In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On June 11 2016 05:26 biology]major wrote: Well I'm not just voting for trump because of his personality or character lol, I agree with his positions on immigration, trade and terrorism. My point is I would outright reject a candidate who I feel is not trust worthy, doesn't matter what they say why should I believe them?
What are his current positions? I have so much trouble keeping track of which week it is, and with his foot in his mouth every other day I have trouble hearing what he says.
I know that his view on terrorism is to purposely kill innocent people and relatives. Sounds really nice. I guess you don't have to worry about collateral damage when you're actually aiming for everyone, terrorist or not!
You're literally taking the worst possible interpretation of what he says. How do you think this is a fair way to discuss politics?
I'm not sure why you keep denying things that Trump explicitly says and does, but you're one of like ten people left in existence who seems to think that he doesn't say and do bigoted and racist things. He also explicitly said what I posted; it's not an interpretation. Gorsameth posted the direct soundbite, and it's not even the only time he's said things like that.
I've never denied he said something. I'm saying youre taking the worst possible way you could interpret it every time he says something.
Go ahead and keep using bandwagon fallacies while trying to compare him to hitler the irony is delicious in how so many Germans post-war justified complacency with the same 'everyone's ok with it so i am not responsible'
On June 11 2016 05:26 biology]major wrote: Well I'm not just voting for trump because of his personality or character lol, I agree with his positions on immigration, trade and terrorism. My point is I would outright reject a candidate who I feel is not trust worthy, doesn't matter what they say why should I believe them?
And you think banning all muslims from entering the country is a good idea? And that building a 24 billion dollar wall (plus maintenance, mind you) is a serious proposition, while most illegal immigrant enter the country legally? Like, seriously?
I think "ban all muslims" is better than the left who fail to even say the words islamic terrorists. I am highly against accepting refugees, every day I go through new york subway I fear some crazy lunatic will pull something. I want someone who is serious about it. The people who support ISIS either silently or openly is MUCH greater than what is portrayed by the media. This is obviously true in middle east, there are quite a few ISIS sympathizers there but even in the U.S.! Banning all muslims is actually not feasible, there is no identification for being a muslim. So with trump I know that atleast refugees will be banned, and that is good enough.
24 billion wall, the cost is irrelevant. Seriously the U.S. is 20 trillion in debt, I'm not an economist by anymeans (not a biologist either) but I stopped caring about the debt a long time ago. The wall would have to be either manned 24/7 or patrolled by drones. Either way I don't expect the wall to solve immigration issue, but I think it is a much needed symbol to say fuck you to mexico. A country that has been sending us their worst citizens. Yeah they need to escape their shitty situation and deserve a better life, but the U.S is a sovereign nation with a border. Once the wall is established I think the next step would be visas, it should get the ball rolling though.
spending a bunch of money on a worthless project that serves only as a symbol doesn't seem like a good investment. It'd be better to actually try ot address the issue iwth comprehensive immigration reform. Also, Mexico isn't sending people; individual mexicans come over because they want to; an important distinction. As to your first paragraph; you don't seem to be aware of how winning a war on ideas is partly fought in the arena of ideas and words, and choosing certain words is sometimes a necessary part of that.
On June 11 2016 05:26 biology]major wrote: Well I'm not just voting for trump because of his personality or character lol, I agree with his positions on immigration, trade and terrorism. My point is I would outright reject a candidate who I feel is not trust worthy, doesn't matter what they say why should I believe them?
What are his current positions? I have so much trouble keeping track of which week it is, and with his foot in his mouth every other day I have trouble hearing what he says.
I know that his view on terrorism is to purposely kill innocent people and relatives. Sounds really nice. I guess you don't have to worry about collateral damage when you're actually aiming for everyone, terrorist or not!
You're literally taking the worst possible interpretation of what he says. How do you think this is a fair way to discuss politics?
I'm not sure why you keep denying things that Trump explicitly says and does, but you're one of like ten people left in existence who seems to think that he doesn't say and do bigoted and racist things. He also explicitly said what I posted; it's not an interpretation. Gorsameth posted the direct soundbite, and it's not even the only time he's said things like that.
I've never denied he said something. I'm saying youre taking the worst possible way you could interpret it every time he says something.
Go ahead and keep using bandwagon fallacies while trying to compare him to hitler the irony is delicious in how so many Germans post-war justified complacency with the same 'everyone's ok with it so i am not responsible'
you're just lying here. They're not taking it the worst possible way most of the time; they're taking it in the most straightforward way.
On June 11 2016 07:42 Plansix wrote: He also talked about relocating all the Jews and removing them from Germany. I don't think Trump his Hilter, but lets not forget that was the initial pitch. Trump is just a bigot.
Edit: bro, you gunna be waiting a long time because people are getting feed up with playing your little game. Get over it. No one is here to change your mind. You like Trump. We think he is a racist ass clown.
This isn't a game you're just slandering him again and again acting like he's a fool who is going to burn the country to the ground and that his supporter base are all just as bad. This is not the case. Get over it.
You can think he is a racist ass clown all you'd like and I'll consider you incompetent for it and let you know when your uneducated bias means anything to me.
If you want to have any sort of policy discussion in the politics thread you sure don't act like it.
On June 11 2016 05:26 biology]major wrote: Well I'm not just voting for trump because of his personality or character lol, I agree with his positions on immigration, trade and terrorism. My point is I would outright reject a candidate who I feel is not trust worthy, doesn't matter what they say why should I believe them?
And you think banning all muslims from entering the country is a good idea? And that building a 24 billion dollar wall (plus maintenance, mind you) is a serious proposition, while most illegal immigrant enter the country legally? Like, seriously?
I think "ban all muslims" is better than the left who fail to even say the words islamic terrorists. I am highly against accepting refugees, every day I go through new york subway I fear some crazy lunatic will pull something. I want someone who is serious about it. The people who support ISIS either silently or openly is MUCH greater than what is portrayed by the media. This is obviously true in middle east, there are quite a few ISIS sympathizers there but even in the U.S.! Banning all muslims is actually not feasible, there is no identification for being a muslim. So with trump I know that atleast refugees will be banned, and that is good enough.
24 billion wall, the cost is irrelevant. Seriously the U.S. is 20 trillion in debt, I'm not an economist by anymeans (not a biologist either) but I stopped caring about the debt a long time ago. The wall would have to be either manned 24/7 or patrolled by drones. Either way I don't expect the wall to solve immigration issue, but I think it is a much needed symbol to say fuck you to mexico. A country that has been sending us their worst citizens. Yeah they need to escape their shitty situation and deserve a better life, but the U.S is a sovereign nation with a border. Once the wall is established I think the next step would be visas, it should get the ball rolling though.
spending a bunch of money on a worthless project that serves only as a symbol doesn't seem like a good investment. It'd be better to actually try ot address the issue iwth comprehensive immigration reform. Also, Mexico isn't sending people; individual mexicans come over because they want to; an important distinction. As to your first paragraph; you don't seem to be aware of how winning a war on ideas is partly fought in the arena of ideas and words, and choosing certain words is sometimes a necessary part of that.
Guess what zlefin - the wall just got 10 feet higher!!
On June 11 2016 05:26 biology]major wrote: Well I'm not just voting for trump because of his personality or character lol, I agree with his positions on immigration, trade and terrorism. My point is I would outright reject a candidate who I feel is not trust worthy, doesn't matter what they say why should I believe them?
What are his current positions? I have so much trouble keeping track of which week it is, and with his foot in his mouth every other day I have trouble hearing what he says.
I know that his view on terrorism is to purposely kill innocent people and relatives. Sounds really nice. I guess you don't have to worry about collateral damage when you're actually aiming for everyone, terrorist or not!
You're literally taking the worst possible interpretation of what he says. How do you think this is a fair way to discuss politics?
I'm not sure why you keep denying things that Trump explicitly says and does, but you're one of like ten people left in existence who seems to think that he doesn't say and do bigoted and racist things. He also explicitly said what I posted; it's not an interpretation. Gorsameth posted the direct soundbite, and it's not even the only time he's said things like that.
I've never denied he said something. I'm saying youre taking the worst possible way you could interpret it every time he says something.
Go ahead and keep using bandwagon fallacies while trying to compare him to hitler the irony is delicious in how so many Germans post-war justified complacency with the same 'everyone's ok with it so i am not responsible'
We're taking it to mean exactly what Trump says. There's no twisting "we have to kill their families". That's not out of context. That's what he thinks we have to do. It's literally what he said.
Oregonian can now register as nonbinary gender. God damn. I wouldn't say I oppose thus because who cares. But I find myself sighing and shaking my head.
On June 11 2016 05:26 biology]major wrote: Well I'm not just voting for trump because of his personality or character lol, I agree with his positions on immigration, trade and terrorism. My point is I would outright reject a candidate who I feel is not trust worthy, doesn't matter what they say why should I believe them?
And you think banning all muslims from entering the country is a good idea? And that building a 24 billion dollar wall (plus maintenance, mind you) is a serious proposition, while most illegal immigrant enter the country legally? Like, seriously?
I think "ban all muslims" is better than the left who fail to even say the words islamic terrorists. I am highly against accepting refugees, every day I go through new york subway I fear some crazy lunatic will pull something. I want someone who is serious about it. The people who support ISIS either silently or openly is MUCH greater than what is portrayed by the media. This is obviously true in middle east, there are quite a few ISIS sympathizers there but even in the U.S.! Banning all muslims is actually not feasible, there is no identification for being a muslim. So with trump I know that atleast refugees will be banned, and that is good enough.
24 billion wall, the cost is irrelevant. Seriously the U.S. is 20 trillion in debt, I'm not an economist by anymeans (not a biologist either) but I stopped caring about the debt a long time ago. The wall would have to be either manned 24/7 or patrolled by drones. Either way I don't expect the wall to solve immigration issue, but I think it is a much needed symbol to say fuck you to mexico. A country that has been sending us their worst citizens. Yeah they need to escape their shitty situation and deserve a better life, but the U.S is a sovereign nation with a border. Once the wall is established I think the next step would be visas, it should get the ball rolling though.
spending a bunch of money on a worthless project that serves only as a symbol doesn't seem like a good investment. It'd be better to actually try ot address the issue iwth comprehensive immigration reform. Also, Mexico isn't sending people; individual mexicans come over because they want to; an important distinction. As to your first paragraph; you don't seem to be aware of how winning a war on ideas is partly fought in the arena of ideas and words, and choosing certain words is sometimes a necessary part of that.
Guess what zlefin - the wall just got 10 feet higher!!
On June 11 2016 03:15 Mohdoo wrote: Europeans are better informed on American politics than Americans
Look at it from the good side, everyone is taking interest in what happens in your country (on a slightly more cynical note, maybe people around the globe are just shit scared of having that orange clown anywhere near the nuclear button.)
Yea because the 'she's often forgetful' crook voting for NAFTA and the Iraq war and the Libyan crisis (leading to the rise of ISIL) is better judgment and safer around nuclear codes.
If you want to just flame the candidate you don't support like it's an obvious choice this works both ways.
You really think Trump has as good a judgment as Hillary on foreign politics? We talk of a guy who boast about carpet bombing the middle east, torturing prisoners and killing civilian if they are on the family of a bad guy.
I don't like Clinton hawkish positions, just as I don't like Obama's drone war and the way he has dealt with pretty much everything on foreign affairs. But that's America, and that won't change. There is a continuity in American foreign policies since the Vietnam war (again, with the exception of Bush, for the worst, he was a special case). Reagan, Bush father, Clinton, Obama, all have basically be on the same line when it comes to foreign affairs, and Hillary will carry on.
I don't like it, it really sucks. But Clinton is not a lunatic, and yeah, I don't mind her having the nuclear button close because she won't ever press it. I really do mind in the case of The Donald because frankly, I'm not that sure. I wouldn't have liked to have him in office when 9/11 happened, keeping in mind we had the worst president in over a century.
And I repeat myself: back up with facts that Hillary is a crook, thanks. Unless you want to transform that debate into schoolboy taunts, as Trump is currently doing.
This whole thing boils down to whether you are satisfied with current state of countries, globalism, capitalism, mega corporations and where all that heads to, or you want change. I think we live in an era where capitalism is under a big microscope of the general population, where people feel it has reached an end of the spectrum where it serves capital and not the people, and a lot of people want it toned down.
Hillary represents "the establishment" and a continuation of these policies, where Trump on the other hand represents an outsider and a change in peoples eyes, for better or for worse.
People have again and again had this discourse, and voted for someone who was promising a quick radical change despite being obviously a horrendous person with despicable ideas.
My intention is NOT to pull a Godwin, but your reasoning is exactly what Germans were saying when they brought Hitler to power. It's not to say it's the same, but the reasoning "the system is bad, let's have some change" and vote for a lunatic hasn't had a very good record last century.
Yes because Trump is comparible to hitler.
Hitler committed genocide. Trump wants to round up all the illegal immigrants and send them home.
Another similarity, Hitler was imprisoned prior to taking power and wrote the lovely supremacist book titled 'Mein Kampf' Trump on the other hand was a successful billionaire entrepreneur who employed countless people and wrote a bestseller book on good business practice.
They clearly have so much in common *disappointed sigh*
I'm saying my point is not to pull a Godwin, and no, I am not comparing Trump and Hitler. I am comparing the discourse that got Hitler in power and the discourse that is used in this thread : "Oh but it's shit now, and we want some change, let's vote for a lunatic bombastic maniac, it sounds like a great idea".
Please read the content instead of jumping on one term and making me say what I didn't say.
On June 11 2016 07:26 Plansix wrote: When no one else advocates for war crimes and more torture, he sort of stands out. So yeah.
Alright let's do something strange and instead of saying he's a psycho who wants to torture people let's actually talk about the policy.
Do you think if we capture high-ranking ISIL officials, we should be able to use any-means-necessary to extract information from them that may prevent future terrorist attacks and save lives?
I do. That does not mean I am a psychopath who loves torture.
I simply would rather not allow another Paris attack to happen, or Belgian airport bombing, or any sort of event involving the murder of masses of innocent people just trying to live their lives by radical islamic terrorists driven by hatred.
This is something Trump is willing to do.
Clinton is not.
Clinton is going to fight for the rights of the terrorist. Trump is going to fight for innocent people. I will vote for Trump's policy over Clinton's any day of the week.
(also just on a funny side-note, Clinton was in favor of this a few years ago but the current Clinton is no longer. just another example of her flip-flopping on everything).
So you think we should murder their families to make examples. You think we fight a 'to PC' war and should throw away the Geneva convention and commit warcrimes. I heard glassing the middle east would quiet them right down. Would that be acceptable?
See, some of us don't think we should becomes as bad as our worst enemy to fight them. Because are we really any different from them then?
Btw, good to see you gave up so quickly on attempted to provide a different interpretation to his statement and that your instead going with the 'so what' defense.
Why do you make it so difficult to have a conversation?
You read what I said, then you respond to it. This is how you discuss politics.
What you did was put words in my mouth for me, making up arguments that I did not make, displaying your incapable reading comprehension skills.
I do not think we should go bomb every family member of a terrorist. I think that is absurd. I do not believe that is Trump's foreign policy. If you think it is either my views or Trumps, you are actually just ridiculous.
Here's a fun quote from Corey Lewandowski on Trump and his words:
"Donald Trump speaks for himself. Anyone who reads into what Mr. Trump does, does so at their own peril. Mr. Trump's words are very clear and he speaks for himself."
On June 11 2016 07:44 zlefin wrote: Trump literally said he'd go after innocent people, in ways that are a war crime. You esem quite unaware of the point of protecting our values.
In all fairness, Almost every single one of Obama's drone strikes, if not every single one has an 'innocent' person or collateral damage. The Iraq War.. we don't even know the total. Low estimates say 200k. Medium say 500k. But many suspect it's been much more, most of it being civilian casualties caught up in the conflict. Should we go country by country who's dying? source
Do you think anyone thinks highly of our values right now? Of course not. The world sees it as, "America does what it does in its own self interests". After Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Iraq War, do you think a single person buys what America is selling on its values? Of course not, it's protecting the petrodollar and asserting it's dominance and influence. And America has her reasons. + Show Spoiler +
"Our values" What are we supposed to be fooling here? Nobody buys that when we're best buds with Israel & Saudi Arabia. We protect our own interests, that's all.
Also, my apologies I come off quite crass in this post and it's not directed AT you personally. It's more at the absurdity of "protecting our values."
On June 11 2016 05:26 biology]major wrote: Well I'm not just voting for trump because of his personality or character lol, I agree with his positions on immigration, trade and terrorism. My point is I would outright reject a candidate who I feel is not trust worthy, doesn't matter what they say why should I believe them?
What are his current positions? I have so much trouble keeping track of which week it is, and with his foot in his mouth every other day I have trouble hearing what he says.
I know that his view on terrorism is to purposely kill innocent people and relatives. Sounds really nice. I guess you don't have to worry about collateral damage when you're actually aiming for everyone, terrorist or not!
You're literally taking the worst possible interpretation of what he says. How do you think this is a fair way to discuss politics?
I'm not sure why you keep denying things that Trump explicitly says and does, but you're one of like ten people left in existence who seems to think that he doesn't say and do bigoted and racist things. He also explicitly said what I posted; it's not an interpretation. Gorsameth posted the direct soundbite, and it's not even the only time he's said things like that.
I've never denied he said something. I'm saying youre taking the worst possible way you could interpret it every time he says something.
Go ahead and keep using bandwagon fallacies while trying to compare him to hitler the irony is delicious in how so many Germans post-war justified complacency with the same 'everyone's ok with it so i am not responsible'
I haven't compared him to Hitler o.O And I don't know why you think we're misinterpreting everything when we post direct quotes from him... The definition of racism is pretty straightforward, and the things he says are pretty straightforward, so I really don't know how even a few people can wiggle their way out using silly semantics or other things.
Oregonian can now register as nonbinary gender. God damn. I wouldn't say I oppose thus because who cares. But I find myself sighing and shaking my head.
I saw that and its fine. Transgender folks represent such a small section of the population, I am ok with an extra box on form. Now we just need to get rid of those stupid bathroom laws that have cause more problem than nonexistent issue they were trying to address.
Oregonian can now register as nonbinary gender. God damn. I wouldn't say I oppose thus because who cares. But I find myself sighing and shaking my head.
Well seeing as how gender isn't binary, I think that's fantastic.
It helps some people and hurts no one. Sounds like a net win to me.
On June 11 2016 05:26 biology]major wrote: Well I'm not just voting for trump because of his personality or character lol, I agree with his positions on immigration, trade and terrorism. My point is I would outright reject a candidate who I feel is not trust worthy, doesn't matter what they say why should I believe them?
Don't you just love the contortions that Hillary supporters have to go through to whitewash her past and explain away her duplicitous nature?
Also, don't underestimate the significance of the bolded part above. Those are the key Trump issues. He has scored a ton of points with them throughout his campaign, and he's going to continue to score points with them against Hillary.
I don't think so. He has won a party gone batshit crazy with batshit crazy propositions.The base of the GOP is so radicalized and so far on the right that it is likely to be seduced by the idea of torturing people, killing civilians, banning muslims, bullying foreign countries and building a wall that won't be built because it makes 0 sense.
The bad news for you guys is that the average american is not as biggoted and ignorant as the base of your party. Those propositions that got him elected by the party simply horrify most people, because they are horrifying.
And I won't start to talk about the part where he insulted every minorities with one racist attack after another. That works great to get the votes of a party of angry white men, much less to get elected to the highest office of such a diverse country.
I am genuinely baffled that you believe all of these things and presume to think you're coming at this with an open mind.
Can you cite some examples of his racist attacks?
Also there are millions of non-whites and females in the republican party whenever you liberals love spewing that myth it just makes you look uneducated and biased.
Errr...
I think you haven't really followed this campaign. Why are you commenting in this thread if you are not even aware about stuff everyone has been talking about for months? Even Ryan has said that the candidate he endorsed was doing "textbook racism".
On June 11 2016 07:26 Plansix wrote: When no one else advocates for war crimes and more torture, he sort of stands out. So yeah.
Alright let's do something strange and instead of saying he's a psycho who wants to torture people let's actually talk about the policy.
Do you think if we capture high-ranking ISIL officials, we should be able to use any-means-necessary to extract information from them that may prevent future terrorist attacks and save lives?
I do. That does not mean I am a psychopath who loves torture.
I simply would rather not allow another Paris attack to happen, or Belgian airport bombing, or any sort of event involving the murder of masses of innocent people just trying to live their lives by radical islamic terrorists driven by hatred.
This is something Trump is willing to do.
Clinton is not.
Clinton is going to fight for the rights of the terrorist. Trump is going to fight for innocent people. I will vote for Trump's policy over Clinton's any day of the week.
(also just on a funny side-note, Clinton was in favor of this a few years ago but the current Clinton is no longer. just another example of her flip-flopping on everything).
So you think we should murder their families to make examples. You think we fight a 'to PC' war and should throw away the Geneva convention and commit warcrimes. I heard glassing the middle east would quiet them right down. Would that be acceptable?
See, some of us don't think we should becomes as bad as our worst enemy to fight them. Because are we really any different from them then?
Btw, good to see you gave up so quickly on attempted to provide a different interpretation to his statement and that your instead going with the 'so what' defense.
Why do you make it so difficult to have a conversation?
You read what I said, then you respond to it. This is how you discuss politics.
What you did was put words in my mouth for me, making up arguments that I did not make, displaying your incapable reading comprehension skills.
I do not think we should go bomb every family member of a terrorist. I think that is absurd. I do not believe that is Trump's foreign policy. If you think it is either my views or Trumps, you are actually just ridiculous.
That is weird, because that is literally what he said was his plan was. To go after their families. And to torture people too.
Oregonian can now register as nonbinary gender. God damn. I wouldn't say I oppose thus because who cares. But I find myself sighing and shaking my head.
I saw that and its fine. Transgender folks represent such a small section of the population, I am ok with an extra box on form. Now we just need to get rid of those stupid bathroom laws that have cause more problem than nonexistent issue they were trying to address.
That's different from transgender I thought? Nonbinary means the people who feel they lack a gender or are like 50/50 male female? I don't get it, or want to get it but I think it's different from Transgender
On June 11 2016 05:26 biology]major wrote: Well I'm not just voting for trump because of his personality or character lol, I agree with his positions on immigration, trade and terrorism. My point is I would outright reject a candidate who I feel is not trust worthy, doesn't matter what they say why should I believe them?
Don't you just love the contortions that Hillary supporters have to go through to whitewash her past and explain away her duplicitous nature?
Also, don't underestimate the significance of the bolded part above. Those are the key Trump issues. He has scored a ton of points with them throughout his campaign, and he's going to continue to score points with them against Hillary.
I don't think so. He has won a party gone batshit crazy with batshit crazy propositions.The base of the GOP is so radicalized and so far on the right that it is likely to be seduced by the idea of torturing people, killing civilians, banning muslims, bullying foreign countries and building a wall that won't be built because it makes 0 sense.
The bad news for you guys is that the average american is not as biggoted and ignorant as the base of your party. Those propositions that got him elected by the party simply horrify most people, because they are horrifying.
And I won't start to talk about the part where he insulted every minorities with one racist attack after another. That works great to get the votes of a party of angry white men, much less to get elected to the highest office of such a diverse country.
I am genuinely baffled that you believe all of these things and presume to think you're coming at this with an open mind.
Can you cite some examples of his racist attacks?
Also there are millions of non-whites and females in the republican party whenever you liberals love spewing that myth it just makes you look uneducated and biased.
Bro, you come here every day asking the same questions. Every day we provide you with things we feel make him racist. Every day you deny it makes him racist.
We think he is racist. You don’t. We have accepted this. You need to.
I'm still waiting for an example of his racist attacks.
You come in here every day slandering him and his supporters without any sort of reasoning behind your hateful attacks against him.
I accept that you don't think he's a racist. I also accept the fact that you refuse to offer evidence of his racism and that I reserve the right to criticize you on holding irrational views.
Every day you ask for evidence that Trump is a racist.
Every day we post evidence that Trump is a racist.
Heck, every week there seems to be new evidence that we can add to the ever-growing compilation. We should call these updates "Now That's What I Call Racism!" and we'd have like 20 volumes already.
Nearly every person knows that Trump is a racist.
Except you. You keep dodging all of these statements and actions that Trump makes, as if you're some sort of Denial Neo in the Trump Matrix. What kind of evidence can a person give to someone who doesn't believe in evidence?
Every day I come in here and see the same hateful people flaming Trump and anyone who supports him as racist, bigoted, closed-minded, uneducated, radical, etc.
I ask for evidence of this. 90% of the time you just get mad and use more ad hominem attacks. 10% of the time an actual example is cited that is controversial and not even evidence of racism.
Sure you can say the judge curiel case is more evidence of him being a racist if you'd like. You've already made up your mind that he was a racist and mold any sort of future data to match your conclusion that he is a racist. This is the definition of confirmation bias.
Anything contradicting your narrative you ignore or dismiss or attack. It's ridiculous.
On June 11 2016 07:26 Plansix wrote: When no one else advocates for war crimes and more torture, he sort of stands out. So yeah.
Alright let's do something strange and instead of saying he's a psycho who wants to torture people let's actually talk about the policy.
Do you think if we capture high-ranking ISIL officials, we should be able to use any-means-necessary to extract information from them that may prevent future terrorist attacks and save lives?
I do. That does not mean I am a psychopath who loves torture.
I simply would rather not allow another Paris attack to happen, or Belgian airport bombing, or any sort of event involving the murder of masses of innocent people just trying to live their lives by radical islamic terrorists driven by hatred.
This is something Trump is willing to do.
Clinton is not.
Clinton is going to fight for the rights of the terrorist. Trump is going to fight for innocent people. I will vote for Trump's policy over Clinton's any day of the week.
(also just on a funny side-note, Clinton was in favor of this a few years ago but the current Clinton is no longer. just another example of her flip-flopping on everything).
So you think we should murder their families to make examples. You think we fight a 'to PC' war and should throw away the Geneva convention and commit warcrimes. I heard glassing the middle east would quiet them right down. Would that be acceptable?
See, some of us don't think we should becomes as bad as our worst enemy to fight them. Because are we really any different from them then?
Btw, good to see you gave up so quickly on attempted to provide a different interpretation to his statement and that your instead going with the 'so what' defense.
Why do you make it so difficult to have a conversation?
You read what I said, then you respond to it. This is how you discuss politics.
What you did was put words in my mouth for me, making up arguments that I did not make, displaying your incapable reading comprehension skills.
I do not think we should go bomb every family member of a terrorist. I think that is absurd. I do not believe that is Trump's foreign policy. If you think it is either my views or Trumps, you are actually just ridiculous.
Well that's what Trump said. In case you didn't follow, again.
If that's not his view, well we have a problem which is that he is not saying his views so nobody has a clue what we are voting for. But I presume it is his view and once again you are actually the one being ridiculous, not knowing what is going on whatsoever.
EPT
![[image loading]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/CxHMeWfKdHk/maxresdefault.jpg)
