Donald Trump “take out their families”

[VMI77]

Pat Buchanan on Trump: http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/why-liberal- ... ate-trump/

Millions now regard the media as ideologues who are masquerading as journalists and use press privileges and power to pursue agendas not dissimilar to those of the candidates and parties they oppose.

What the Trump campaign reveals is that, to populists and Republicans, the political establishment and its media arm are looked upon the way the commons and peasantry of 1789 looked upon the ancien regime and the king’s courtiers at Versailles.

Yet, now that the fourth estate is as discredited as the clergy in 1789, the larger problem is that there is no arbiter of truth, morality and decency left whom we all respect. Like fourth-century Romans, we barely agree on what those terms mean anymore.

[VMI77]

Political experience is mighty handy, although perhaps not indispensible.

When Harry Truman was asked about Kennedy's Cabinet picks, which included a number of academics, his brother, and few who had ever held elective office, Truman said that "Kennedy would be a lot better off if any of them had ever run for Sheriff."

Come now, you can't compare the politicians back when Truman and Kennedy were president with the rats infesting Congress and the Presidency today. I'm not personally a fan of either man but there hasn't been a president of equal stature for well over 25 years. And there are no more Humphreys or Moniyhans or Goldwaters in Congress. Now we've got a Reid and a McConnell. The current clown in the oval office doesn't even exist in an analogous political universe. Neither Truman or Kennedy was the kind of petulant narcissistic man-child us beleaguered proles now have to endure day after day. I look back on someone only comparatively honest like Richard Nixon with nostalgia.

And we have so much to look forward to.....another year of Obama who is a giant step down from Nixon, and the maybe 4-8 years of Hillary, an equally giant and more dangerous step down from Obama.

This reminds me of the funeral where the preacher invited those gathered to come up and share their thoughts, memories of the dearly departed, and no one moved, despite several invitations. Finally, the preacher implored, "Surely there must be someone here who can say something good about this man."

A voice near the back of the church hollered, "His brother was worse!"

I am an admirer of Truman, despite his political leanings, after reading and studying his various biographies. I can't say that about Kennedy who I regard, along with his family, as a complete phony, unabashedly amoral and untrustworthy through and through, whose only lasting impact was to inspire little Billy Clinton to want to be President in the worst way which, eventually, he was. Truman was not an admirer of the Kennedys either.

But back to my point, which was that some successful practitioners have expressed the view that it is helpful to have grass roots political experience when confronting and navigating the pressures and ambiguities and temptations of high office.

I agree for the most part. Truman was probably the last president who didn't indulge the appetites released by power. But I think one of the practical differences between Kennedy and Obama is that Kennedy didn't hate America, it was his playground. Obama hates America and Americans. Kennedy indulged his appetites, Obama indulges his hatred.

[RoyGBiv]

When you stop valuing the life of your fellow man, particularly when they are innocent of any crime, and look only for revenge you become exactly what you are trying to destroy.

I posted earlier that I'm against "taking out their families", but I would not go so far as to deem their families "innocent of any crime". From financial support to mere words of encouragement to providing physical assistance, families of terrorists DO get involved in the act. Whether or not such involvement exists and whether it rises to a level of "aiding"or "complicity" is worth determining before we decide to "take them out".

[JALLEN]

More on my prior post....

We've always had rats in Congress. Who can forget "Abscam!"

Texas has a long history of sending folks to Congress of dubious ability, or enthusiasm, like "Pass the biscuits Pappy" Lee O'Daniel and Richard Kleburg who left the intracacies of his office to a young clerk named Lyndon Johnson, and thanks to the improvident enthusiasm for term limits, there aren't likely to be any Goldwaters, Gingriches, Sam Rayburns, et Al's.

Don't forget, Congress as originally conceived was designed to not do much, only a few big things where there was broad national agreement. Social engineering was not contemplated.

[VMI77]

More on my prior post....

We've always had rats in Congress. Who can forget "Abscam!"

Sure. I was really mostly alluding to that time long ago when a few honest liberals resided there.

[VoiceofReason]

When you stop valuing the life of your fellow man, particularly when they are innocent of any crime, and look only for revenge you become exactly what you are trying to destroy.

I posted earlier that I'm against "taking out their families", but I would not go so far as to deem their families "innocent of any crime". From financial support to mere words of encouragement to providing physical assistance, families of terrorists DO get involved in the act. Whether or not such involvement exists and whether it rises to a level of "aiding"or "complicity" is worth determining before we decide to "take them out".

So where is our present course getting us? Attacks and attempted attacks are becoming the norm. As I stated ISIS etc. depend on us being more civilized than they are. I did not advocate blowing up a school bus, which they would do in a heartbeat. I do not advocate using poison gas on the population of a city which they would love to do and trying to find a way to do.

When you stop valuing the life of your fellow man, particularly when they are innocent of any crime, and look only for revenge you become exactly what you are trying to destroy.

Revenge has nothing to do with it. Deterrence is the word I was thinking of.At the present we bomb an entire block (or portion of it) to get one or two terrorists. Now that we are using drones, more unintended targets will be hit not less. If you are not willing to do what is necessary to win a war then plead for mercy because you will lose it.

[chuckybrown]

I would think one could easily argue that getting to Trump's "level/status" takes tons of political savvy???

[RoyGBiv]

So where is our present course getting us?

I don't think for a second that anyone here would argue in favor of our present plan. But there are a myriad of options the come between what we're doing today and making the ME a field of glass (or killing families, in the example at hand).

[anygunanywhere]

In war, the victor must do whatever it takes to win the war. The military's sole purpose is to crush our enemies into nothingness. How many of our military have been killed by women and children of the enemy who strapped on bombs and detonated them against our own sons, brothers, and fathers, women, mothers, and sisters?

That said, the word "war" has been diluted the same as the word "hero". The "war" on drugs, poverty, terror, whatever the cause has drifted far away from the true definition of war. The constitutional requirements for declared war has not been met. The current government has no stomach for winning, much less fighting this so-called war on terror. I venture to say that the current traitor in chief residing in the white house is as much one of the enemy as are any foreign militant currently in the US that is planning to attack us. He belongs in Gitmo as much as any current or former prisoner.

Speaking of our military, it is no longer a homogenous fighting force, it is a social experiment, most recently hobbled by this week's proclamation by the defense secretary that women will be allowed in ALL combat units, even special ops including Delta Force, Rangers, Green Berets, Marine Recon, and Navy SEALs. The time is rapidly approaching when all our military will be good for is modeling red high heels at leadership training events.

If you think things cannot get worse, just wait a few days and see how much more our country crumbles.

[mojo84]

War is ugly and ugly things happen when at war. If we are really at war against terrorism, ugly things should and will happen. It's always good to minimize collateral damage. However, sometimes it isn't avoidable. If the ones we are at war with are allowed to hide and operate among the citizenry, then collateral damage should be expected. If the citizenry doesn't want to be part of that collateral damage, they need to take steps to help eliminate the terrorists or at least separate from them.

It is crazy for us to continue to try to fight by the rules when we are fighting barbarians that follow no rules. Otherwise, we need to get out of there and let them continue killing each other.

[talltex]

Political experience is mighty handy, although perhaps not indispensible.

"

Come now, you can't compare the politicians back when Truman and Kennedy were president with the rats infesting Congress and the Presidency today. I'm not personally a fan of either man but there hasn't been a president of equal stature for well over 25 years. And there are no more Humphreys or Moniyhans or Goldwaters in Congress. Now we've got a Reid and a McConnell. The current clown in the oval office doesn't even exist in an analogous political universe. Neither Truman or Kennedy was the kind of petulant narcissistic man-child us beleaguered proles now have to endure day after day. I look back on someone only comparatively honest like Richard Nixon with nostalgia.

And we have so much to look forward to.....another year of Obama who is a giant step down from Nixon, and the maybe 4-8 years of Hillary, an equally giant and more dangerous step down from Obama.

I'll go with Ronald Reagan...a man with limited political experience before assuming the Presidency. The founding fathers never intended for political offices to be a lifelong career...their view was for someone to step up and serve to benefit his country for a few years then return to private life...self imposed "term limits". Despite some issues in his personal life, Kennedy DID show some guts and in the Cuban missile crisis, but also fell short in failing to step up in the Bay of Pigs fiasco. For all his shortcomings, as a career politician, Nixon probably accomplished more during his tenure, than anyone else, by opening relations with both Russia and China.

[JALLEN]

Despite some issues in his personal life, Kennedy DID show some guts and in the Cuban missile crisis, but also fell short in failing to step up in the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

That's the most fragrant description I have heard in a long, long time.

Kennedy was presented to the public as a wealthy, sophisticated, well educated, devout, vigorous, healthy, young family man. In truth, he was wealthy and certainly sophisticated in a certain way, but a borderline invalid addicted to various prescription medications, an enthusiastic serial philanderer to whom vows meant absolutely nothing. I remember the meeting Kennedy had with the Houston ministers over his Catholicism. It was a worry in 1960 as there had never been a Catholic elected President. It turns out that we need not have worried. Kennedy paid no attention whatsoever to the Pope, or the teachings of the church, other than as a public relations exercise, and never had.

Most men in public life at the time knew all this, but the press didn't touch or even hint at any of this.

[chuck j]

I have let this thread alone for the better part but I have studied quite a bit on Kennedy . He had it all , born into money , made money , war hero , connections , influence , beautiful wife , beautiful children , president of the United States the most powerful country in the world but he wanted more .

Trump is a hot air bag , I don't remember him being patriotic or caring about his country at all before this coming election ? He is P T Barnum ,.............a sucker born every min . There is not a serious bone in his body , he is full of it . He represents corporation ............he is cooperation . Good luck with Trump but HEY he tells you what you wanna hear .

Buy the way , do you watch Bill O Rielly ?

[VoiceofReason]

I have let this thread alone for the better part but I have studied quite a bit on Kennedy . He had it all , born into money , made money , war hero , connections , influence , beautiful wife , beautiful children , president of the United States the most powerful country in the world but he wanted more .

Trump is a hot air bag , I don't remember him being patriotic or caring about his country at all before this coming election ? He is P T Barnum ,.............a sucker born every min . There is not a serious bone in his body , he is full of it . He represents corporation ............he is cooperation . Good luck with Trump but HEY he tells you what you wanna hear .

Buy the way , do you watch Bill O Rielly ?

Do you know of a politician that doesn’t tell people what they want to hear?

I dislike all potential candidates of both parties. He would not or could not do 90% of what he says but he says things that send the liberals into hysterics.

To answer your question, occasionally.

[sugar land dave]

I wonder if this whole thread is not wandering very close to being outside forum rules.

However, after reading many posts I feel everyone is arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The answer is easy from an intellectual standpoint as opposed to a humane one. How much of a cancerous tumor would you want a surgeon to remove in order to survive, some of it or all of it? If you leave any behind it grows again.

Think long, hard, and choose who you want to survive. You and yours or them and theirs are the only two answers if either group is not smart enough to understand mutual survival.