Police Officer talks about his experience at Trump's rally in Tucson: AWESOME!

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: awareness10

In this thread, you basically posted a video from a police officer who went to a Trump rally and had formed ideas about some of behaviors of some protesters at the event he attended. Yet, after that several of us have, and you have joined us, in discussing a myriad of associated topics.

At this point, since UKTruth has shown us that Officer Tatum is now a Trump supporter, suprise, what topics do you find relevant to your thread going forward?

Thanks in advance.

I already posited such a discussion.
Officer Tatum was not a Trump supporter prior to going to the event and has since been persuaded to vote Trump.
He says quite clearly what he thinks of the behaviour of the protesters and I suggest that the very same behaviour may have been part of his decision process.
Since there have been calls for rioting should Trump win the nomination, I would say many more will follow Officer Tatum's lead.
Thus the protesters may in fact help him become President.

originally posted by: UKTruth
I hold that those that would seek to murder hundreds (or even thousands) in an act of pure cowardice inspired by hate deserve no recourse based on any standing law

Okay, so you DO support the Trump protesters.

...Since they view Trump and his supporters as those who would seek to murder hundreds or thousands in an act of pure cowardice Inspired by hate? Like murdering the family members of terrorists regardless of their innocence? And justify it out of hatred and cowardly fear of terrorism?

Glad we're finally on the same page, brother

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: UKTruth
I hold that those that would seek to murder hundreds (or even thousands) in an act of pure cowardice inspired by hate deserve no recourse based on any standing law

Okay, so you DO support the Trump protesters.

...Since they view Trump and his supporters as those who would seek to murder hundreds or thousands in an act of pure cowardice Inspired by hate? Like murdering the family members of terrorists regardless of their innocence? And justify it out of hatred and cowardly fear of terrorism?

Glad we're finally on the same page, brother

I challenge you to find anywhere a statement from Trump that he would partake in terrorist activity.
I am aware of what he said about the families of terrorists and also reject your conclusion that it makes him the same as the cowards that actually killed people yesterday.

Further, I would point out that none of the protesters interviewed even mentioned this element of what Trump was saying - they actually didn't mention anything he said correctly, skewing facts and feeding their own hatred.

Trump is correctly pointing out the harsh truth that friends and family members are protecting terrorists. Those that are proven to do so should be charged the same as if they had committed a terrorist act. Trump's inspiration seems to me to be the protection of innocent life. If cowardly terrorists and those that harbour them need to be killed in the process, so be it.

I will never be on the same page as someone who thinks terrorists should be afforded the same rights as the rest of society.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: yuppa

You are aware that in the eyes of many in the world, it is the United States that is the terrorists. Our tendency to cause "collateral damage" wherever we become involved in the world, one of several reasons for that belief, true or not.

The Conventions were put in place to hopefully diminish the acts of utter inhumanity nation commits against nation.

If our soldiers are captured, you're okay with them being tortured, or, as you so eloquently put it, put down like dogs?

Teh SItuations dictate the level of compliance with the Conventions. TERRORIST have NEVER(except That one time exchange rarely) treated our soldiers according to th e geneva conventions. We are not talking about standard armies anymore. THOSE actually follow the conventions but TERRORIST do NOT. Beheading is forbidden in the conventions.

Also Since when are terrorist/radicals islamist/ISIS or al qaeda/ciada signatories of th econventions? THEY do NOT treat our soldiers with respect. they Torture our soldiers,and they kill our soldiers AGAINST the conventions.

When im speaking of killing them and taking no prisoners I mean getting down on their level and playing their game.
IF this was a COUNTRY and their LEGAL ARMY AND SOLDIERS you would have a point,BUT these are NOT SOLDIERS and NOT LEGAL COMBATANTS. Its legal to kill them like dogs because they do the exact same thing to anyone

So Stop defending TERRORIST who Dont capture to hold our soldiers. they capture them to make statements and videos to terrorize th enormal citizens of th eworld. As soon as they start treating our soldiers like they deserve to be treated they deserve what they get.

a reply to: UKTruth

THere is a legal term for Aiding and abedding a terrorist/killer ..oh whats th eterm... aaa Accessory yeah thats the word. Within our justice system they are just as guilty as the Actual terrorist/killer.

a reply to: UKTruth

Oh, silly boy... Trump didn't say he'd kill family members of terrorists proven to be guilt of anything. He would kill them for being family- because he wants to fight dirty. It's very clear. And my poor naïve boy, you think only violent terrorists are tortured... SUSPECTED terrorists. Suspected means just an idea they might do something or help someone commit terrorism. So, when you want to amp up torture and murder innocent families, don't kid yourself. Lots and lots, possibly the majority of casualties will be innocent people caught in that net, which really should disturb any decent human being...

Oddly, this revelation has no impact on a Trump supporter... it's as though they are so fueled by hatred, and such cowards to terrorism, that they will abandon all principle at the first sign of danger.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: UKTruth

Oh, silly boy... Trump didn't say he'd kill family members of terrorists proven to be guilt of anything. He would kill them for being family- because he wants to fight dirty. It's very clear. And my poor naïve boy, you think only violent terrorists are tortured... SUSPECTED terrorists. Suspected means just an idea they might do something or help someone commit terrorism. So, when you want to amp up torture and murder innocent families, don't kid yourself. Lots and lots, possibly the majority of casualties will be innocent people caught in that net, which really should disturb any decent human being...

Oddly, this revelation has no impact on a Trump supporter... it's as though they are so fueled by hatred, and such cowards to terrorism, that they will abandon all principle at the first sign of danger.

Actually he has gone into no detail at all - so your claim of it being very clear is false.

What we know for certain is that terrorists are actually blowing people up and shooting them.
To equate the two is pure nonsense and very twisted.

The only hatred I see here is coming from you. You are fueling yourself. No one is doing it for you, not even your pariah Trump.

You have NO IDEA WHAT HIS IDEAS ARE. You havent got a clue.

Unfortunately, neither does Trump, that's the scary bit.

He just makes crap up as he goes along.. claiming he will achieve these great things.. like most politicians before him, but he really doesn't have a plan to do so. Making blanket statements along the lines that Mexico will pay for a wall between our borders (and then cockily claiming it is now 5 feet taller), when he has outlined NO way this would even be feasible, is a fine example.

On foreign policy, Trump doesn't even know the players. How could he possibly have formulated a plan to deal with world issues? He is smoke and mirrors. His plan to give wealthy and large corporations tax cuts bodes well for you? Why would anyone who has complained about the 1%, think that they can elect a 1%er to the office.. and things would change for the better?

a reply to: UKTruth

Okay, man, see it your way... but if you yourself can find reason at times to abandon the law when the ends justify the means, I think you should forgive protesters for doing the same.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: awareness10

In this thread, you basically posted a video from a police officer who went to a Trump rally and had formed ideas about some of behaviors of some protesters at the event he attended. Yet, after that several of us have, and you have joined us, in discussing a myriad of associated topics.

At this point, since UKTruth has shown us that Officer Tatum is now a Trump supporter, suprise, what topics do you find relevant to your thread going forward?

Thanks in advance.

I already posited such a discussion.
Officer Tatum was not a Trump supporter prior to going to the event and has since been persuaded to vote Trump.
He says quite clearly what he thinks of the behaviour of the protesters and I suggest that the very same behaviour may have been part of his decision process.
Since there have been calls for rioting should Trump win the nomination, I would say many more will follow Officer Tatum's lead.
Thus the protesters may in fact help him become President.

Thanks, I'm glad Officer Tatum came a decision that suits his political beliefs. That observation, however, does not relate to my question which was directed to Awareness, the thread author and OP ... I'm interested in what they consider to be the further course of this discussion and specifically, what they find to be "on topic."

Thank you kindly for your response.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: awareness10

In this thread, you basically posted a video from a police officer who went to a Trump rally and had formed ideas about some of behaviors of some protesters at the event he attended. Yet, after that several of us have, and you have joined us, in discussing a myriad of associated topics.

At this point, since UKTruth has shown us that Officer Tatum is now a Trump supporter, suprise, what topics do you find relevant to your thread going forward?

Thanks in advance.

I already posited such a discussion.
Officer Tatum was not a Trump supporter prior to going to the event and has since been persuaded to vote Trump.
He says quite clearly what he thinks of the behaviour of the protesters and I suggest that the very same behaviour may have been part of his decision process.
Since there have been calls for rioting should Trump win the nomination, I would say many more will follow Officer Tatum's lead.
Thus the protesters may in fact help him become President.

Thanks, I'm glad Officer Tatum came a decision that suits his political beliefs. That observation, however, does not relate to my question which was directed to Awareness, the thread author and OP ... I'm interested in what they consider to be the further course of this discussion and specifically, what they find to be "on topic."

Thank you kindly for your response.

I have given you some direction on further debate that would be on topic.
You can contribute if you like. Personally I think it is very valid to discuss the implications of Officer Tatum's subsequent activity post the time he gave his interview.

originally posted by: yuppa

Teh SItuations dictate the level of compliance with the Conventions. TERRORIST have NEVER(except That one time exchange rarely) treated our soldiers according to th e geneva conventions. We are not talking about standard armies anymore. THOSE actually follow the conventions but TERRORIST do NOT. Beheading is forbidden in the conventions.

And the United States ... are we a nation and signer to the Geneva Conventions, or not? Should we be held to a higher standard of behavior than terrorist scum ... or not?

originally posted by: yuppa

Also Since when are terrorist/radicals islamist/ISIS or al qaeda/ciada signatories of th econventions? THEY do NOT treat our soldiers with respect. they Torture our soldiers,and they kill our soldiers AGAINST the conventions.

Right, the terrorists et. al. are not signatories to the Geneva Conventions. However, let's be clear ... are you advocating that the United States, which is the largest and most powerful military force on the plant by orders of magnitude, act in the same manner as these gutless coward terrorists? If so, just say that.

originally posted by: yuppa

When im speaking of killing them and taking no prisoners I mean getting down on their level and playing their game.
IF this was a COUNTRY and their LEGAL ARMY AND SOLDIERS you would have a point,BUT these are NOT SOLDIERS and NOT LEGAL COMBATANTS. Its legal to kill them like dogs because they do the exact same thing to anyone.

No, if you act like gutless terrorists you are a gutless terrorist. You're advocating for war crimes, pure simple and direct.

originally posted by: yuppa

So Stop defending TERRORIST who Dont capture to hold our soldiers. they capture them to make statements and videos to terrorize th enormal citizens of th eworld. As soon as they start treating our soldiers like they deserve to be treated they deserve what they get.

NO ONE here, and particularly NOT ME is defending terrorists. How dare you! You don't agree with what you think my politics are? Fine. That does not give you carte blanche to lie and call me a traitor.

You wouldn't do it in person, I guarantee you that.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: awareness10

In this thread, you basically posted a video from a police officer who went to a Trump rally and had formed ideas about some of behaviors of some protesters at the event he attended. Yet, after that several of us have, and you have joined us, in discussing a myriad of associated topics.

At this point, since UKTruth has shown us that Officer Tatum is now a Trump supporter, suprise, what topics do you find relevant to your thread going forward?

Thanks in advance.

I already posited such a discussion.
Officer Tatum was not a Trump supporter prior to going to the event and has since been persuaded to vote Trump.
He says quite clearly what he thinks of the behaviour of the protesters and I suggest that the very same behaviour may have been part of his decision process.
Since there have been calls for rioting should Trump win the nomination, I would say many more will follow Officer Tatum's lead.
Thus the protesters may in fact help him become President.

Thanks, I'm glad Officer Tatum came a decision that suits his political beliefs. That observation, however, does not relate to my question which was directed to Awareness, the thread author and OP ... I'm interested in what they consider to be the further course of this discussion and specifically, what they find to be "on topic."

Thank you kindly for your response.

I have given you some direction on further debate that would be on topic.
You can contribute if you like. Personally I think it is very valid to discuss the implications of Officer Tatum's subsequent activity post the time he gave his interview.

"You have given me direction"

Is this your thread? Or your website? You don't tell me when I can contribute or not, or how to contribute.

Also, as it's not your thread, and you have zero authority here let me be clear and say I don't care what YOU consider a valid direction for the conversation.

I asked the OP. I am only interested in what Awareness10, the author of the thread, has to say. May I kindly ask out of basic human courtesy that you refrain from replying to my posts? I will be glad to do you the same favor.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: awareness10

In this thread, you basically posted a video from a police officer who went to a Trump rally and had formed ideas about some of behaviors of some protesters at the event he attended. Yet, after that several of us have, and you have joined us, in discussing a myriad of associated topics.

At this point, since UKTruth has shown us that Officer Tatum is now a Trump supporter, suprise, what topics do you find relevant to your thread going forward?

Thanks in advance.

I already posited such a discussion.
Officer Tatum was not a Trump supporter prior to going to the event and has since been persuaded to vote Trump.
He says quite clearly what he thinks of the behaviour of the protesters and I suggest that the very same behaviour may have been part of his decision process.
Since there have been calls for rioting should Trump win the nomination, I would say many more will follow Officer Tatum's lead.
Thus the protesters may in fact help him become President.

Thanks, I'm glad Officer Tatum came a decision that suits his political beliefs. That observation, however, does not relate to my question which was directed to Awareness, the thread author and OP ... I'm interested in what they consider to be the further course of this discussion and specifically, what they find to be "on topic."

Thank you kindly for your response.

I have given you some direction on further debate that would be on topic.
You can contribute if you like. Personally I think it is very valid to discuss the implications of Officer Tatum's subsequent activity post the time he gave his interview.

"You have given me direction"

Is this your thread? Or your website? You don't tell me when I can contribute or not, or how to contribute.

Also, as it's not your thread, and you have zero authority here let me be clear and say I don't care what YOU consider a valid direction for the conversation.

I asked the OP. I am only interested in what Awareness10, the author of the thread, has to say. May I kindly ask out of basic human courtesy that you refrain from replying to my posts? I will be glad to do you the same favor.

I thought you were asking for some direction so I was being helpful.
I am sure the OP won't mind - this is a thread after all for us all to contribute and comment. Perhaps a PM to the OP would be better if you need help staying on topic?

NM

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: awareness10

In this thread, you basically posted a video from a police officer who went to a Trump rally and had formed ideas about some of behaviors of some protesters at the event he attended. Yet, after that several of us have, and you have joined us, in discussing a myriad of associated topics.

At this point, since UKTruth has shown us that Officer Tatum is now a Trump supporter, suprise, what topics do you find relevant to your thread going forward?

Thanks in advance.

I already posited such a discussion.
Officer Tatum was not a Trump supporter prior to going to the event and has since been persuaded to vote Trump.
He says quite clearly what he thinks of the behaviour of the protesters and I suggest that the very same behaviour may have been part of his decision process.
Since there have been calls for rioting should Trump win the nomination, I would say many more will follow Officer Tatum's lead.
Thus the protesters may in fact help him become President.

Thanks, I'm glad Officer Tatum came a decision that suits his political beliefs. That observation, however, does not relate to my question which was directed to Awareness, the thread author and OP ... I'm interested in what they consider to be the further course of this discussion and specifically, what they find to be "on topic."

Thank you kindly for your response.

I have given you some direction on further debate that would be on topic.
You can contribute if you like. Personally I think it is very valid to discuss the implications of Officer Tatum's subsequent activity post the time he gave his interview.

"You have given me direction"

Is this your thread? Or your website? You don't tell me when I can contribute or not, or how to contribute.

Also, as it's not your thread, and you have zero authority here let me be clear and say I don't care what YOU consider a valid direction for the conversation.

I asked the OP. I am only interested in what Awareness10, the author of the thread, has to say. May I kindly ask out of basic human courtesy that you refrain from replying to my posts? I will be glad to do you the same favor.

I thought you were asking for some direction so I was being helpful.
I am sure the OP won't mind - this is a thread after all for us all to contribute and comment. Perhaps a PM to the OP would be better if you need help staying on topic.

I don't need "help staying on topic," thank you. You don't speak for the OP, nor anyone else but yourself.

Perhaps I will communicate within the boundaries and requirements of site T&C as I see fit; feel free to do the same.

And with the intention of honoring the site rules, I will be ignoring you from this point on.

I was not speaking for the OP - as I said just being helpful by responding to your request.

I think that the subsequent statements from Officer Tatum are very much on topic.

For those interested Officer Tatum was invited to speak on Fox News

Here is his facebook account www.facebook.com...

Here is his Fox News interview

insider.foxnews.com...

a reply to: UKTruth

Pardon my indiscretion. I attempted to remove my post. I'll be absenting myself from this thread in the interest of T&C.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Pardon my indiscretion. I attempted to remove my post. I'll be absenting myself from this thread in the interest of T&C.

Fair enough. Good luck
I'll delete your comment in my reply if you like

If you are a candidate who pushes strongly for forcibly rounding up and deporting 11 million people, issuing a ban on travelers based solely on race, amping up torture and murdering innocent families--- and encourages violence against protesters---- Protests should be expected.

A candidate that rouses that much anger and hostility, through his own hateful violent ideas, should never be awarded the most powerful position of the land.

I'd like someone to tell me how putting a guy like that, who insults without second thought, wants to torture regardless of any information extracted, kill families regardless of innocence--- and attracts violent reaction --- How does a guy like that make us safer? Please answer that. My personal opinion, Trump's recklessness threatens to bring the kind of violence that exists daily in the Middle East over to U.S. shores.

I would honestly like to hear a rational flipside argument.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
If you are a candidate who pushes strongly for forcibly rounding up and deporting 11 million people, issuing a ban on travelers based solely on race, amping up torture and murdering innocent families--- and encourages violence against protesters---- Protests should be expected.

Those people are here illegally. Immigration is regulated for a reason - because it can have serious economic and sociological implications if not handled properly. Illegals have low-paying jobs and pay little to nothing in taxes, while generally harboring large families which drain health and educational resources. Hospitals have literally shut down due to this effect. This was all done without even being brought to a vote, much like what's happening in Europe with "migrants".

Trump never suggested banning people based on "race". That's a fabrication.

Amping up torture. Yup, he said it. He'd rather injure our enemies than see another dead American. Of course, Obama would prefer to just use drone strikes. That's much more humane. Both approaches suck, but there's no high ground in this war they're fighting.

Murdering innocent families? Sure, that's going to happen in any protracted conflict, particularly when we rely heavily on drone strikes.

Encouraging violence against violent protesters. God forbid. What was it he said anyway? Care to explain exactly how he incited that dangerous mob of middle aged white people? Lol.

The truth is you and the rest of your mob are, as usual, thinking what you're told to think. Trump threatens the established order. He threatens those who dictate how we are supposed to think, to speak and to vote. That's the reason he's being attacked on all fronts. He is very dangerous to the oligarchy, and the quicker you and the mob can be dispatched to beat his supporters into submission, the better.

A candidate that rouses that much anger and hostility, through his own hateful violent ideas, should never be awarded the most powerful position of the land.

You'd rather have a politically correct candidate who simply carries out the will of the oligarchs and pats you on the head for being a well-behaved serf. Have fun with that, I'm going to use my head.