When asked this question the best thing is to affirmatively speak against a bigot. It’s not good to act aggrieved with the media for asking and making your response as stingy as possible and all about not giving up little surrender points. He is running to be a leader of men, not dogs. Or he could say “Fuck You” I’m OK with that.
You know, it’s really not that hard to not retweet bogus stats from white supremacists. It’s not too much to ask that Presidential candidates don’t do this, especially not multiple times. It’s also not too much to ask that Presidential candidates not consider paying for the legal fees of violent criminals.
These are not difficult things to avoid. That Trump is unable or unwilling to avoid them demonstrates extreme ignorance or extremely poor judgment. No idea why you’re trying so hard to defend these kinds of things.
Look, HB, talk is talk and fun is fun and Devil’s Advocate is a legitimate rhetorical and forensic role one can play without actually siding with the Devil – but for Og’s sake, you don’t actually want Trump as POTUS, do you?! Not even in preference to Clinton, I should hope!
Trump was going around today repeating his call for US law to be amended to allow torture of suspected terrorists. He said that the guy arrested in Brussels would “talk faster” if he were being tortured (the guy is apparently already cooperating with Belgian police). Trump also confidently stated that the military was 100% in favor of using torture (this is debatable to say the least)
Separately, on Facebook today, Trump posted:
(my bold)
I wonder what sorts of expanded authority he has in mind for the police. What tools not currently at their disposal would the police have under Trump? The authority to make suspects talk faster?
Anyway, I’m sure you’re correct that many police are horrified by Trump. However, I only knew of Trump’s Facebook post because it had been approvingly shared by a friend of mine. My friend a is a Captain in a large county police department.
And now you know yet another reason why Trump joined Arpaio to the hip. In exchange for his support it is clear to me that Trump is promising to him and other authoritarian bullies with badges the powers that Arpaio and others crave to dispose of their enemies, even if they are innocent.
Remember guys, the real reason why torture is used by reprehensible leaders is not to get evidence to prevent crime, but history has shown that the usual reason is that dictators and authoritarians get evidence (many times false) to support their evil intentions to their people. For Qaddafi in one occasion it was to show that his mishandling of public health was not the reason for an AIDS outbreak in Libya, but that it was the European doctors and nurses that confessed under torture that they did it, of course no European nation believed that, and international pressure prevented their execution and managed to get them released later. I can only picture Trump agreeing with the dictator.
I point to that case because in Arizona it is clear to me that the “enhanced interrogations” would had allowed Arpaio’s men to get a “timely confession” to put people like Reza away for good. (For the good of Arpaio and the good number of racist legislators in Arizona).
AFAIK Reza’s case against Arpaio for this and other abuses is still pending in District Court. And that leads us to another price we will have to pay under a Trump presidency, besides the moral cost one:
It is clear what Trump’s designs are for the whole USA, and I have seen many that still support Trump by ignoring the abusers he is cuddling because they believe that the other powers (legislative, judicial) will prevent a lot of what he wants from taking place. So relax, no? But, as the abuser of Arizona demonstrates, those Trump supporters willfully forget the monetary costs that we all will have to pay before and during the prevention efforts.
It’s an old idiom meaning give them freedom to act as they will. When you let go of a horse’s reins so you’re no longer pulling his head left & right you “give him his head”. And he then walks where he wants.
Well, that is also theoretically true: the delegates are pledged to vote for Trump, but a majority of the delegates can vote to change the convention rules to unbind themselves.* And then they could vote for whoever they wanted. That sort of thing would absolutely lead to riots, though, unless it was some sort of emergency (e.g., Trump died the day before the convention).
*Some of the delegates are bound by the convention rules and state law, so the rule change would not affect their obligations. But only a couple of states have those laws, AIUI.
Actually, there would probably be even bigger riots in that case, as “covert assassination” conspiracy theories circulated amongst the Trumpkins. :eek:
Ah, thanks. In that case, I’m not entirely on board with giving the police more freedom of action. I think recent events suggest more oversight of US police departments is perhaps in order.
But I am intrigued by this concept of unlimited blowjobs.