It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The Etiquette of Being a Trump Supporter

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 08:33 PM
Recently Donald Trump, leading candidate for the Republican nomination to be President of the United States, said that his administration would go after, the words were "take out" the relatives of terrorists. He didn't go into detail about his plans for these families. (I presume he meant alter the status of these persons from being what are called "living persons" to that of being what are called "dead persons".)

TRUMP: You have to 'take out' terrorists' families

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump said Wednesday that his administration would try to "take out" terrorists' families, in addition to the militants themselves.

What is the approach that a polite Republican should take when presented with a policy statement like that?

After nervous laughter, I mean.

Does one take it seriously? Does one ask Mr. Trump if he has a detailed plan in place for the dispersal of real estate and personal property in the wake of "taking out" these relatives of terrorists? Does he intend to remove the entire family lineage currently alive, or only the immediate family?

What about adopted children of the family? Will they be "taken out" too?

The only comparable policy from a national government that I am aware of, along these lines, would exempt non blood relations, like adopted children, as long as they weren't known for acting like little terrors, i.e., miniature terrorists of the sort you find in playgrounds, who might reasonably be expected to grow up to follow the example of a terrorist predecessor.

I don't think it would be in good taste to mention the government to which I am referring.

I'm assuming that people who have married into a terrorist's family would be "taken out", naturally, but surely their own relatives, i.e., the "in-laws", would be far enough removed as to remove the necessity of removal.

There is a precedent for making these discriminations, by a national government. The documentation setting out the details is available. Maybe Mr. Trump's press people are already familiar with those details and prepared to take questions from Republicans, about them, or even from the Press, if they should take an interest in this matter.

Or, perhaps the "done" thing among the Republicans, is not to mention this sort of "solution" publicly and simply to take it as "understood".

That must be it. Fewer awkward moments that way. I'm sure Mr. Trump must have the details of this policy worked out to his own satisfaction. Surely. He must. This is a serious matter.

I can't help wondering how this policy will be implemented. Will there be daily coverage of people being "taken out" in the press? Will children in school be counseled psychologically when classmates begin to be "taken out" of their lives?

Are Republican Party organizers addressing these issues among themselves? Are the rank and file receptive to Mr. Trump's new policy on terrorists' families? When one meets a Republican friend, what is the polite way to handle this issue? Do Republicans talk about it freely?

Maybe Republican wives should begin to organize luncheon meetings or something, you know, the way women get together, (I'm not a woman) to put the right face on an awkward situation. I'm assuming it is an awkward situation. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

Please help me with this. Is this seen as an awkward development by Republicans, Mr. Trump's intention to "take out" the families of terrorists?

Maybe he just means overseas families of terrorists! Not American families of terrorists, or families in the UK, for example.

That would be different, obviously, although it would probably be much easier to identify the family of an American terrorist or an English terrorist than the family of somebody from Sirte or Benghazi in Libya.

Maybe I'm all wrong about this. Maybe Donald Trump is really telling his supporters that he intends to "take out" the Saudi Royal Family!

I'm not sure the Republican response to that idea would be as enthusiastic as Donald's floating the idea in the first place. Of course there are rumors that the Saudis, through their relatives, are financing terrorists and in some cases, these rumors might be true, but surely wiping out the entire Saudi Royal Family because of a couple of bad apples is not going to fly in Republican circles. Heavens, the Bush Family, is in business with the Saudis, are they not?

Am I just a bothersome kook, or is Mr. Trump's policy of "taking out" the families of terrorists poorly conceived?

If Mr. Trump is planning to "take out" the Saudi Royal Family, simply because some of them support terrorism, maybe we're already past the point where "etiquette" is relevant to the Trump campaign. I certainly hope so.
edit on 3-12-2015 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-12-2015 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 08:41 PM
a reply to: ipsedixit

said that his administration would go after, the words were "take out" the relatives of terrorists.

Scarily assuming that he were to win the election:

I wonder how the Donald would act or go after getting elected, if his popularity were to dwindle , was laughed at and were to become the butt of a jokes by his once loyal supporters?

edit on 481231America/ChicagoThu, 03 Dec 2015 20:48:38 -0600000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 08:46 PM
a reply to: interupt42

He really needs to control his mouth.

People have a choice, an awkward choice in the Republican Party. Take this guy seriously and work like hell to defeat him or take his pronouncements with a grain of salt, knowing that they are voting for a "pig in a poke".

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 08:52 PM
a reply to: ipsedixit

I literally do not have a dog in this race; all the dogs are walking in lockstep backward from my perspective. Woe.

That said, I don't have any doubt that Trump has been previously acquainted in his lengthy business dealings with the mechanisms and systems applicable for "taking out" pretty much anyone. You have to understand........ Donald Trump doesn't seem to have a filter. It's one of the very entertaining things about him. He doesn't try to fill time while he ponders what people want to hear in response to questions -- he simply says the first thing that comes to his mind. Imo.

I have to see this race as entertainment, or it's just too damn depressing. May the least damaging critter win.

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 08:57 PM
a reply to: argentus

I have much the same take on it.

I was talking to a friend of mine this evening about Trump and we both agreed that in the past, somebody like Trump would be laughed out of contention almost immediately, but that American society, in it's current state, contains a very substantial audience for the sort of jawing that Trump indulges in regularly. That's not a good sign.

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 09:13 PM
a reply to: ipsedixit

My husband refers to him as the 'Howard Stern' of presidential candidates.
No one seems taken aback by what he says or how it says it...guess cause they expect it from him (Trump supporters that is)
He has always been that way

Having said that, think many people are fed up with the usual run of the mill candidates that are polished and groomed to say what they think the public wants to hear, remembering all the while to be politically correct as they are saying that (meaning they are usually full of sh#t)

Well you sure as hell do not get that from Trump and do think many appreciate his candor, no matter how "out there" it is

Being an Independent, I really have no horse in this race
Especially being as both sides of the isle gripe my azz

Note this tho, I do not want another Bush nor Clinton in office (shakes head)
That much I do know
And if it just so happens to be Trump, so be it
Should prove to be interesting to say the least
Maybe he'll at least listen to his Military advisers, unlike someone we know

edit on 3-12-2015 by snarky412 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 09:16 PM
a reply to: ipsedixit

I dont want to derail or board members; we all can recite history. This is an exherbt from a simaler question you posed in the opening thread.

Hawks have been complaining since 9/11 that America’s big problem in waging the war on terror is that we fight with one hand behind our backs. Loosen the rules of engagement, increase the body count, and jihadis will learn fear. Killing terrorists’ families is Trump’s way of showing he’s on the same page. What he said about bringing back waterboarding a few weeks ago is right in line with it. That’s another idea that the political class in both parties is leery of but which lots of Republican voters would endorse on the principle that there’s no such thing as being too tough on terrorists. (Even if that means killing their parents, siblings, or children, I guess.) In both cases, it invites the media to put the inevitable follow-up question to Trump’s rivals in the GOP field: Do you agree with Trump that we should kill terrorists’ families? That’s a Catch-22 for someone like Ted Cruz. If he says yes, he’s endorsing collective punishment and going further than even a Republican superhawk like Dick Cheney went while in office. That’s not who Cruz, who supported the USA Freedom Act in the name of defending civil liberties, is supposed to be. If he says no, then he’s a squish who won’t do everything needed to deter terrorism, up to and including making a hard choice to liquidate a jihadi’s family if need be. Can Trump’s Jacksonian fans really trust a guy like that to be commander-in-chief?

I’m honestly surprised Trump hasn’t called yet for tactical nuclear strikes on jihadi strongholds like Raqqa. That’s the logical next step. Is he saving that for the general election?


That being said, there are many many Trump supporters. I will not be surprised eithor way the coin lands. Maybe instead of poli-tricks as usual, the race will be tightened and the U.S. will work harder to become more educated in whose hands they decide to lut the future of themselves and children in.

This is (and is not) a laughing matter. Especially given theast 72 hrs. In the U.S.A. and world wide. I do pose one question. What is the answer to ISIS? After all, they are here.


posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 09:17 PM
a reply to: snarky412

You beat me to it!

Note this tho, I do not want another Bush nor Clinton in office (shakes head)
That much I do know
And if it just so happens to be Trump, so be it

edit on 3-12-2015 by ReadLeader because: Sp

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 09:23 PM
a reply to: ipsedixit

FYI: I have a thread about this topic here. I started it right before the San Bernardino story broke.

I'll quote my last post from that thread:

This thread is specifically about the following quote from Donald Trump:

"And the other thing is with the terrorists, you have to take out their families. When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. But they say they don’t care about their lives. You have to take out their families"

That wasn't a statement about collateral damage (that statement actually preceded this one). Yes, war is hell and innocent bystanders will be killed in any large scale military engagement but that's not what I was addressing in the OP. What Trump was saying is that we have to target and murder the families of our enemies to prevent them from retaliating against us and he was also implying that this is a sound strategy for defeating the extremist ideology of groups like ISIS.

What he's essentially prescribing is genocide. You know, that thing about which most of the world has agreed is so horrible that we've signed treaties to prevent from happening? The sort of depravity that we pointed our fingers at the likes of Hussein and Assad for committing? Why is this even a debate? The guy is talking about a new holocaust — "The Final Solution" to what he and his rabid supporters see as "The Muslim Question."

There is a strong desire among extremists on the Right for an all out holy war which ironically enough is what ISIS wants as well. I've decided to start calling this end of the battle of extremist ideologies neocrusaderism.

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 09:25 PM
a reply to: ipsedixit
Nicely laid out Ips. And sure, this kind of in-depth study of his blather by other Republican candidates might shoot him down in a minute. But that would also create a more in-depth study of their own positions, which I do not believe they want either. So they just let him ramble.

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 09:27 PM
a reply to: snarky412

Trump is a breath of fresh air, I suppose. He says the kind of thing that a lot of people say, so in that sense he is handing people's own words back to them. That is a very savvy thing to do.

Most politicians hold up an ideal. Trump holds up a collection of resentments and suspicions that ordinary people have and promises procrustean methods to deal with them. Does that remind you of anyone? It should and it's not a pleasant association.

His message is appealing, but what he delivers might not be what he talks about in his sales pitch. Trump is first, last, and always, a huckster. People need to wake up to it.

Fact check every single thing he says, whether it is about the Chinese or about what a raw deal the US got out of Iraq.

Trump, in his campaign, is using the dangerous tools of the demagogue and simply telling people what they themselves suspect, not know, but suspect is true..

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 09:29 PM
a reply to: theantediluvian

That is the shadow that hangs over the man, for sure. I'm glad you made the point. I wasn't aware of your thread.
edit on 3-12-2015 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 09:30 PM
a reply to: theantediluvian

Neocrusaderism. Good people paving the way for Jesus.
Buy some today, it's your Ticket to Heaven.

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 09:33 PM
a reply to: ReadLeader

The Trump campaign is a frightening thing. That's what I mean about the "pig in a poke" aspect of it. One can boil his message down to, "I'm mad, you're mad and I'm going to do something about it."

At that point the specifics stop.

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 09:46 PM
a reply to: ipsedixit

Agreed. Remember the revenge votes for Clinton & Barry... It is a serious issue. On another note, we have to take in to account how many millinium babies became registerd voters since the last election.

At best, this campaign will make record breaking outcome

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 09:46 PM
I take that kind of talk with a grain of salt. If he gets elected he is just the president he isn`t going to be the king who can implement anything he wants .
if a policy like that did get past congress and all the other checks and balances,well then a crazy president will be the least of our worries,because that would mean that there are a lot of other crazy people in Washington and the pentagon that agreed with him.

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 09:47 PM
In a sort of sick surreal way; what Trump is doing is brilliant. He knows that the GOP won't give him the nomination.
When he drops out the right wing will be so pissed they will boycott the elections and Bush will win by a hanging chad.

Then the fun begins....

edit on 3-12-2015 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 09:52 PM
No one so far has made another possible connection to what he said. Too busy with the hate Trump ramblings . Could he have been actually referring to the same concept of gang "families" ?
Always start your brain before you put your fingers on the keyboard in gear....

edit on 3-12-2015 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 09:57 PM
a reply to: Tardacus

This is my worry. I think there are a lot of people who, not so much as agree with him, but who see themselves in his image.

He's a classic demagogue. This was the problem with another guy who made wild statements that a lot of people took with a grain of salt.

My opening post was an example of taking a wild statement seriously. I think all of Trump's statements should be taken seriously, fact checked and that he should be called on his absurdities.

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 09:59 PM
a reply to: olaru12

I've said it before but I think Trump will get so wild in what he says that even the most "red toothed" Republican will start to see Jeb Bush as the only sensible alternative, but Bush is so far out of it at this point that I really don't know what will happen.

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in