Police Officer talks about his experience at Trump's rally in Tucson: AWESOME!

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
What about the people who buy music and movies and ebooks legally? shouldn't we slam every man, woman, and child with hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions even in fines - destroy millions of families all over the country, so the people who buy music legally can feel good?

But really, what are you asking? What about the people who operate legally? How about, good job, continue being the shinig examples we need to encourage more legal activity. How's that?

What's encouraging so many of these protests is the angry harshest solutions to all our problems. Torture, killing families, ban muslim travel, round up and deport illegals--- every solution is the most middle finger solution to the problem. It comes from frustration and anger, not reason.

It's so much anger driving this.

I don't know why you keep humping the music download examples. You're trying to draw a parallel between two offenses with vastly different societal and economic consequences. I don't think you're letting the argument sink in.

Of course there's anger driving this. People are being taxed to the hilt to support impoverished immigrants and government largess in general. You can be offended all you want, but I've got no problem voting for a boorish man who threatens an oppressive establishment.

originally posted by: UKTruth
Torture = torture of terrorists.

To be specific Trump said "way worse than waterboarding". He is advocating war crimes; or to circumvent international law to make current war crimes legal. That's extreme.

Killing families = collateral damage and threatening to kill families of terrorists.

He said, you have to take out their families. Killing families of terrorists will make them care and fear us. The context he has brought this up has always been about terrorists not having rules, and so we should fight dirty too. Bottom line, to target innocent families is a war crime. Advocating war crimes is an extreme.

Ban Muslim travel = temporarily ban non US citizen muslims until screening is sufficient.

To not allow a person to travel here based solely on religion completely feeds the anti-Muslim narrative that radical Islam uses to convince people that the U.S. is an enemy to Islam itself. Not even in the wake of 9/11 did Bush suggest a temporary ban on all Muslims. Bottom line, it's extreme.

Round up and deport illegals = deport illegals and allow the right people back in.

This is so extreme. These people have homes and lives here. If we can find a path to legalization for the millions of criminals who habitually ignore federal law and collectively steal millions if not billions of dollars from the economy by illegally downloading music; how can we not find a path to legalization for families who live here peacefully? To focus on mass deportation rather than mass legalization is all about hurting people who's greatest crime was seeking a better life.

The point is you are starting your argument from 10/10 on a scale of extremes with 10 being the worst

As you can see, the positions advocated by Trump are the 10/10 worst extreme positions. I'm just a concerned citizen pointing out a candidate with extreme positions.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

Trump is getting elected first.

Anything he says is about what he is open to. After the briefing he finds out what he can do.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: UKTruth
Torture = torture of terrorists.

To be specific Trump said "way worse than waterboarding". He is advocating war crimes; or to circumvent international law to make current war crimes legal. That's extreme.

Killing families = collateral damage and threatening to kill families of terrorists.

He said, you have to take out their families. Killing families of terrorists will make them care and fear us. The context he has brought this up has always been about terrorists not having rules, and so we should fight dirty too. Bottom line, to target innocent families is a war crime. Advocating war crimes is an extreme.

Ban Muslim travel = temporarily ban non US citizen muslims until screening is sufficient.

To not allow a person to travel here based solely on religion completely feeds the anti-Muslim narrative that radical Islam uses to convince people that the U.S. is an enemy to Islam itself. Not even in the wake of 9/11 did Bush suggest a temporary ban on all Muslims. Bottom line, it's extreme.

Round up and deport illegals = deport illegals and allow the right people back in.

This is so extreme. These people have homes and lives here. If we can find a path to legalization for the millions of criminals who habitually ignore federal law and collectively steal millions if not billions of dollars from the economy by illegally downloading music; how can we not find a path to legalization for families who live here peacefully? To focus on mass deportation rather than mass legalization is all about hurting people who's greatest crime was seeking a better life.

The point is you are starting your argument from 10/10 on a scale of extremes with 10 being the worst

As you can see, the positions advocated by Trump are the 10/10 worst extreme positions. I'm just a concerned citizen pointing out a candidate with extreme positions.

There is still a question as to whether terrorists, who do not represent any nation qualify for protection under international law. In addition, Trump said he would seek to change law to expand what can be done. Therefore he is not advocating breaking the law.

The comments about killing families of terrorists is probably the most extreme thing he has said, however we need to know a lot more about this directly from him. i.e. the circumstances. It is my belief that he is talking about those harbouring terrorists as he has raised the issue of harbouring many times, including in regards to Brussels where he was found to be absolutely right.

Banning non US citizen Muslims from entering the USA temporarily is not extreme at all - it is great leadership and very smart. Only people that would put American lives at risk willfully would call it extreme.

Deporting illegals is the law. If I broke into your house and made myself at home and took a percentage of your wages each week , you would not say I could stay just because I cooked a nice breakfast. Complete common sense from Trump. Again, great leadership.

Mostly sensible from Trump.
I only want to him clarify the position on which family members he would kill. If they are those that are involved I would be all for it.

originally posted by: UKTruth
...In addition, Trump said he would seek to change law to expand what can be done.

That's exactly what I said. He would seek ways to circumvent current international law to make things that are currently considered war crimes, legal. Which is a pretty extreme position.

The comments about killing families of terrorists is probably the most extreme thing he has said, however we need to know a lot more about this directly from him.i.e. the circumstances. It is my belief that...

I'm less interested in your personal interpretation than I am with the actual words and context he uses. As stated above, he seeks to legalize current war crimes. He seeks to legalize torture "way worse than waterboarding". With the totality of his positions to legalize war crimes, his position that "we have to take out their families" is not reassuring.

Banning non US citizen Muslims from entering the USA temporarily is not extreme at all - it is great leadership

Only someone who wants to validate the accusation that the U.S. is at war with Islam itself would agree with this. Bush saw the danger in this, which is why he didn't even advocate banning all Muslims after 9/11. This is absolutely extreme and risks alienating the 3 million Muslims who live here who would be denied visitation from Muslim friends and family who live outside the country. It would deny Muslims who come here for business. It absolutely is a horrible idea, and frankly, it make us less safe to go in this direction.

Deporting illegals is the law. If I broke into your house and made myself at home and took a percentage of your wages each week

First of all, they didn't break into your home where you literally sleep. You still have your home and private property. Why not just say they broke in an raped me repeatedly? The level of personal violation you're comparing the crossing of a border to is ridiculous. The point is the problem can be dealt with and it can be fixed without deporting people who have lived here with their family for years. We do not have to jump straight to deportation. We can be humane.

a reply to: UKTruth

This i agree with The System made to 'look' like it's helping is only beginning to do the opposite.

It was planned this way. Make people depend on the System, while taking away their 'Trades' replacing them with plastic.

At one time, Every family for the most part had some type of trade they would hand down to their Children to learn, they ran their own Businesses made their own Clothes, learned and taught each other to be Black Smiths or Carpenters or whatever it is they wanted.

Now no one knows how to take care of themselves if they get a BooBoo, How to make fire without matches, how to create a lean-to in a pinch should they get lost 'use your imagination' etc etc.

It's going to take a hell of a lot of 'work' to get back there, if people ever do. because right now we're heading down a dead end fast and i'm pretty sure if there is another War, people will revert to acting like animals all over again.

Technology has only exploded within the last 140 yrs or so, it's relatively new for a species who've been here for thousands of years.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Yes i know, and you're right.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: UKTruth
...In addition, Trump said he would seek to change law to expand what can be done.

That's exactly what I said. He would seek ways to circumvent current international law to make things that are currently considered war crimes, legal. Which is a pretty extreme position.

The comments about killing families of terrorists is probably the most extreme thing he has said, however we need to know a lot more about this directly from him.i.e. the circumstances. It is my belief that...

I'm less interested in your personal interpretation than I am with the actual words and context he uses. As stated above, he seeks to legalize current war crimes. He seeks to legalize torture "way worse than waterboarding". With the totality of his positions to legalize war crimes, his position that "we have to take out their families" is not reassuring.

Banning non US citizen Muslims from entering the USA temporarily is not extreme at all - it is great leadership

Only someone who wants to validate the accusation that the U.S. is at war with Islam itself would agree with this. Bush saw the danger in this, which is why he didn't even advocate banning all Muslims after 9/11. This is absolutely extreme and risks alienating the 3 million Muslims who live here who would be denied visitation from Muslim friends and family who live outside the country. It would deny Muslims who come here for business. It absolutely is a horrible idea, and frankly, it make us less safe to go in this direction.

Deporting illegals is the law. If I broke into your house and made myself at home and took a percentage of your wages each week

First of all, they didn't break into your home where you literally sleep. You still have your home and private property. Why not just say they broke in an raped me repeatedly? The level of personal violation you're comparing the crossing of a border to is ridiculous. The point is the problem can be dealt with and it can be fixed without deporting people who have lived here with their family for years. We do not have to jump straight to deportation. We can be humane.

How can something be a war crime if it is legalized first?

In terms of immigration, if you are for unchecked immigration then you are stating you are willing to play Russian roulette with the lives of American men women and children.

The 'breaking into the home' point was an analogy.

originally posted by: UKTruth
In terms of immigration, if you are for unchecked immigration then you are stating you are willing to play Russian roulette with the lives of American men women and children.

To be clear on this, I'm absolutely not for unchecked immigration. And please remind yourself and others, just because a person is not in favor of mass deportation of 11 million people, does not mean they are in favor of illegal immigration.

I know you don't want to hear my comparison to illegal downloads, but in the same way, I am not in favor of endlessly allowing the legalization of illegal downloads, but I am in favor of a similar approach to the problem. Windows 10 is a path to legalize an illegal copy of Windows. Same for iTunes and Google Play being a path to legalize illegal music downloads. It may not be a problem for you personally, but copyright infringement, piracy, illegal downloads ARE a problem. These people are criminals and repeat offenders. They are stealing. Collectively billions of dollars from the economy by not paying for this stuff. They even share their stolen goods with friends and family. Now, if you don't agree that every man, woman, and child guilty of illegal downloads should be fined to the maximum limit, effectively destroying countless households all across the country, does that mean you're in favor of limitless illegal downloading???

Of course not. A free copy of Windows 10 is great. Legalization for countless illegal music collections is a path to legitimacy. Big picture. Start with legalization, make legal access easier....

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: UKTruth
In terms of immigration, if you are for unchecked immigration then you are stating you are willing to play Russian roulette with the lives of American men women and children.

To be clear on this, I'm absolutely not for unchecked immigration. And please remind yourself and others, just because a person is not in favor of mass deportation of 11 million people, does not mean they are in favor of illegal immigration.

I know you don't want to hear my comparison to illegal downloads, but in the same way, I am not in favor of endlessly allowing the legalization of illegal downloads, but I am in favor of a similar approach to the problem. Windows 10 is a path to legalize an illegal copy of Windows. Same for iTunes and Google Play being a path to legalize illegal music downloads. It may not be a problem for you personally, but copyright infringement, piracy, illegal downloads ARE a problem. These people are criminals and repeat offenders. They are stealing. Collectively billions of dollars from the economy by not paying for this stuff. They even share their stolen goods with friends and family. Now, if you don't agree that every man, woman, and child guilty of illegal downloads should be fined to the maximum limit, effectively destroying countless households all across the country, does that mean you're in favor of limitless illegal downloading???

Of course not. A free copy of Windows 10 is great. Legalization for countless illegal music collections is a path to legitimacy. Big picture. Start with legalization, make legal access easier....

My point about unchecked immigration was more to do with the idea to place a temporary ban on new Muslim immigration - I see no othe rlogical course of action until screening is properly sorted out.

As for existing illegal immigration - I can't see any rationale for letting people just stay. As trump says, deport all and then let the people back in that you want to stay. Now in practice I would assume this will mean some form of registration and review process. It may or may not mean flying out and back again. Like most of Trumps plans, they are short on the absolute detail to really know the mechanics of what he is suggesting.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: yuppa

That's like saying "F the world."

Not surprised that's your interpretation of our position.

However, two duly elected Presidents HAVE acknowledged and cooperated with the ICC, and like it or not, the definitions of warcrimes under the Rome accords ARE the international standard.

Co Operated YES but they were situations NOT used against the US and where th eUS wasnt being tried for anything. Also still havent signed on to it. if we did Bush woul dbeen tried for war crimes.




@ copyright defenders
how much does the entertainment industry lose in obscene profits

They are playing you for suckers saying poor me poor me.

originally posted by: UKTruth
My point about unchecked immigration was more to do with the idea to place a temporary ban on new Muslim immigration - I see no othe rlogical course of action until screening is properly sorted out.

I agree with Bush, Obama, and basically everyone else who sees that as a very bad idea.... especially in regards to national security. Very bad idea. We'll have to agree to disagree.

As for existing illegal immigration - I can't see any rationale for letting people just stay.

Empathy, empathy, empathy. How about peaceful people who show no harm to society? Many of these people are escaping threat of daily violence in Mexico and Central America. Deportation of any kind... uproots these people from their homes. Takes away their ability to work, pay bills, go to school, maintain their lives. There are other options.

It seems to me the biggest hurdle is getting people to be more open to SOLVING the big problem, rather than so intent on STICKING IT to the illegals.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

Too much empathy will get you killed. Try and hug a grizzly bear.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: yuppa

That's like saying "F the world."

Not surprised that's your interpretation of our position.

However, two duly elected Presidents HAVE acknowledged and cooperated with the ICC, and like it or not, the definitions of warcrimes under the Rome accords ARE the international standard.

Co Operated YES but they were situations NOT used against the US and where th eUS wasnt being tried for anything. Also still havent signed on to it. if we did Bush woul dbeen tried for war crimes.

President Clinton did sign the accords, did not submit to the Senate, Bush II killed it, ignored it, etc.

I wonder why?

So, essentially, your comment is that we have not signed the accords because we know full well that these acts committed by a sovereign nation are judged to be internationally illegal and reprehensible.

Bush and Co. SHOULD be tried for war crimes under international law; that was the first betrayal of Barack Obama's term.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: spiritualzombie

Too much empathy will get you killed. Try and hug a grizzly bear.

These are not grizzly bears.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: yuppa

That's like saying "F the world."

Not surprised that's your interpretation of our position.

However, two duly elected Presidents HAVE acknowledged and cooperated with the ICC, and like it or not, the definitions of warcrimes under the Rome accords ARE the international standard.

Co Operated YES but they were situations NOT used against the US and where th eUS wasnt being tried for anything. Also still havent signed on to it. if we did Bush woul dbeen tried for war crimes.

President Clinton did sign the accords, did not submit to the Senate, Bush II killed it, ignored it, etc.

I wonder why?

So, essentially, your comment is that we have not signed the accords because we know full well that these acts committed by a sovereign nation are judged to be internationally illegal and reprehensible.

Bush and Co. SHOULD be tried for war crimes under international law; that was the first betrayal of Barack Obama's term.

SO currently we DONT GO BY THE ICC THEN. And No we dodnt sign them for other reasons,such as fraudulent cases will be brought up constantly costing th eUS money it dont have. Also Obama would b etried as well IF we signed onto th e ICC. Also the UN is good enough for EVeryone,not this kangaroo court you suggest. And a president HAS to submit a change liek joining the ICC charter to the senate.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: spiritualzombie

Too much empathy will get you killed. Try and hug a grizzly bear.

These are not grizzly bears.

Ok HUgg a zeta or a suicide bomber. that better?

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: UKTruth
My point about unchecked immigration was more to do with the idea to place a temporary ban on new Muslim immigration - I see no othe rlogical course of action until screening is properly sorted out.

I agree with Bush, Obama, and basically everyone else who sees that as a very bad idea.... especially in regards to national security. Very bad idea. We'll have to agree to disagree.

As for existing illegal immigration - I can't see any rationale for letting people just stay.

Empathy, empathy, empathy. How about peaceful people who show no harm to society? Many of these people are escaping threat of daily violence in Mexico and Central America. Deportation of any kind... uproots these people from their homes. Takes away their ability to work, pay bills, go to school, maintain their lives. There are other options.

It seems to me the biggest hurdle is getting people to be more open to SOLVING the big problem, rather than so intent on STICKING IT to the illegals.

If your'e saying I don't agree with Obama and Bush then i know I am on the correct side of the argument.

a reply to: yuppa

As I said... how about peaceful people who show no harm to society? Many of these people are escaping threat of daily violence in Mexico and Central America. There are options. It doesn't have to be deportation or nothing.

The problem is so clearly getting past the angry need to "stick it" to the illegals, and instead focus on real solutions that make our country better.

originally posted by: UKTruth
If your'e saying I don't agree with Obama and Bush then i know I am on the correct side of the argument.

I believe in reasoned rational thinking. I'm not blindly against everything a person says just because I disagree with some things.

I'm honestly surprised that people don't see what a bad move it would be to ban people based on Muslim faith. For people who want to win a war, or avoid an attack, that's a pretty dumb way to go about it.