Official 3/3 GOP debate thread

#301
#301
Ernest T. Vol said:
Ahh...but the Commander in Chief determines the legality of some and mostof these orders. What is torture? It is not a subjective determination from Carolos' point of view. You might think harsh language and missing a meal is torture, but your opinion means little. Is something Trump is proposing in violation of the UCMJ or some other controlling authority? Who is a terrorist? Maybe it is the wife if she is complicit, aiding and abetting. Lawful orders are dependent on policy and context.
Click to expand...

The CINC doesn't determine legality. Legally is set by Congress, UCMJ and the Geneva conventions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#303
#303
Grand Vol said:
For real?

Donald Trump on terrorists: 'Take out their families' - CNNPolitics.com

Donald Trump says families of terrorists should be targeted

And he just reaffirmed his position tonight.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu4IC-UAIzY[/youtube]

Don't even try to get into this legality BS on this one. There's more than enough context out there to know he's flat wrong in this case. Targeting non-combatants is a gross violation of the Geneva Convention any way you slice it. And furthermore, claiming the military "won't refuse an order from me" because of leadership is way, way, way off base and far more authoritarian than it should be.
Click to expand...

Trump was asked what would he do if the military leadership refused to follow his orders???

He said " They won't refuse me. Their not going to refuse me. Believe me."
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    92.4 KB · Views: 4
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#304
#304
carlos86 said:
The CINC doesn't determine legality. Legally is set by Congress, UCMJ and the Geneva conventions.
Click to expand...

There are thousands of miles between what is legal and illegal orders, depending on the situation and who is giving the orders.
 
#305
#305
Ernest T. Vol said:
There are thousands of miles between what is legal and illegal orders, depending on the situation and who is giving the orders.
Click to expand...

You refuse to comment on the things I've posted that show his actions to be completely in violation of recognized international law?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#306
#306
Grand Vol said:
You refuse to comment on the things I've posted that show his actions to be completely in violation of recognized international law?
Click to expand...

What do you want me to say, Grand? I am former military and have put ordnance on target with orders that were questionable. The power comes from the chain of command. What is legal and illegal is always questionable and never fits within the confines of academic discussion. You remind me of what we used to call a sea lawyer. Someone who used to know exactly how many days he had till his eos, always knows the exact legality of every act, ready to argue about some legal BS. You being an expert on every damn thing gets a little old. RESPECTFULLY, let some things be as they are. I have seen plenty, that don't fit your black and white world of the UCMJ or the Geneva. I don't care what Trump says. I've said before, I'm not necessarily a Trump man. But I am damn sure not a Hillary or Bernie man and neither are you. Move on...we are on the same side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#308
#308
I truly think the only people who watch the debates, and/or Foxnews, are left wing loons.
 
#309
#309
carlos86 said:
Trump was asked what would he do if the military leadership refused to follow his orders???

He said " They won't refuse me. Their not going to refuse me. Believe me."
Click to expand...

He is right. He will probably be like the current President and deferring giving orders to others who are competent-ish.
 
#310
#310
Grand Vol said:
He's referring to Trump ordering the targeting of the families of terrorists. Which is a direct violation of the Geneva Conventions.

It's an unlawful policy.
Click to expand...

IIRC, waterboarding is considered a violation of the Geneva Convention.

It's an unlawful act used several times during the W Administration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#311
#311
Grand Vol said:
Rubio was off tonight. I'd bet pennies to dollars he's sick right now because he's tended to be on point in most debates.

Had Kasich come out like this in the beginning he might be near the top.
Click to expand...

The truth is, he did come out like this. I've always liked him, but he got ignored and sometimes booed, because he didn't want to put up a wall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#312
#312
JCP201 said:
The truth is, he did come out like this. I've always liked him, but he got ignored and sometimes booed, because he didn't want to put up a wall.
Click to expand...

Kasich has been Kasich from the start. The only difference now is that there aren't as many buffoons on the stage to distract us from Kasich up there breathing excellence.

Here's to hoping for even fewer buffoons up there the next time Kasich hits the debate stage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#313
#313
Once again Kasich took the high road and showed well

Cruz dismantled Trump

Rubio still quick witted but didn't help himself

Trump's best of the night was his body parts response to Rubio lol puerile
 
#314
#314
Ernest T. Vol said:
What do you want me to say, Grand? I am former military and have put ordnance on target with orders that were questionable. The power comes from the chain of command. What is legal and illegal is always questionable and never fits within the confines of academic discussion. You remind me of what we used to call a sea lawyer. Someone who used to know exactly how many days he had till his eos, always knows the exact legality of every act, ready to argue about some legal BS. You being an expert on every damn thing gets a little old. RESPECTFULLY, let some things be as they are. I have seen plenty, that don't fit your black and white world of the UCMJ or the Geneva. I don't care what Trump says. I've said before, I'm not necessarily a Trump man. But I am damn sure not a Hillary or Bernie man and neither are you. Move on...we are on the same side.
Click to expand...

And yet, when did our President go on national media, not once, but twice now and announce they would be in favor of targeting non-combatants? There's a huge difference in taking collateral damage into account when the target is vital or when the enemy abuses the protected status and saying we are going after the families of those we are engaged with. It has nothing to do with an expert on anything, it's morally wrong for the potential Commander in Chief to put our nation on a path like this. And not something to move on from if this man thinks he's such a leader military members wouldn't refuse that kind of order.

So respectfully as well, I'm sorry you got put into positions that were morally questionable in the past. And yes, I do know there is some gray area in targeting procedures. But to set our nation on this kind of path is not something to be cheered on by anyone and damn well needs to be addressed before he gets that kind of power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#315
#315
Grand Vol said:
And yet, when did our President go on national media, not once, but twice now and announce they would be in favor of targeting non-combatants? There's a huge difference in taking collateral damage into account when the target is vital or when the enemy abuses the protected status and saying we are going after the families of those we are engaged with. It has nothing to do with an expert on anything, it's morally wrong for the potential Commander in Chief to put our nation on a path like this. And not something to move on from if this man thinks he's such a leader military members wouldn't refuse that kind of order.

So respectfully as well, I'm sorry you got put into positions that were morally questionable in the past. And yes, I do know there is some gray area in targeting procedures. But to set our nation on this kind of path is not something to be cheered on by anyone and damn well needs to be addressed before he gets that kind of power.
Click to expand...

Serious question about this. In Trumps statement about targeting terrorists families did he reference killing them or was he talking about detaining them?
 
#316
#316
hog88 said:
Serious question about this. In Trumps statement about targeting terrorists families did he reference killing them or was he talking about detaining them?
Click to expand...

"Take out their families."

Ambiguous answer, but the implications are pretty clear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#317
#317
Kasich did well. I really liked what he had to say.

Rubio is a mouthpiece for the establishment. He keeps repeating what the establishment wants him to say about Trump.

I got tired of the whole Rubio + Megan Kelly tagtem on Trump's lawsuit. Talking about pending litigation is a waste of time and has nothing to do with the issues. It just came across to me as establishment trying to dig dirt up on Trump.
 
#319
#319
Aside from the international embarrassment, this GOP primary train wreck is a hoot to witness. I mean, I don't ever recall a presidential debate that required parental guidance for the kiddos.

'Grats again Republicans for trotting out another stable of political thoroughbreds. If it weren't for the fact that you're almost assuredly handing the White House back to the Dem's, this whole thing would be hysterical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#320
#320
Watched it and Kasich came out best by far. Cruz also had a couple of good lines but I disagree with like at least half of what he stands for.
 
#321
#321
Septic said:
Aside from the international embarrassment, this GOP primary train wreck is a hoot to witness. I mean, I don't ever recall a presidential debate that required parental guidance for the kiddos.

'Grats again Republicans for trotting out another stable of political thoroughbreds. If it weren't for the fact that you're almost assuredly handing the White House back to the Dem's, this whole thing would be hysterical.
Click to expand...

not anymore embarrassing than 8 years of barry
 
#323
#323
Septic said:
Aside from the international embarrassment, this GOP primary train wreck is a hoot to witness. I mean, I don't ever recall a presidential debate that required parental guidance for the kiddos.

'Grats again Republicans for trotting out another stable of political thoroughbreds. If it weren't for the fact that you're almost assuredly handing the White House back to the Dem's, this whole thing would be hysterical.
Click to expand...

The craziest thing is an economically left wing Democrat is going to win the Republican nomination.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#324
#324
volfanjustin said:
not anymore embarrassing than 8 years of barry
Click to expand...

Yes it is and is not close.

You may not like O's or any other president's policies but there has never been a President act like this group of candidates running for the office. It is a disgrace one of these men, or I should say children, may be POTUS.

I don't care which side of the aisle one is on, the actions of Cruz, Rubio and Trump are an embarrassment to the political process of the United States.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top