You see, this is what amazes me. I post an article that appears to come from a right leaning website and no one will even click on it. Yet you'll all smugly post stuff from the New York Times which as been aggressively anti-Trump since his campaign began. Anyway, the idea of a database for moslems was something suggested by a reporter from NBC, not Trump.
The quote is "we have to take out their families" which implies more than just killing. He's referring to both attacking their fanatic supporters in their home countries and removing their fanatic supporters within our own borders. Also, killing the families of terrorists isn't actually a violation of International Law. ISIS did not sign the Geneva Convention so it doesn't apply to them.
Except he's not using racism as a part of his political campaign. You keep saying he's like Hitler or Mussolini but he's yet to call for the mass expulsion of an entire race from the country, proclaim that one race is responsible for the current poor state of the country (in fact a lot of his criticism is focused on America's current leaders), nor has he advocated for some kind of mass genocide like you keep trying to imply he is. He's never called anyone subhuman either.
I've already made 2 giant posts showing that radical islam and the borderline open borders policy we're running on now is a legitimate problem and is causing very real and very large problems and causes for concern. So if talking about the issues currently facing the country is "fear mongering" than I guess they should just shit around with their dicks in their hands and talk about puppies or something that will make you feel better? As for xenophobia that's very obviously not true otherwise he would be proposing a ban on everyone not of a certain race and background, demagoguery is also out since these are problems based on reality and if he wanted to appeal to people's prejudices he wouldn't be such a outspoken believer in legal immigration even on the southern border, and with aggressive politics you're comparing a man who wants to make better trade deals, focus on defeating a terrorist organization that's already declared war on America and work on immigration with men who invaded their neighboring countries and "started" a World War. Your false analogies aren't getting any better.
Well, there's already a President with a Nobel Peace Prize who's been a pioneer in this field, no?
Those evil and stealthy journalists! Sneaking all their evil and suspicious questions into their interviews! Sneaky, sneaky!
Double standards. How convenient. But as far as I know, the Generva Convention doesn't give a fuck who signs it or not. Violations are violations. But one thing is clear. Even if the US droped an atomic bomb on ISIS. You will never see any american politicans in Den Haag facing trial.
Elementary Watson elementary. The context is what counts. If he's Hitler or not doesn't matter - not that I said he is EXACTLY like Hitler, just using similar demagoguery. What counts is the kind of rhetoric he's using and the groups he's adressing.
Ah honest and pious journalists. Free from all political bias and never taking anything out of context and being 100% transparent in any views that they may have. Everyone knows you should believe everything the media tells you without question because they never lie.
Actually yes you did. You implied several times now and earlier that Trump was a racist against Mexicans/moslems(despite islam not being a race). You even brought up black people for some reason and implied that I support calling them racial expletives for some reason. Don't backdown and act like you never tried to turn this into a race issue.
Again, not a single person is talking about race neither here or Trump. So far all you've said is that now (despite what you claim earlier) Trump isn't racist but is saying secret code phrases to like, wake up all these racist sleeper agents that will vote for him basically? Like, Trump talking about illegal immigration and Islamic terrorism is somehow connected to black people and prison and racism against black people? Is there a point here?
False dichotomy.
What do you mean double standards? That's how it works.
And it's clear you know very little on the topic. The Geneva Convention would very much like to be an international law of war but it's not and it can't be. If a country does not sign the treaty, it doesn't have to follow it and vice versa. The Convention is really a paper thin gentlemen's agreement that if two member countries go to war with eachother they'll follow this set of rules so we don't have awkward stuff like with Japan, whose one of our best allies, being the ones we've nuked twice and they've done horrific stuff at 731. Theres also this....
.... the United States specifically didn't accept a part of the Convention that deals with victor's justice. Not that it would matter as with ISIS being a non member and terrorist group but the United States has a very easy trap card when it comes to getting out of that kind of stuff. Like with the next "point" of yours I'm not claiming to support this but it is relevant to the discussion.
Never said that, I was merely explaining to you how you were wrong about what Trump was possibly saying being against international law. Never said I or Trump personally supported it.
The Germans were treated very unfairly and harshly. I do not support how the allies treated Germany in the aftermath of either World War, no. Stop putting words in my mouth. Likewise since you think I'm some kind of evil moslem hating "racist" who hates all brown people I do not support Israel's ongoing genocide of the Palestinians either. Again, things would go a lot better for you if you stopped making broad assumptions about my beliefs and then applying them to hyperbolic examples.
You're like a living meme right now.
Yet all you do is take Trump (and other politicians) out of context to draw up Nazi comparisons.
Than stop comparing him and everything he says and does to Hitler.
Nope. Like I've said before Trump is talking about very real problems with factual and statistical basis. He's not just string up issues where there are none by pointing at oh so peaceful illegals and radical Islamists and saying "see, it's all of those subhumam mexicans fault! Those brown skinned towel heads are the problem!" like your stawman of Trump does.
You mean violent illegals and radical islamic terrorists? Man, those poor innocent souls he's disparaging.
You know, I have my roots in Serbia, which is a nation that has probably seen more of war than the US in the last 60-70 years. I know what fundamentalism, fascism, and all sorts of extremes can do to people.
Like I said, senaky sneaky journalists! I guess the other stuff he said isn't true either. Must be Youtube faking stuff again.
If I havn't made I mistake, I think I said that his rhetoric is racist, that he is making racist comments and what he says is racist. Not that he has to actually BE a racist. For the case if I did, than sorry, I should have made this more clear and correct my self. I don't know if he is a racist or not, becuse I have no clue what he's thinking. I can't read minds. Göbbels for example, as far as I remember, wrotte in his diary, that he had no real qualms with the jews either. It's simply easy to use them for politics and to stir up the masses. Anyway, point is I believe Trumps intention is to get racist votes. And for that he is pandering to a group of people that thinks about Mexicans or Hispanics as less americans, as dangerous people and simply beeing less worth. He is using xenophobia and fearmongering to get votes. And it works like a charm. Even you sing to his tunes without realizing it. I wonder if you will think the same way if things REALLY turn ugly.
Anecdotal evidence isn't.
Soooo.... now you're advocating seeing your enemies as less than human? How utterly argument destroying, I hope for your sake this was a typo.
Yea, he didn't "see their human side". He realized that the last time they tried to ass fuck Germany after a World War it caused a movement that almost destroyed Britain. And it's not like he exactly treated them the best either, he still agree to let half of Germany be a Communist hellhole after the war.
So what do you want us to do? Fight the islamic terrorists who are killing thousands of us or not? Yes they're human but at a point you have to realize that we're at war and whether you like it or not people are going to die. I'd much rather have us actually use our military and take care of the problem than continue sitting on our hands and trying hashtag ISIS to death while night clubs get shot up for Allah.
Nobody thinks of them as less than human but you're not going to convince me that we should fight them after they kill our people who are humans too. How many more of us have to die before it gets to the point where being nice isn't worth it? I don't think of them as less than human, but they are a threat, I don't care if they were anthropomorphic cats, the moments the third one puts on a vest and blows up a bunch of people I'm gonna start thinking we should do something instead of posting #NotAllCats on twitter. In your opinion should the United States have no responded to Pearl Harbour because we should have remembered that the Japanese are "still human"? Are you just a pacifist or what?
But nobody is suggesting we do either of those things to combat ISIS.
I think you'll find that fighting the people who threaten our democracy and way of life is very prevalent in our western culture.
Who is being made free of criticism here? Certainly not Trump whose apparently this Hitler figure whose captured the hearts and minds of every American in your mind. How is fighting against someone who wants to destroy those democratic values going against those values and blocking out free thinking and criticism?
You mean people who used to support ISIS? If they're sincere in their changed beliefs than yes. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here, are you saying that you think we're just gonna go our and glass the entire ISIS territory and everyone in it?
Well that's unfortunate but that's war. We can't take a pause and ask every enemy combatant for a full backstory so we can have a philosophical and moral debate on how they came to this point. It sounds harsh but that's literally how war is, we can't get a full interview with everyone we're fighting so we just have to do our job and fight our enemy and their soldiers, the same goes in reverse.
There aren't a lot of pacifists fighting for the islamic state. They are soldiers fighting for the side that wants to chop off heads in the name of islam. Theres no other option but to fight them. Like I said what are we supposed to do? Interview them before firing at them? Would they do the same for us?
I've already disproved this. Where has he said any racist remarks?
I almost wish I was a Nazi just so I wouldn't be bored by you constantly bringing them up.
Again no he isn't. What racists are going "I hate all of them mexicans, but only if they come in illegally. They are genetically inferior or me unless them came in legally in which case they get magic White DNA"? Because Trump has never proposed stopping legal immigration of Mexicans or Hispanics.
Ah yes, that's the reason Trump has so many votes. Not because he addresses legitimate points and has good policies, it's because of all those racists. It can't be that Trump is right, everyone else is just wrong and racist!
You sing the tunes of the left leaning media outlets and the democats without realizing. I've already posted plenty of factual information that I've used in my decision.
Well they won't but if they do I promise I'll remember to hop on NMA and prostrate myself before you.
You do know that all that this could potentially accomplish is a division of the Republican voter base and an easy in for Clinton right?Don't be stupid, be a smarty, come with me and vote 3rd Party!
Better than voting for Trump.You do know that all that this could potentially accomplish is a division of the Republican voter base and an easy in for Clinton right?
So you're saying you think Hillary is better than Trump?
Are you referring to some kind of fault in the American system of voting for President itself or saying vote division isn't a thing? Because Teddy Roosevelt's attempt at a third term proves that it is. Because of his retarded Moose Party shenanigans we got that cunt Wilson.
Yes.
Roosevelt was better than that cretin Taft.
I wouldn't call it triggered. More like smug indifference.
Yes but Taft would have been better than Woodrow "Federal Reserve Act, Income Tax and WWI" Wilson.
But vote division is only a thing because you fucktards keep voting for the two main candidates despite not liking either of them. If all of you would realise that you'd get a more even voter distribution among the candidates, ending the choice between a rock and a hard place.
Ur or8 the gr8 b8's free for my m8's.
You had a giant Hillary Clinton ad on your post before deleting it after I made my post. If you want to argue with me just say so and don't try to use editsto make it look like I dismissed your post because of the criticism of policy and not the giant picture of Hillary Clinton saying "I'm with her". I'll happily argue with you later but its almost 7am.