Oh No, The New Awesome Primary Thread

At this point, I wonder if the drilling down matters. This seems to suggest that drilling down is a bad tactic. Pretty amusing take regarding a man that had been in office 4 years. The buzz could not possibly have been correct. I don't think there has been any lack of exposure on who and what Trump is, and his fellow candidates have had every opportunity to point out Trumps flaws. A huge chunk of the country either does not care or has other concerns.

A noble goal. But an impossible one I think. I suspect that your approach is far better than mine, so I'm not going to offer you any more advice.

You've missed the entire point. Almost certainly the entire story was bogus and the event described never happened. And even if it did happen, Trump held no part in it. Most of us knew that.The problem is that the story was told as an example of something we should do. And in Trump's story the commander executed captured prisoners as a warning to the place the prisoners were from. So it is Trump's story as he told the story, and not some other version, which likely is also bogus because in all likelihood the whole thing was fabricated, that is at issue here. I'll also point out that Trump himself announced the story as being horrible. So, no he did not tell the story as you claim he did.Trump's words were reported accurately here and it is those words that draw criticism. Finally, did you even check to see whether the purported story you are citing was correct? And why put pigs blood on graves anyway? Forget the religious point. Why even do that?As for what you saw on the other website, I am not defending it. Heck it isn't any thing I'd ever heard of before you brought it up. I would certainly be suspicious of a sign explicitly saying 'Make racism great again'. Seems likely to be a plant. However I've seen a picture of a Republican presidential candidate holding up a sign calling Barrack 'Osama' and then claiming not to know what the sign said. I would be equally suspicious of that explanation.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Humor & Whimsy

quote:

---

"I never found any indication that it was true in extensive research on his Moro experiences," Vandiver wrote. "This kind of thing would have run completely against his character."

​

Similarly, I've been unable to find any evidence corroborating the more general claim that Muslims believe that "eating or touching a pig, its meat, its blood, etc., is to be instantly barred from paradise and doomed to hell." It is true that Islamic dietary restrictions, like those of Judaism, forbid the eating or handling of pork because pigs are considered unclean. But according to Raeed Tayeh of the American Muslim Association in North America, the notion that a Muslim would be denied entrance to heaven for touching a pig is "ridiculous." A statement from the Anti-Defamation League characterizes the claim as an "offensive caricature of Muslim beliefs."

​

Lastly, it is erroneously claimed that John J. Pershing was born near Laclede, Mississippi. He was actually born near Laclede, Missouri.

---

You are well understating Trump's comment, and by now that's been pointed out so many times that your understatement appears deliberate.

quote:

---

They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

---

quote:

---

"Well, somebody's doing the raping, Don. I mean somebody's doing it," Trump said when Lemon challenged his statistics. "Who's doing the raping? Who's doing the raping?"

---

Trumps admits that "some" illegal immigrants are good people he assumes. Trump later makes additional commits suggesting that the illegal immigrants are responsible for our rape problem. The fact is that illegal immigrants commit less crime and less rape by head then do the people already here. Addressing rape is not accomplished by stopping illegal immigration.The vast majority of immigrants want nothing more than a better life for them and theirs. Yes illegal immigration is illegal, but the illegality is not because what they do is evil, but because we've chosen to pass laws outlawing it. Heck, at one time helping runaway slaves was illegal.There is no such thing as an illegal person. An illegal immigrant is no more of an illegal person than is a thief. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

And you'd still be wrong. The story is supposed to have happened in 1911, but it is made up. It is told all kinds of ways. Trump did not include terrorists in his version.And even if they were terrorists, a summary execution is not how such things are handled except on the battle field.

Really Faith? Under what law is that?Do you recall the Haditha massacre?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I didn't say you accepted my interpretation. What I am saying is that you continue to repeat your own BS interpretation despite being shown that yours does not match what Trump says. I note your corrections when people say that Trump said all immigrants were rapists, but you clearly over correct as Trumps own words show.Trump words indicate that most illegal immigrants commit crimes, rape, etc. and he simply assumes that some don't.

Yeah, I pointed that out a couple of times.

I maintain, that it is how they are to be treated in our time that is relevant. Imagine that instead of telling a story about Pershing in 1911, Trump related a story about something Alexander the Great did, and suggest that we do the same. Wouldn't the implications of his recommendations best be judged on today's standard and his speech be at best a request to bring back the good old days? Actually, the idea that the story was "probably" fiction really was not acknowledged by you. Up until know we have statements ranging from leftists are the only ones saying it is false up until there is some question regarding the truth. See below: I might also point out that there is a huge jump between not treating captures as POWs and executing them on the spot. There is a reason why we used that prison in Guantanamo Bay.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Page not found - MSN

quote:

---

Ted Cruz’s presidential bid is in turmoil after repeated allegations of unsavory campaign tactics by his Republican rivals, leading some key supporters to call for a shake-up in the candidate’s message and strategy a week ahead of the crucial Super Tuesday primaries.

---

I expected this stuff would not get much play. But apparently that is not the case.

quote:

---

But with the Republican campaign in a new national phase, a Cruz aide acknowledged that the shouts of liar could have far-reaching implications for a candidate who touts his slogan TrusTed.

​

For some supporters, some of the alleged dirty tricks including a photo on a website created by the Cruz campaign that digitally added Rubio’s head onto the body of a man shaking hands with President Obama were too much.

---

And of course there is this for you PC haters....Cruz Campaign Pulls Work from Controversial Artist Sabo | The Texas Tribune

quote:

---

Ted Cruz's presidential campaign removed items from its online store Tuesday from an artist with a history of making controversial, and at times racist, statements online.

​

he page on the Cruz website that previously sold "Sabo Gear" including posters, buttons and T-shirts, redirected to an error message Tuesday morning. Cruz's campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

​

Sabo's Twitter and Facebook feeds includes derogatory comments about blacks, Mexicans and Muslims and repeated references to the assassination of President Barack Obama. When asked by the Tribune in September if Cruz was comfortable with some of Sabo's controversial statements on social media, the Cruz campaign declined comment.

​

Sabo told the Tribune last year that he was surprised that Cruz had been willing to associate with him and my own, non-PC, dirty mouth."

---

Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

Yes. It is too early to bury Bernie, but your reasoning here escapes me. Although the two of them appeal to different Democratic factions, it is Bernies's misses that make extrapolating something from his win in NH and even the close race in Iowa somewhat dangerous. I am not willing to make any predictions until after super Tuesday, at the point somebody may have a lead, but I don't expect that lead to be insurmountable until sometime in April.Too be specific though about my doubts about the articles reasoning: even in an open primary, people tend to vote in their party and they don't tend to simply vote for the best candidate.

Yep. That's true. I believe this is also true. I'd also add that the time at which this happened was in the 1950s. And herein lies the difficulty. Churches expand their efforts into very political arenas including at times being clearly on the 'wrong' side of issues, but even more often wielding influence that is at least arguably impermissible under the First Amendment. That is the genesis of the restrictions. Even with the restrictions Churches are allowed to operate in ways that other non-profits cannot and to give their officials perks that would have tax implications everywhere else. And the speech restrictions are no more stringent than other non-profits.

The current meaning of the First Amendment in which the government is limited in its ability to interfere or aid religion, and which establishes the necessity of a State and Church wall of separation is easily traceable to the writings of Madison and Jefferson. Sorry, but your claim is nonsense. The only thing modern about the First Amendment is the extension to the states, and some nuances that currently are used to allow the State to help churches in ways that are contrary to prior decisions.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I seldom hear about governments refusing to allow Christians to build churches, but I quite often hear of states making it impossible for Muslims to build places of worship. Perhaps your statement is inaccurate?