposite of what he originally staked out as his position (which he defends in the video). That’s not clarification, that’s a complete flip-flop (like so many, many others) for political convenience.