GOP Official: Voters don't choose the nominee, we do - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Monkah;49966722]In my eyes, a vote for Clinton is essentially voting for corruption, treason, and the destruction of our first and second amendment rights. The amount of shadiness around this woman is simply amazing, and even if I did agree with her in almost any way, shape, or form, I'd still wish for her to be locked up over any of the four federal investigations she's under. Meanwhile, I see Trump as a wildcard. He's undoubtedly got some good ideas, but he's also said some rather odd things. He has a good history of being pro-LGBT and generally unprejudiced (despite media propaganda), but honestly his deportation policy is taking some things too far-- that assuming it isn't a massive exaggeration in hopes of negotiating a middle-ground. Though, I do feel as if his presidency will benefit our economy as well as our employment rate, and I'm fairly satisfied knowing that his decision-making is the byproduct of whatever he legitimately thinks, and not drivel that corporations are paying him to say. And why are people even still talking about Sanders? He's got a third of the vote, and it's not like he's going to start going 2:1 on Clinton any time soon. He'll only be worth talking about of Clinton goes out in handcuffs, and even then I don't think he'll have that many supporters-- rightfully so. He's a massive panderer, but some of his economic ideas are simply eyeroll-worthy, and I feel as if many Americans have realized that.[/QUOTE] Got to love the level of bias in this post Clinton is "corruption, treason and the destruction of our first and second amendment rights" but advocating not only waterboarding, but WORSE forms of torture, is only "rather odd" Also Bernie Sanders is "pandering" even though he's saying the same stuff he's been saying since before it was popular.

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;49966765]Got to love the level of bias in this post Clinton is "corruption, treason and the destruction of our first and second amendment rights" but advocating not only waterboarding, but WORSE forms of torture, is only "rather odd"[/QUOTE] I would rather a candidate who uses questionable tactics in support of the nation, than a candidate who uses questionable tactics in pursuit of personal wealth.

[QUOTE=Moronic;49966778]I would rather a candidate who uses questionable tactics in support of the nation, than a candidate who uses questionable tactics in pursuit of personal wealth.[/QUOTE] How exactly is torture "in support of the nation" besides satisfying the revenge-boners of sociopaths?

[QUOTE=Moronic;49966059]It would seem the consensus in this thread is that Trump is a fascist who can be rightfully compared to Hitler. Please, can someone provide one piece of evidence that Trump is a fascist, or a racist, or a sexist, or anything else? Even if we completely ignore the vastly different conditions of today and of the Weimar Republic, Trump and Hitler are nothing alike. It would seem to me that you're all just regurgitating angry op-ed pieces from the Huffington Post[/QUOTE] I don't think he's comparable to Hitler. I think he's comparable to Putin, which is dangerous. Trump wants to ban muslims from entering US. He also hesitated to disavow David Duke, former leader of the KKK, in an obvious attempt not to upset the white nationalist voterbase he has. A tweet of his: [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/331907383771148288[/media] He also seems very uncomfortable about women's bodily functions. [url=http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/29/politics/trump-breast-pump-statement/]He referred the a woman pumping breast milk as "disgusting"[/url], and similarly referred the same way to [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/21/donald-trump-calls-hillary-clinton-disgusting-for-using-the-restroom-during-a-debate/]Hillary Clinton being late due to a bathroom break at one DNC debate[/url]. There's plenty of documentation over the years of Donald Trump looking at women simply as a piece of meat in various interviews. As for fascism, well that's hard to categorize but: [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBLmh8ck0yk]Donald Trump had his crowd pledge their vote to him[/url]. I don't think this is comparable to a nazi salute, but I do think Trump knew the exact iconography he was flirting with when he did this, and I think he did it for publicity. Either way, as Ted Cruz has pointed out, "In America, we don't pledge allegiance to people". Fascists have a long history of having their followers pledge allegiance to the person and not the party or the ideals. Even communist rhetoric often emphasizes the value of the people or the country over that of the leader. [url=http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/12/15/3732671/trump-isis-kill-family-members/]Trump also encourages war crimes to be committed to fight ISIS[/url]. But most of all, even if you don't buy any of that stuff: Donald Trump is a populist. Populists are inherently dangerous. They conflate their own message and goals with the welfare of the people. Anything that person does is divorced from the bureaucracy of the government; no matter the failings of the government, the populist leader is not responsible. Vladimir Putin, Adolf Hitler, and even Kim Jong Un are all populists who have tied their own image and reputation and actions directly to the minds and culture and welfare of the people. This essentially gives the leader a blank check to do anything in the name of "the people". Populism in politics is, at the most basic level, organized mob violence. One man decides to capitalize on a disenfranchised angry mob and spearhead the "enemy" with himself as the figurehead and representative of those people. How blue collar working class white men came to see a billionaire loudmouth as their representative is beyond me.

[QUOTE=Moronic;49966778]I would rather a candidate who uses questionable tactics in support of the nation, than a candidate who uses questionable tactics in pursuit of personal wealth.[/QUOTE] Torture provides us bad intel, hurts our relationship with our allies, and hardens the resolve of our enemies. It's not questionable, it's wrong. It's not supportive, it's corrosive.

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;49966790]How exactly is torture "in support of the nation" besides satisfying the revenge-boners of sociopaths?[/QUOTE] If torturing a terrorist is the only means of preventing a terrorist attack, it is defending the nation's citizens from an attack. That's a situation in which torture is acceptable. Torture isn't always the answer or even often the answer, but it can work under some circumstances and I believe that it should be always be an option when national security is gravely threatened. [QUOTE]I don't think he's comparable to Hitler. I think he's comparable to Putin, which is dangerous. Trump wants to ban muslims from entering US. He also hesitated to disavow David Duke, former leader of the KKK, in an obvious attempt not to upset the white nationalist voterbase he has. A tweet of his: Loading Tweet... [url]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/331907383771148288[/url] He also seems very uncomfortable about women's bodily functions. He referred the a woman pumping breast milk as "disgusting", and similarly referred the same way to Hillary Clinton being late due to a bathroom break at one DNC debate. There's plenty of documentation over the years of Donald Trump looking at women simply as a piece of meat in various interviews. As for fascism, well that's hard to categorize but: Donald Trump had his crowd pledge their vote to him. I don't think this is comparable to a nazi salute, but I do think Trump knew the exact iconography he was flirting with when he did this, and I think he did it for publicity. Either way, as Ted Cruz has pointed out, "In America, we don't pledge allegiance to people". Fascists have a long history of having their followers pledge allegiance to the person and not the party or the ideals. Even communist rhetoric often emphasizes the value of the people or the country over that of the leader. Trump also encourages war crimes to be committed to fight ISIS. But most of all, even if you don't buy any of that stuff: Donald Trump is a populist. Populists are inherently dangerous. They conflate their own message and goals with the welfare of the people. Anything that person does is divorced from the bureaucracy of the government; no matter the failings of the government, the populist leader is not responsible. Vladimir Putin, Adolf Hitler, and even Kim Jong Un are all populists who have tied their own image and reputation and actions directly to the minds and culture and welfare of the people. This essentially gives the leader a blank check to do anything in the name of "the people". Populism in politics is, at the most basic level, organized mob violence. One man decides to capitalize on a disenfranchised angry mob and spearhead the "enemy" with himself as the figurehead and representative of those people. How blue collar working class white men came to see a billionaire loudmouth as their representative is beyond me. [/QUOTE] Trump is a lot like Putin, that's true. And he's a populist. But I wouldn't say he's any more dangerous than any of the other Republicans that are running.

[QUOTE=Moronic;49966825]If torturing a terrorist is the only means of preventing a terrorist attack, it is defending the nation's citizens from an attack. That's a situation in which torture is acceptable. Torture isn't always the answer or even often the answer, but it can work under some circumstances and I believe that it should be always be an option when national security is gravely threatened.[/QUOTE] Find me one scenario in the history of the entire planet where torture has prevented a terrorist attack.

[QUOTE=Monkah;49966722]In my eyes, a vote for Clinton is essentially voting for corruption, treason, and the destruction of our first and second amendment rights[/quote] I'll give you corruption, but treason is way too far fetched. I don't see how she is actively eroding our first amendment rights, and a vote for any democrat is supposedly an erosion of our 2nd amendment rights (something I don't agree with). Gun control is not unique to Clinton. [QUOTE]Meanwhile, I see Trump as a wildcard. He's undoubtedly got some good ideas[/QUOTE] I challenge you to name a few [quote]but he's also said some rather odd things.[/quote] Everything he says is "odd", to put it lightly [quote]He has a good history of being pro-LGBT and generally unprejudiced (despite media propaganda)[/quote] When the media airs clips of his speeches, letting him speak in his own words, and most people conclude that he's prejudiced, that's not propaganda [quote]but honestly his deportation policy is taking some things too far-- that assuming it isn't a massive exaggeration in hopes of negotiating a middle-ground. Though, I do feel as if his presidency will benefit our economy as well as our employment rate, and I'm fairly satisfied knowing that his decision-making is the byproduct of whatever he legitimately thinks, and not drivel that corporations are paying him to say.[/quote] The president has very little say over the laws of the country. I can't see how Trump would have a very big impact on the economy without going to the levels of regulation that Obama has [quote]And why are people even still talking about Sanders? He's got a third of the vote, and it's not like he's going to start going 2:1 on Clinton any time soon[/quote] Super delegates can switch at any point. Also, his rhetoric has dragged clinton far to the left, so he's a loud and important voice in American politics. [quote]He's a massive panderer, but some of his economic ideas are simply eyeroll-worthy, and I feel as if many Americans have realized that.[/QUOTE] I'm a Clinton supporter, but even I think that Bernie is more than a panderer; I think he's probably one of the most genuine politicians in America. He's believed what he believes way back before it was popular to believe so. If you don't see the irony that you think trump has some good ideas but that it's BERNIE who's pandering to a demographic, then please don't vote.

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;49966831]Find me one scenario in the history of the entire planet where torture has prevented a terrorist attack.[/QUOTE] Dennis Blair, former director of National Intelligence, has said before that waterboarding yielded valuable information to US agents. The real trouble is that this is an inherently difficult debate to have because the CIA simply isn't a transparent organization. All I'm saying is that torture should not be outright banned. Torture should be used as a [I]last resort[/I].

[QUOTE=Moronic;49966857]Dennis Blair, former director of National Intelligence, has said before that waterboarding yielded valuable information to US agents. The real trouble is that this is an inherently difficult debate to have because the CIA simply isn't a transparent organization. All I'm saying is that torture should not be outright banned. Torture should be used as a last resort.[/QUOTE] As an above poster said, torture does not work. It provides us with bad intelligence because someone will tell you anything to get the torture to stop.

[QUOTE=Moronic;49966857]Dennis Blair, former director of National Intelligence, has said before that waterboarding yielded valuable information to US agents. The real trouble is that this is an inherently difficult debate to have because the CIA simply isn't a transparent organization. All I'm saying is that torture should not be outright banned. Torture should be used as a [I]last resort[/I].[/QUOTE] Dennis Blair almost immediately recanted this though and said that any damage to the United States image abroad destroyed whatever security advantage they gained from water-boarding. Keep in mind that this is also the same guy who thinks water-boarding isn't torture.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;49966795][B]How blue collar working class white men came to see a billionaire loudmouth as their representative is beyond me.[/B][/QUOTE] Well for one Trump isn't holding office so he can't be blamed for the failings of our government and the economy. He's running for the Republican ticket and acts like a tough guy which, to be honest, is a pretty big deal for these guys. I know this because I am a blue collar working class white man and can see this from their perspective. They just want to work to bring home money for their family, Democrats are heavily associated with increasing taxes and making new taxes to increase revenue which takes money away from these people. They do the harsh jobs no one else will do and will make less then a green thumb white collar boy who hasn't handled a hammer in his life. To them, they just want to work without the government giving them hassle. Republican message is about working for yourself and being your own man. Republicans promise small government and not to take more of their money. That with hard work and determination you'll forge your path. Trump, while not having the modest background, feeds on that. The blue collar men who have lost their jobs to illegal immigrants getting paid shit wages to do important skilled labor jobs and factory jobs being shipped overseas all leads back to the government. Trump uses himself as a symbol of what they can be, even if they know they'll never reach that point. He says he'll bring back their jobs, he'll cut taxes so they can afford their own needs and pay their bills. He'll let them be self reliant, that he'll fight ISIS and keep the nation safe so they can live in peace. Very few of them are racists, many of them just want their bread and butter back. [I]None of you seem to understand that.[/I] To them, Bernie Sanders is just another socialist democrat who has been a career politician living off taxpayer money and wants to take more of their money. My boss calls him a communist, tells me if I like Bernie so much I should go live in Russia. He likes Trump because he's a businessman and talks loud and tough.

[QUOTE=Moronic;49966857]Dennis Blair, former director of National Intelligence, has said before that waterboarding yielded valuable information to US agents. The real trouble is that this is an inherently difficult debate to have because the CIA simply isn't a transparent organization. All I'm saying is that torture should not be outright banned. Torture should be used as a [I]last resort[/I].[/QUOTE] Never happened, the CIA got Osama's couriers through conventional means such as legwork and intelligence gathering. By the time a prisoner makes it to Gitmo for 'enhanced' interrogation, any plans they may have been a part of are out of date, some of those detainees have been there ten years, all the people they knew are probably dead

[QUOTE=Moronic;49966857]Dennis Blair, former director of National Intelligence, has said before that waterboarding yielded valuable information to US agents. The real trouble is that this is an inherently difficult debate to have because the CIA simply isn't a transparent organization. All I'm saying is that torture should not be outright banned. Torture should be used as a [I]last resort[/I].[/QUOTE] Dennis Blair also said “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security." Also he was talking about the two people who got waterboarded over 200 times, I believe. And in those cases 100% of the information was received before they started waterboarding, after which they didn't get any more. Even if you're emotionally and ethically for torture under any circumstances, (which already makes you a monster in the eyes of the civilized world), the long term damage of torturing your opponents is huge. Torture is ISIS's number one recruiting tool, and policies involving torture have probably sent thousands of Muslims to ISIS and have caused thousands of American deaths in the Iraq war. "Should never be outright banned" is you saying "I'm fine with Americans pointlessly dying so that we can use a method which doesn't ever work just so we can HURT DEM TERRIES GOOD BUBBA"

Whether or not torture hurts US image around the world is irrelevant. If torture is the only way to prevent an attack on US citizens, torture is acceptable. It's foolish to say, "No, you can't do this under any circumstance no matter the cost"

[QUOTE=Moronic;49966971]Whether or not torture hurts US image around the world is irrelevant. If torture is the only way to prevent an attack on US citizens, torture is acceptable. It's foolish to say, "No, you can't do this under any circumstance no matter the cost"[/QUOTE] Go research the fucking subject more than "TORRTURRRRRR DURR" [URL]http://www.globalresearch.ca/torture-an-executive-summary/5418955[/URL] Like why the fuck did you get the "image" bit but [B]conveniently ignore[/B] the bit where he says " the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us" WHICH MEANS TORTURE HAS LED TO MORE US DEATHS THAN NOT USING TORTURE.

[QUOTE=Moronic;49966971]Whether or not torture hurts US image around the world is irrelevant. If torture is the only way to prevent an attack on US citizens, torture is acceptable. It's foolish to say, "No, you can't do this under any circumstance no matter the cost"[/QUOTE] Name an instance where torture has saved the lives of US citizens.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;49966990]Go research the fucking subject more than "TORRTURRRRRR DURR" [url]http://www.globalresearch.ca/torture-an-executive-summary/5418955[/url][/QUOTE] You should calm down. No one has said "TORRTURRRRR DURR" aside from those saying torture is not acceptable under any circumstance. What I'm saying is that torture, as an option, can not be completely eliminated until the threat itself is completely eliminated. I'm not saying we should torture anyone unless we absolutely have to. [QUOTE] Name an instance where torture has saved the lives of US citizens. [/QUOTE] Refer to my earlier posts. According to officials, torture has proven effective in the past.

[QUOTE=Moronic;49966996]You should calm down. No one has said "TORRTURRRRR DURR" aside from those saying torture is not acceptable under any circumstance. What I'm saying is that torture, as an option, can not be completely eliminated until the threat itself is completely eliminated. I'm not saying we should torture anyone unless we absolutely have to. Refer to my earlier posts. According to officials, torture has proven effective in the past.[/QUOTE] According to those same officials, it isn't worth it. And "valuable information" is extremely vague.

[QUOTE=Moronic;49966971]Whether or not torture hurts US image around the world is irrelevant. If torture is the only way to prevent an attack on US citizens, torture is acceptable. It's foolish to say, "No, you can't do this under any circumstance no matter the cost"[/QUOTE] good thing torture doesn't prevent anything then huh

[QUOTE=Moronic;49966971]Whether or not torture hurts US image around the world is irrelevant. If torture is the only way to prevent an attack on US citizens, torture is acceptable. It's foolish to say, "No, you can't do this under any circumstance no matter the cost"[/QUOTE] You're missing the point that torture is apparently worthless for gaining useful and reliable information.

[QUOTE=Moronic;49966996]You should calm down. No one has said "TORRTURRRRR DURR" aside from those saying torture is not acceptable under any circumstance. What I'm saying is that torture, as an option, can not be completely eliminated until the threat itself is completely eliminated. I'm not saying we should torture anyone unless we absolutely have to. Refer to my earlier posts. According to officials, torture has proven effective in the past.[/QUOTE] "can not be completely eliminated until the threat itself is completely eliminated." Yes it can "Refer to my earlier posts. According to officials, torture has proven effective in the past." I'm looking through your posts right now. You only mentioned Dennis Blair. To which I quoted Dennis Blair saying "the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security." Try reading the link I gave you just now, or heck, don't. You support Trump, right? You're obviously not interested in the truth. [url=http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/022306/1261.pdf]The FBI warned military interrogators in 2003 that enhanced interrogation techniques are “of questionable effectiveness” and cited a “lack of evidence of [enhanced techniques’] success.[/url] [URL="http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2008/12/torture200812?currentPage=4"]“When long-time FBI director Mueller was asked whether any attacks on America been disrupted thanks to intelligence obtained through “enhanced techniques”, he responded “I don’t believe that has been the case.”[/URL] [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/29/AR2009052901560.html"]Former counter-terrorism czar Richard A. Clarke says that America’s indefinite detention without trial and abuse of prisoners is a leading Al Qaeda recruiting tool[/URL] [URL="http://www.truthout.org/article/the-truth-is-out-cia-and-torture"]Torture creates more terrorists and fosters more acts of terror than it could possibly neutralize.[/URL] [URL="http://www.politicalscience.uncc.edu/jwalsh/cps3.pdf"]Two professors of political science have [B]demonstrated[/B] that torture increases, rather than decreases, terrorism[/URL] [URL="http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Former_interrogator_speaks_out_against_torture_1204.html"][Torture is] extremely ineffective, and it’s counter-productive to what we’re trying to accomplish.When we torture somebody, it hardens their resolve … The information that you get is unreliable. … And even if you do get reliable information, you’re able to stop a terrorist attack, al Qaeda’s then going to use the fact that we torture people to recruit new members.[/URL] [editline]19th March 2016[/editline] yeah i just copy pastad those links and some are 404 get over it and google

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49966695]cool, so point 1 which I said was "completely fucking obvious"[/QUOTE] cool

Whats to bar him from running as an independent? In his position, its absolutely the right thing to do, seeing as he's going to win the republican nomination.

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;49966831]Find me one scenario in the history of the entire planet where torture has prevented a terrorist attack.[/QUOTE] If you could, the Intelligence Agencies wouldn't have been doing their job very well

[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;49967139]Whats to bar him from running as an independent? In his position, its absolutely the right thing to do, seeing as he's going to win the republican nomination.[/QUOTE] I think the RNC had him sign a pact stating he won't run as an independent if he doesn't win the nomination. Which he could just refuse to honor if they broker a deal to take it from him.

[QUOTE=Thlis;49963887]That is a ridiculous example, it is akin to suggesting that Hitler's father should have beaten him to death as a child as that would have spared the world WW2, and calling it a morally right action. Ignoring that WW2 was a pretty big inevitability regardless of Hitler.[/QUOTE] No, it isn't. It's perfectly applicable. The man was a politician at the time, he had been spouting hateful and violent rhetoric for years, he tried to launch a revolution in Bavaria with intentions to spread it throughout Germany (an act of treason that could have gotten him the death penalty)... punishing him harshly either with life imprisonment or death [i]would[/i] have made sense, and it would have stopped him from doing what he did later on. Common sense should have told people, "Hey this guy's dangerous, maybe we should do something about him." That message did make it through to some people, but they didn't do anything, and the rest, as they say, is history. They enabled him, they had plenty of opportunities to stop him... they didn't. And that's fucking stupid, especially in a modern context when, yeah, history repeats itself, and we should understand it well enough by now to see that there are opportunities all around to prevent it from repeating itself again now. What's ridiculous is you comparing those circumstances to saying "his father should have beaten him to death as a child". That's absolutely absurd and not at all relevant to what Hitler was and what he did in 1923.

The logic is sound. The party is something a candidate wants to be a part of, the polls just show the support for a candidate in a competition, like an application. If people dislike the party for not choosing their nomination then those disgruntled persons/disgruntled candidate should form another party. Saying that representative democracy is broken just because Americans are too scared of getting behind another party is silly, the problem doesn't rely within the basis for government but the complications of an overarching two-party system.

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;49967516]I think the RNC had him sign a pact stating he won't run as an independent if he doesn't win the nomination. Which he could just refuse to honor if they broker a deal to take it from him.[/QUOTE] He probably will if they broker it, though Cruz keeps shilling against it constantly, most the time it seems like he is trying to persuade voters to vote for him instead of Kasich or Trump, but I think even he knows a brokered convention would fuck him about as bad as Trump and would basically guarantee that Hillary would win. Anyone think there is a chance Cruz and Trump might make a deal at the convention to prevent total catastrophe? A possible Trump-Cruz run?

[QUOTE=TG2;49967619]The logic is sound. The party is something a candidate wants to be a part of, the polls just show the support for a candidate in a competition, like an application. If people dislike the party for not choosing their nomination then those disgruntled persons/disgruntled candidate should form another party. Saying that representative democracy is broken just because Americans are too scared of getting behind another party is silly, the problem doesn't rely within the basis for government but the complications of an overarching two-party system.[/QUOTE] Americans aren't "too scared", Americans are fucked by having FPTP instead of a sane system.