Oh No, The New Awesome Primary Thread

No, he said he presumed that some of them were good people. The implication of his statement is extremely obvious, and has been repeated over and over in this thread. You said that if any of them were rapists, that you had no problem with Trump's statement.

I care about your attitude regarding revenge, because it is about as far from Jesus teachings as I can imagine. Yet you chose to attack my Christianity. Are you guessing at my motives here? If so, then please stop complaining when I guess at yours.Regardless of the importance of what Trump says, this is a discussion thread about the primaries and what the candidates say is on topic regardless of whether it is earthshaking. I find it of interest that Trump says horrific things and gets cheers from wildly enthusiastic crowds. I find it interesting that you jump out to defend him with the particular tactics that you use.Trump said that he would do waterboard even if it did not work. You've seemingly already agreed that we should not waterboard if it does not work. Yet you defend the statements anyway. I've already decided that an accusation of leftism from you isn't much of an indictment. If there were any doubt about that, you've pretty much removed it today. Apparently by your standards, nearly all of the republican candidates is either a wimp or a lefty.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I didn't do any of that. I don't know why you do what you do, but I'd like to know.And sorry, but Trump is a public figure running for the highest office. His motives and intentions are discussion worthy, and they are on topic here. I'm going to do my best to decide what kind of man Trump is, and that means paying attention to what he says and does. You need not read my comments if you find the discussion unpalatable.Besides that, why are you giving me advice that you yourself never follow.

Trump's story was about an execution 49 out of 50 prisoners of war in cold blood and sending the last prisoner home to tell the tale. That dwarfs the issues around Jews cooking bacon. If that were not bad enough, there was the added, and pointless, and likely even counter productive acts to denigrate their religion while doing so.In light of Admin's request to hew closer tot the topic, I'd recommend staying a bit closer to the topic and not attempting futile appeals to empathy to people who don't GAS. Killing POWs is not an act of war and is not simply the opposite of coddling our enemies. It is a massacre. The pigs blood was just an added Abu Ghraib style poke in the eye piled onto an abomination.Trumps victory in SC suggest to me that his talk on the topic, hasn't hurt his appeal to his base. The only good sign here is that Trump did not seem to gain any additional support based on the field being reduced. In fact, Trump did get a slightly smaller percentage while his nearest contenders saw huge increases. That trend is not good for Trump. Let's see where those Bush votes go now.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Yes, Faith. That is the major problem. Why were prisoners being executed?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Interesting. Do you think they should have been executed. Does anything in the story suggest that? I am on topic. I am discussing a very recent speech by the leading Republican candidate and why I think it is evidence that Trump would be a bad president. I am not dealing with the definition of PC or dealing out insults.The story dealt with executing prisoners captured in a battle. They should not have been executed, and I am not aware of any policy to kill 49 out of 50 prisoners and to send the last one home to tell what happened. You accepted those details and jumped on the secondary issue of dipping the bullets in pigs blood and missed the rest of the gore.In any event, according to the article I read, the audience for Trump's speech did not miss the details of killing people.

quote:

---

"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.

---

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The Romans had determined Jesus to be blameless, and carried out his execution in order to keep down the level of unrest among Jews. Surely that leaves plenty of blame to for each party.In other contexts, the bookkeepers at Nazi death camps find themselves on trial. I wonder why none of these guys ever successfully defend themselves by blaming things on the commander of the camp or on Hitler.

Do you find that it is okay to execute POWs? You are suggesting that there is some doubt regarding the answer to that question. You can conceive of a situation where it is okay for the commander to execute 49 of 50 prisoners and to then send the 50th prisoner back home to tell the story? In that context, what is the implication of the pig's blood? Why even do that?I submit that there is no reason to ask Trump these questions. The answers are quite obvious to me.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Hey Thanks! I'd never heard of this series before, but the description of the series on Wikipedia made it sound fantastic. I'm going to locate a series or so of this for my own viewing.

Don't you mean "and the way that happened?"Just which side of the argument is this phrase supposed to support. Doesn't it support the proposition that you yourself are no longer bound by Mosaic law? After all, Jesus death on the cross and his resurrection was completed over 2000 years ago. Isn't that the time of the law's fulfillment?Does this make it easier to explain why Trump told that story of killing 49 out of 50 prisoners of war and sending the 50th one home to tell the tale? I don't think so, but perhaps you have an explanation.

So quit citing Mosaic law as an argument. As I recall, the question came up because of people questioned that executions were not Christlike. I understand why you cannot address the question though. There is no real answer that an evangelical Christians can use that helps explain their attraction to Trump regardless of what he says. And that is the question that brings us on topic.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That boldness is expressed in extreme measures such as murdering prisoners of war or making outlandish statements about illegal immigrants etc. Yeah, the tone is bold, but the message is in many cases horrifying. There are far easier and more fitting explanations none of which require us to ignore any hateful content in Trump's statements. I wonder which of those possible explanations are correct. So you believe that means it is okay for you to apply Mosaic law to others, as long as you are exempt? That's pretty bizarre.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

And yet you claimed not to be under Mosaic law. Surely you see the confusion.

Actually, nobody has made that argument. Instead the question has been why most of what he says does not seem to matter. Apparently the only way for you to address that matter is to tell me that complaining about stories regarding murdering POWs is 'PC'.

Perhaps if you were not simply digging for an explanation, you would not have to change what you say every time you are challenged.Here is what you've said on the matter of Mosaic law: You switched up on what you said only after I pointed out the inconsistency with your Trump related answer.Maybe try counting to 100 before you post? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.