CNN Republican debate

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BxgJ

Golden Member
Jul 27, 2015
1,054
123
106
Ok here is one source for anyone interested.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/rand-paul-trump-plans-violate/2015/12/15/id/705957/

relevant part -

"Closing the Internet" to fight terrorism is a violation of the First Amendment while killing the families of terrorists requires America pulling out of the Geneva Conventions that ban the purposeful targeting of civilians, he said.

"So, they could kill us, but we can't kill them?" Trump shot back. "That's what you're saying. As far as the Internet is concerned, we're not talking about closing the Internet. I'm talking about parts of Syria, parts of Iraq, where ISIS is."

Could have clarified if he wanted to.... as in 'those fighting us' or something. But no. Just left it at families.
 

BxgJ

Golden Member
Jul 27, 2015
1,054
123
106
Last I checked foreign war zones are not protected by the constitution.

Funny how lefties are now so suddenly concerned about geneva.

The constitution comment referred to the internet stuff (and this was referring to more than just the internet in foreign war zones), I just included it in the quoted paragraphs. I also put the relevant part in bold. Should I have put it in italics? Would that have been easier to notice?

I'm not just now concerned about Geneva, it simply reinforces the point. To put it in other words, Paul said Trump's idea to target families would violate the convention, by deliberately targeting non-combatants. Trump tried to justify it. He had the chance to clarify, to limit it to combatants, or even direct supporters (but why use family if that is the case?), but did not do so.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
The constitution comment referred to the internet stuff (and this was referring to more than just the internet in foreign war zones), I just included it in the quoted paragraphs. I also put the relevant part in bold. Should I have put it in italics? Would that have been easier to notice?

I'm not just now concerned about Geneva, it simply reinforces the point. To put it in other words, Paul said Trump's idea to target families would violate the convention, by deliberately targeting non-combatants. Trump tried to justify it. He had the chance to clarify, to limit it to combatants, or even direct supporters (but why use family if that is the case?), but did not do so.
He has clarified the comments repeatedly. This is the same lefty shtick of taking a statement he makes out of context, content, or clarification and freaking the fuck out.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
I should ask you the same.

ISIS doesn't play by geneva rules. Perhaps they should learn the consequences.
You and Dick Cheney should hook up. You seem to share the same values. We will remember this, however, the next time you're prattling on about following the law. You Trump fan boys can rationalize anything.

Edit: And the left has always been concerned about the Geneva Convention. So have most moderates and rational Republicans, for that matter. It was only the depraved Bush apologists and chicken hawks who were willing to piss all over it, the Constitution, and pretty much anything else that hindered their retrograde actions.
 
Last edited:

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
You and Dick Cheney should hook up. You seem to share the same values. We will remember this, however, the next time you're prattling on about following the law. You Trump fan boys can rationalize anything.
What law?

Why don't lefties give a shit about law when it comes to gun rights or immigration law and protecting our borders while removing unlawful invaders.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
thankfully you're in the minority, the mentally deficient, fear mongering minority. you're a pretty horrible person, you know that?
I don't fear ISIS as much as I think they should be contained and dealt with. If they want to make total war, we should return in kind. Pretty simple concept the left has forgotten.

Coming from you that's an honor. Thanks!
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,951
51,440
136
I don't fear ISIS as much as I think they should be contained and dealt with. If they want to make total war, we should return in kind. Pretty simple concept the left has forgotten.

Coming from you that's an honor. Thanks!

By all means please elaborate on your vision of total war.
 
Feb 16, 2005
14,062
5,411
136
By all means please elaborate on your vision of total war.

Yes, please, elucidate on that topic
popcorn_stephen_colbert.gif
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
Total war is warfare that includes any and all civilian-associated resources and infrastructure as legitimate military targets, and justifies using weapons and tactics that result in significant civilian or other non-combatant casualties, whether collateral damage or not. American-English Dictionary defines "total war" as "war that is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in which the laws of war are disregarded." The term can also be applied when the war effort requires significant sacrifices by most of the friendly civilian population.
In the mid-19th century, scholars identified "total war" as a separate class of warfare. In a total war, to an extent inapplicable to less total conflicts, the differentiation between combatants and non-combatants diminishes and even sometimes vanishes entirely as opposing sides can consider nearly every human resource, even that of non-combatants, as nevertheless part of the war effort.[1]
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,656
15,613
136
What law?

Why don't lefties give a shit about law when it comes to gun rights or immigration law and protecting our borders while removing unlawful invaders.

Ah, when backed into a corner, simply lie.

Just in case you didn't notice, we aren't talking about righties or some other boogeyman or some random people on the Internet, we are talking about Donald trump, the current front runner for the GOP presidential race, and we are talking about you.

So by all means continue deflecting, inventing straw man arguments, and outright lying, I enjoy watching pathetic pieces of shit like you squirm while you try and justify your hypocrisy.
 

alien42

Lifer
Nov 28, 2004
12,736
3,146
136
I should ask you the same.

ISIS doesn't play by geneva rules. Perhaps they should learn the consequences.

hey, i know, if our enemy rapes our women, we should do the same.

an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

hey, that kind of sounds like sharia law, which is exactly what you are proposing, oh the irony.
 

BxgJ

Golden Member
Jul 27, 2015
1,054
123
106
He has clarified the comments repeatedly. This is the same lefty shtick of taking a statement he makes out of context, content, or clarification and freaking the fuck out.

Looked up the transcript, saw no clarification.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...what-it-meant-the-fifth-gop-debate-annotated/

Note - a bit earlier than the following, when Trump was asked about the comment he described supporters, possibly including but not limited to family. I can get that if need be but given that he used a different description, supporters instead of family, he was answering a different question than asked. It shouldn't need explanation that supporters of terrorists are different than family, even if some family may be supporters. It would be incredibly easy to just change one word.

So this is from the relevant part, about halfway down. I'll go ahead and quote the whole exchange, it wasn't that long, but most of it concerns the internet question, and some regime change stuff. I wasn't arguing that here. Paul's reference to the constitution was about the 'closing the internet' comment. Trump did clarify that.

PAUL: I think that by arming the allies of ISIS, the Islamic rebels against Assad, that we created a safe space or made that space bigger for ISIS to grow. I think those who have wanted regime change have made a mistake. When we toppled Gadhafi in Libya, I think that was a mistake. I think ISIS grew stronger, we had a failed state, and we were more at risk.

I'd like to also go back to, though, another question, which is, is Donald Trump a serious candidate? The reason I ask this is, if you're going to close the Internet, realize, America, what that entails. That entails getting rid of the First amendment, OK? It's no small feat.

If you are going to kill the families of terrorists, realize that there's something called the Geneva Convention we're going to have to pull out of. It would defy every norm that is America. So when you ask yourself, whoever you are, that think you're going to support Donald Trump, think, do you believe in the Constitution? Are you going to change the Constitution?

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: So, they can kill us, but we can't kill them? That's what you're saying. And as far as the Internet is concerned, we're not talking about closing the Internet. I'm talking about parts of Syria, parts of Iraq, where ISIS is, spotting it.

Now, you could close it. What I like even better than that is getting our smartest and getting our best to infiltrate their Internet, so that we know exactly where they're going, exactly where they're going to be. I like that better.

(APPLAUSE)

But we have to -- who would be -- I just can't imagine somebody booing. These are people that want to kill us, folks, and you're -- you're objecting to us infiltrating their conversations? I don't think so. I don't think so.

(APPLAUSE)

Ok, Paul refers to families. Not supporters. Then Trump refers to they and them. Who are they and them here? Well, family I guess. This is not the only time he has referred to this, and a prime time debate seems like the perfect time to directly refute what Paul said.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,656
15,613
136
hey, i know, if our enemy rapes our women, we should do the same.

an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

hey, that kind of sounds like sharia law, which is exactly what you are proposing, oh the irony.

And he's totally oblivious to it. Some how in the small brain of trump and his supporters they think that if we are attacked we should kill the attackers and anyone that supports them and if we do that then some how those same people won't have the exact same feelings and mentality as the idiot trump and his supporters have. The difference, which one again trump and his idiots are unaware of, is that hitting the US is a much simpler target (and bigger) than hitting ISIS and is supporters who don't live in anyone particular place. ISIS isn't a state or a country, hell, it's not even a city. You can't bomb ideologies.
 
Feb 16, 2005
14,062
5,411
136
And he's totally oblivious to it. Some how in the small brain of trump and his supporters they think that if we are attacked we should kill the attackers and anyone that supports them and if we do that then some how those same people won't have the exact same feelings and mentality as the idiot trump and his supporters have. The difference, which one again trump and his idiots are unaware of, is that hitting the US is a much simpler target (and bigger) than hitting ISIS and is supporters who don't live in anyone particular place. ISIS isn't a state or a country, hell, it's not even a city. You can't bomb ideologies.

You will, never, ever, get that point across to anyone who thinks that bombing isis is the solution.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,483
6,412
126
what in the blue fuck do you medicate yourself with to come up with such drivel?

I don't think that's fair. I get accused of that all the time because I don't have a brain defect by people that do. Don't do the opposite. A person can be powerfully committed to an altered reality that doesn't exist if bursting that bubble would hurt their ego. What looks like stupid is only an emotional protection, a need for denial of reality.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,483
6,412
126
Seems to bring it out in people. People I've known for a long time say weird stuff on Facebook. :eek:

People hate themselves and when they drop their usual guard neediness comes pouring out. Maybe something like a need for attention. I don't know, never been on Facebook and don't even know much about what it is