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

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.

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.

Might be a good debate for another thread?

originally posted by: Guidance.Is.Internal
Those people are here illegally.

Downloading music or movies is illegal. The penalty carries hefty fines. If a candidate suggested going after every man woman and child who illegally downloaded music or videos, no matter how long ago they did it; and fining each person the maximum allowed, potentially millions of dollars per person, THAT would be a quick way to end illegal downloads, and cripple families financially all across the U.S. It would also be considered "draconian". Rounding up 11 million peaceful people and deporting them is draconian, and requires a total lack of empathy or an abundance of hate or ignorance to support.

Trump never suggested banning people based on "race".

You're right. My apologies. I meant to say based solely on "religion".

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.

Drone strikes are ugly too... The point is, to SPECIFICALLY target an innocent family (not only a terrorist) would be even worse. That is a war crime for good reason, and would require some legal backflips to make it legal-- which Trump has shown interest in pursuing.

Murdering innocent families? Sure, that's going to happen in any protracted conflict....

SPECIFICALLY targeting innocent families, and not only terrorists, is a war crime. Trump says he would consider the innocent families targets also. That means when the drone targets and tears apart the suspected terrorist, the pilot of the drone calls back and gets approval to murder the present family members too. It's a war crime.

Encouraging violence against violent protesters. God forbid. What was it he said anyway?

I've quoted Trump too many times. I stand by what I said. He has encouraged violence against protesters.

The truth is you and the rest of your mob are, as usual, thinking what you're told to think.

Actually, no. I listen to the man speak, as do many, and react to his ideas.

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.

No, just not convinced by a guy pushing draconian measures and war crimes.

I couldn't bring myself to read all the back and forth on this thread, but I thought it was a an honest video, the dude is in his bathroom, i don't think there could possible be a more personal place than ones own bathroom... and i think everybody that seems to care way too much, should take his advice and physically go to a trump rally, a sanders rally, a cruz rally, and a clinton rally.... he is right about getting your own personal perspective.... to have a perception based on media hearsay is dumb.... propaganda is real, media agendas are real, and the only way to stop it.... is to find out for yourself, ourselves, myself..... before u wake up one day and realize u bit it hook line and sinker

originally posted by: 11azerus11
I couldn't bring myself to read all the back and forth on this thread, but I thought it was a an honest video, the dude is in his bathroom, i don't think there could possible be a more personal place than ones own bathroom... and i think everybody that seems to care way too much, should take his advice and physically go to a trump rally, a sanders rally, a cruz rally, and a clinton rally.... he is right about getting your own personal perspective.... to have a perception based on media hearsay is dumb.... propaganda is real, media agendas are real, and the only way to stop it.... is to find out for yourself, ourselves, myself..... before u wake up one day and realize u bit it hook line and sinker

I agree with this and personally think this thread has run its full course.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.

First question. Yes we are signatories of all but the 5th part w erespect it up not bound to it. The conventions are for Standard armies not illegal combatants. In other words its EYE for a EYE with them. They set the precedent so legally its fine to return th efavor to them. Im advocating the US army needs to go back to WW2 ROE and stop being so soft on these terrorist.

Its only fair to not have their arms tied behind their back when dealing with people who do not play by th e rules of war. Soldiers should only kill armed men those resisting them with force and those in the presence of armed men who are helping them. Im not calling for a war crime. Killing terrorist and their supporters is perfectly fine IF they are all in the same area.

Oh Did i call you a traitor? no i didnt. i said stop supporting their civil rights when they clearly do not respect anyone elses and murder,rape,and maim. They do not deserve to be treated like humans are treated. they deserve a swift death at the end of a rifle. And please save your petty threats.

a reply to: fleabit

What the hell are you talking about?

He has a good strategy for the middle east and our foreign relations. Did you even read what he published? You do know he released his strategy on foreign policy and his middle east approach? RIGHT?

He has known state leaders for YEARS

You have not backed up what you said. You just pulled it out of your ass.

DO you even know his policies?

DO you even know his strategy?

KNOW AS IN READ IT AND HEARD IT FROM THE SOURCE WITH CONTEXT?

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: Guidance.Is.Internal
Those people are here illegally.

Downloading music or movies is illegal. The penalty carries hefty fines. If a candidate suggested going after every man woman and child who illegally downloaded music or videos, no matter how long ago they did it; and fining each person the maximum allowed, potentially millions of dollars per person, THAT would be a quick way to end illegal downloads, and cripple families financially all across the U.S. It would also be considered "draconian". Rounding up 11 million peaceful people and deporting them is draconian, and requires a total lack of empathy or an abundance of hate or ignorance to support.

Trump never suggested banning people based on "race".

You're right. My apologies. I meant to say based solely on "religion".

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.

Drone strikes are ugly too... The point is, to SPECIFICALLY target an innocent family (not only a terrorist) would be even worse. That is a war crime for good reason, and would require some legal backflips to make it legal-- which Trump has shown interest in pursuing.

Murdering innocent families? Sure, that's going to happen in any protracted conflict....

SPECIFICALLY targeting innocent families, and not only terrorists, is a war crime. Trump says he would consider the innocent families targets also. That means when the drone targets and tears apart the suspected terrorist, the pilot of the drone calls back and gets approval to murder the present family members too. It's a war crime.

Encouraging violence against violent protesters. God forbid. What was it he said anyway?

I've quoted Trump too many times. I stand by what I said. He has encouraged violence against protesters.

The truth is you and the rest of your mob are, as usual, thinking what you're told to think.

Actually, no. I listen to the man speak, as do many, and react to his ideas.

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.

No, just not convinced by a guy pushing draconian measures and war crimes.

You know MOST of the movies downloaded are actually ones someone bought and isnt making a profit off of right? So you support a person not being able to do with something they buy what they want to do?
The MPAA and RIAA business models need fixing. That the problem. People who download things usually go out and buy what they downloaded as well if they like it as well. SO comparing this to Illegal immigrants is apples and oranges.
Sure both are federal crimes but last time i checked a downloader didnt go collect a paycheck.

Deporting 11 million people is draconian? SHoudnt had hopped th e border. If you cant do th e time dont do th e crime. Oh and DSS can take their children and minors away as well since they are actually US citizens (if born here)

War crimes? No its called acceptable losses IF th eterrorist Is in hiding and has been verified as being there. Oh its at a wedding? Acceptable loss clear to fire. If bin laden was at the popes house and he was a target even th e pope would be acceptable losses. I fthey are a big enough target it dont matter if it was in tehran during their largest parade. Still not a war crime if there is no other way to get him.

Violence against violent protestors? There such a thing called SELF DEFENSE. Look it u p. he encouraged people to defend themselves.

And before you go saying im not thinking for myself check my posting history and comments. Ive thought this stuff way before trump even thought of running.

Awareness10, beg pardon for entering your thread again, loose end needs tying up:

originally posted by: yuppa

Oh Did i call you a traitor? no i didnt. i said stop supporting their civil rights when they clearly do not respect anyone elses and murder,rape,and maim. They do not deserve to be treated like humans are treated. they deserve a swift death at the end of a rifle. And please save your petty threats.

Actually, THIS is what you actually said, to me, verbatim:

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.

So, no you didn't accuse me of "defending their civil rights" (which I haven't) you accused me of defending terrorists which is equivalent to treason. Either you didn't remember what you said, or you can't stand behind it: whatever the case, as I said, you wouldn't do it in person. You don't like leftists, fine, but that doesn't give you leave to call me or anyone else a traitor when we patently aren't.

You're advocating for war crimes on the part of the United States. That's the fact here.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Awareness10, beg pardon for entering your thread again, loose end needs tying up:

originally posted by: yuppa

Oh Did i call you a traitor? no i didnt. i said stop supporting their civil rights when they clearly do not respect anyone elses and murder,rape,and maim. They do not deserve to be treated like humans are treated. they deserve a swift death at the end of a rifle. And please save your petty threats.

Actually, THIS is what you actually said, to me, verbatim:

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.

So, no you didn't accuse me of "defending their civil rights" (which I haven't) you accused me of defending terrorists which is equivalent to treason. Either you didn't remember what you said, or you can't stand behind it: whatever the case, as I said, you wouldn't do it in person. You don't like leftists, fine, but that doesn't give you leave to call me or anyone else a traitor when we patently aren't.

You're advocating for war crimes on the part of the United States. That's the fact here.

No i didnt call you a tritor. Are LAWYERS of TERRORIST traitors? no they arent. Are you acting like a traitor by giving shel;ter aid and comfort? no you arent. And No im advocating th eUS acts like it did in th epast and actually take care of its problems. Its not a war crime to act as they do. If we change the RULES OF ENGAGEMENT to include NO POWs its legal to do so.

I f it was not then in WW2 our president would had been in the hague. youre simply wrong. no discussion fulll stop.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33

love it

a reply to: yuppa

First of all, you're dealing dishonestly, as I have not "defended terrorists" either.

Second of all, you're the one who's "simply wrong."

The Rome Statute established four core international crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression.

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

Third, war crimes are defined in Article 8 (pp 5-10) of this accord and they include: intentionally killing civilians or prisoners, torture, destroying civilian property, taking hostages, perfidy, rape, using child soldiers, pillaging, declaring that no quarter will be given, and using weapons that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

Interestingly the United States is not party to this accord, as are most Western democracies, although we are a signatory. This, however, makes it clear what our allies and most of the reasonable world sees as reasonable standards.

a reply to: UKTruth

That song... great until Trump talks... "We are going to start winning again. We will win at every single level." That's a helluva over promise. "and not laughed at, like we're all a bunch of stupid people..." Oh man....

I understand some people find his words reassuring. I am not convinced at all. It honestly sounds like the promise and fear of a 4th grader. Promising to be the best winner of all time and no one will call us stupid again. Oy.

It's funny and awful and sad.

Republicans and democrats did this to us. And media. They became so untrustworthy that his buffoon is the front-runner.

And the sad thing is, where Palin and FOX set the stage, Trump double down on this kind of dumb talk, and so where is the next front-runner going to go? I didn't know the lowest common denominator went that low.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

That 11 million isn't "peaceful" when they overwhelm our prisons, hospitals and schools. That's dumping garbage on my door step and telling me I'm heartless for not cleaning it up. It's not fair to the taxpayers who cover their own bills.

If you're at all interesting in seeing how the MSM distorts his words, you should listen to at least a few minutes of the following video: www.youtube.com...

This thread is an absolute disaster. Lololol. It needs to be closed just because of how ridiculous it is.

originally posted by: Guidance.Is.Internal
That 11 million isn't "peaceful" when they overwhelm our prisons, hospitals and schools.

Of those 3 things you listed, only 1 could you even begin to categorize as not peaceful.

There are alternatives to mass deportation. Just like there are alternatives to dealing with the illegal download problem.

Turns out we don't have to fine every single person millions of dollars for illegally downloading their entire catalogue of music. That would be draconian. So there is a path to legalization. Import all your music into Google Play or iTunes, it becomes part of your library, they will provide the legalized copy of the song. Legalizing illegals.

Sure all those criminals downloading music, hundreds or even thousands of songs, stealing billions from studios and record labels--- they could be all fined, maximum penalty, inflict millions of dollars of damages on families all across America. Cripple them financially.... or we could recognize that the illegal download issue is too big to deal with draconian style. Find a way to legalize and offer alternatives to make legalized content easier to get.

I see a pretty valid comparison there.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: yuppa

First of all, you're dealing dishonestly, as I have not "defended terrorists" either.

Second of all, you're the one who's "simply wrong."

The Rome Statute established four core international crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression.

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

Third, war crimes are defined in Article 8 (pp 5-10) of this accord and they include: intentionally killing civilians or prisoners, torture, destroying civilian property, taking hostages, perfidy, rape, using child soldiers, pillaging, declaring that no quarter will be given, and using weapons that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

Interestingly the United States is not party to this accord, as are most Western democracies, although we are a signatory. This, however, makes it clear what our allies and most of the reasonable world sees as reasonable standards.

The US does not recognize the ICC as it is a biased organization mad eup of non western countries in their majority.
In other words F the ICC.

a reply to: yuppa

That's like saying "F the world."

Not surprised that's your interpretation of our position.

However, two duly elected Presidents HAVE acknowledged and cooperated with the ICC, and like it or not, the definitions of warcrimes under the Rome accords ARE the international standard.

This sounds like what I figured, the media puts a spin on Trump.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

How about this as an alternative? Stop offering social services to illegals, including education. The ones who can foot the bill for their own behavior will stay, and the ones who can't pay their way will leave. Self deportation. Or is that too Draconian? I suppose it's less Draconian to expect people you've never met to cover the illegal's tab.