Oh No, The New Awesome Primary Thread

I don't really care about your opinion on gay marriage. What I asked you was whether you would follow the law on the subject. If not, then your posturing about 'illegal' activity justifying any manner of speech would seem to be wrong.

Unfortunately, that sometimes happens to lawyers too. I've sat in conferences with a client and watched every lawyer in the room group think themselves into thinking they are going to win a case only to be devastated by the verdict. I've drunk the Kool Aid on some occasions myself.Introspection is a difficult, but essential life skill. I'm still learning.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You sound just like Karl Rove did last presidential election night when the bean counters called the election for Barrack. He just knew something was wrong. In fact, nothing was wrong, Romney got spanked in an electoral college landslide. And that was well after Obama spoke out publicly in favor of gay marriage.You have no reason to think any of the votes for gay marriage were manipulated, and no evidence that they don't reflect the will of the people in those states. You are quite happy to cite votes against gay marriage, and then to decide that voting is manipulated when it goes against you.Your claims to are just empty. You keep claiming that nobody here addresses your in a factual way, but that isn't quite true, is it? You simply reject facts that don't support your position and you don't bring any of your own facts to the table.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Who is this 'they'? Is it the globalists again? The same folks who are hiding all of the skeletons of giants?

Here is how Trump expresses his opinion regarding waterboarding:

quote:

---

Would I approve waterboarding? You bet your ass I would -- in a heartbeat," Trump said to loud cheers during a rally at a convention center [in Columbus, Ohio] Monday night that attracted thousands. "And I would approve more than that. Don't kid yourself, folks. It works, okay? It works. Only a stupid person would say it doesn't work."

---

This is an opinion deserving respect? It's okay for Trump to call his detractors stupid, but it is not okay to criticize Trump based on the facts?

It is true that federal law is supreme over state and local laws. However, laws passed by Congress are limited by both the constitution and treaties signed by the president. So you are both right. You named the three sources of federal law, and JonF correctly notes that the constitution takes precedence over any source of statutory law.

A story told by Trump on the campaign trail:Donald Trump cites story of general who dipped bullets in pigs' blood to deter Muslims | CNN Politics

quote:

---

Trump on Friday cited an apocryphal story about a U.S. general who purportedly dipped bullets in pigs' blood to execute Muslim prisoners a century ago in an effort to deter Islamic terrorism.

​

Speaking at a rally in North Charleston, South Carolina, Trump reiterated his claim that the U.S. should "go much further" than waterboarding suspected terrorists, telling the story of Gen. John Pershing in the Philippines, who Trump said captured 50 Muslim prisoners a century ago and dipped 50 bullets in blood.

​

"And he lined up the 50 people and they shot 49 of those 50 people, and he said to the 50th, you go back to your people and you tell them what happened -- and in 25 years there wasn't a problem," Trump said to the audience, which grew quiet as he told the story.

​

So we better start getting tough or we won't have a country".

---

Except that criticizing him about his position on waterboarding is a criticism based on the facts. Nobody is simply applying labels without also offering justification. Your complaint is just an excuse to ignore the arguments. What do you think about Trump relating the story about solving problems by killing 49 captured prisoners in cold blood? How about Trump's calling people who disagree with him stupid?Almost all of the Republican candidates have tough policies on immigration. Most of them manage to express those policies without inflammatory xenophobic speech. Yet you find something to admire in his speech.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That is simply not true. You have tried to discuss the issues as well. You've just done an incredibly poor job. For example you tried to express an opinion about Waterboarding when you did not even know what that was. You tried to use evidence of voting to describe to make a point and then you had to back off when that method did not go your way.And beyond that you've continued to make excuses for Trump's over the top talk by labelling attempts to discuss that as PC. Making excuses for Trump while pouncing on everyone else is total nonsense. And your own speech is full of personal attacks. Lectures from you on the correct means of expression are pointless.Pot meet kettle. Actually, for the most part I applied those labels to Trump based on the words out of his mouth. I did not even go so far as to apply them to you even after you said that his slander was okay with you as long as a single illegal immigrant committed a criminal act. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

How many of the republican candidates favor waterboarding? I'll note that a couple of his fellow candidates have already rebuked Trump for his 50 bullets dipped in blood story.There is pretty widespread non-partisan agreement that we don't torture. There are of course exceptions in both parties, so no, it is not just another voice against the evil republicans.Here is a fact for you.

quote:

---

That stance echoes findings from a 2014 Senate Intelligence Committee report that found the use of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques [as authorized by the Bush administration following 9/11] was not an effective means of obtaining accurate information or gaining detainee cooperation.
In response to that report, Congress included an amendment in the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act signed by President Obama last November that prohibits the use of torture (including waterboarding) by any agent of the U.S. government, and standardizes noncoercive interrogation methods.

---

That's right. The Republican controlled Congress. Ted Cruz voted for the bill, but Cruz seems fuzzy about whether waterboarding is torture. Many Congressman on both sides of the aisle don't want to be involved in torture, including waterboarding.

What I said was that his statements were xenophobic. I haven't seen any argument from you to the contrary. I asked you what motivation beyond revenge would there be in using torture if it did not work, and you acknowledged that it should not be used in that case. Aren't these exactly the kind of statements you are accusing others of making? Vilifying someone simply because they disagree. In any event, what it does show is that statements about Trump are not statements about Republicans in general. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

It is damning but it is addressed to the content of Trump's statement. And it does not necessarily speak to motive. Trump might well be just saying stuff because other people like hearing it. In any event, a statement that immigrants are rapist and bad people may be well meaning, but the content of the statement is still an attach on an entire collection of people who are demonstrably no more criminal than any other group of random folks. Such statements are despicable and wrong regardless of their motivation. I'll call Trump on those statements in exactly the same as I called you for making statements regarding "the black community", your BS explanations not withstanding. And we can all see that what you are doing is impugning a motive for why those people take a position and that such impugning is exactly what you are saying we should not do to Trump. You also tried to tell us that our accusations against Trump were applicable to republicans in general. But that wasn't correct, was it?

Not quite. After insisting that it works and that people who said that it would not work were stupid, Trump said that if it didn't work we should do it anyway. Why aren't you calling Trump on that?