Stefan Molyneux Defends Trump on "Terrorist families" Remark and Others

[dannno]

Not really interested in the knee-jerk reactions to his explanation without actually listening to it. I had thought this was one of the worst statements Trump made, but I do now generally agree that this whole notion people are yammering on about Trump going after children and grandparents of terrorists is total bull$#@!, that isn't what he said he was going to do, that is something that people who think Trump is a really bad guy project onto him.

I have been finding that a lot of what people don't like about Trump are not specifics, but projections that they make up in their head and apply to him based on vague statements he has made.

So Stef discusses the "terrorist families" remark toward the beginning of the video and goes on to defend Trump on several other grounds. He actually does a pretty great job putting it all in context. I'm still pretty wary of Trump, but listening to Stefan talk about him always has the effect of making me like Trump more, even though I concede Stefan could be wrong and Trump could turn out to be more of authoritarian than he gives him credit for.. either way this is a pretty interesting listen.

[jllundqu]

Sorry but that is BS.

He said it, he repeated it many times, and he said he would force the military to do it even if they disagreed with him. You can spin it however you want, but he said (and meant) that he would kill innocent people.

//

[fcreature]

Ya know, I decided to bite on this and give Molyneux another chance. I made it precisely 3 minutes and 12 seconds in before I had to turn this garbage off due to a blatant lie.

Stefan says Trump has "never said kill the relatives of terrorists. He just said we have to go after them".

Well actually, Trump said this:

"You have to take out their families." (moments later) "They care about their lives... don't kid yourself."

While I may be able to buy the argument that Trump never advocated for the murder of their families based on the first statement, the second part of that statement blows that out of the water. What is the implication Trump is making by saying that terrorists care about their families lives? The implication is murder.

Now here we have another thread about the statements on Glenn Beck's show. In that situation the context makes it (at the very least) unclear what they meant with their discussions and put's the idea that they were talking about murder to at least a bit of a leap of judgement.

I understand our hatred for Beck but he's being roasted by many members here for those statements when they are far, far less direct in calls for murder. I would hate for those same people to give Trump a pass on this.

[Antischism]

More damage control, eh?

[dannno]

Sorry but that is BS.

He said it, he repeated it many times, and he said he would force the military to do it even if they disagreed with him. You can spin it however you want, but he said (and meant) that he would kill innocent people.

//

Clearly you didn't listen to the video, you are just regurgitating your previous thoughts on the matter.

[dannno]

Ya know, I decided to bite on this and give Molyneux another chance. I made it precisely 3 minutes and 12 seconds in before I had to turn this garbage off due to a blatant lie.

Stefan says Trump has "never said kill the relatives of terrorists. He just said we have to go after them".

Well actually, Trump said this:

"You have to take out their families." (moments later) "They care about their lives... don't kid yourself."

While I may be able to buy the argument that Trump never advocated for the murder of their families based on the first statement, the second part of that statement blows that out of the water. What is the implication Trump is making by saying that terrorists care about their families lives? The implication is murder.

Now here we have another thread about the statements on Glenn Beck's show. In that situation the context makes it (at the very least) unclear what they meant with their discussions and put's the idea that they were talking about murder to at least a bit of a leap of judgement.

I understand our hatred for Beck but he's being roasted by many members here for those statements when they are far, far less direct in calls for murder. I would hate for those same people to give Trump a pass on this.

Stefan soon after changed his language and used the "Take-out" statement that was actually made (actually I believe he said both at some point, so it wasn't a lie). I'm not 100% sure what Trump means, but I have seen no evidence he means going and taking out innocent people.

If you are just going to turn off Stef when you disagree with him without hearing out his explanation, then maybe philosophy and deep thinking isn't for you.

[dannno]

I had a feeling this thread was going to immediately turn into a trainwreck.. please stay on topic, I haven't heard anybody rebut anything Stef has said, except for somebody who prematurely turned the video off without listening to his explanation, stating that he "lied" when in fact he ultimately brought up both statements that were made.

Again, I would love to discuss this stuff but I'm not going to discuss it like the retarded CNN anchors. That's the whole point of this exercise, to stop acting like retarded CNN anchors when we talk about Trump.

[Ender]

Stefan soon after changed his language and used the "Take-out" statement that was actually made (actually I believe he said both at some point, so it wasn't a lie). I'm not 100% sure what Trump means, but I have seen no evidence he means going and taking out innocent people.

If you are just going to turn off Stef when you disagree with him without hearing out his explanation, then maybe philosophy and deep thinking isn't for you.

So what do you think this means?

"You have to take out their families." (moments later) "They care about their lives... don't kid yourself."

[jllundqu]

So what do you think this means?

He thinks Beck and Thor meant assassination and Trump (as always) gets a pass.

[dannno]

More damage control, eh?

No, this is a thought exercise to help people stop acting like retarded CNN anchors when they talk about Donald Trump. I don't know if Stef is right about what Donald Trump is saying, I can see how someone could have a valid opinion about it on both sides - but he has a pretty solid line of reasoning for his side, if you are actually willing to think and listen.

[dannno]

So what do you think this means?

It is explained thoroughly in the video, but it's too long to type out without turning it into a wall of text. But does it mean he is going to kill innocent people? Not necessarily, I don't see that language in the statement. It COULD mean he is going to kill innocent people, but again not necessarily and Stef has a solid line of reasoning why he thinks he does NOT mean that. I am willing to discuss, but I'm not going to type out 2 pages of text when the video is already posted.

[dannno]

He thinks Beck and Thor meant assassination and Trump (as always) gets a pass.

Actually Stef came out against Trump during the Apple debacle. He gives Trump a 'pass' here because the language that he uses that gets people riled up is too vague to mean what people project on him to mean. It could also mean something that is totally reasonable.

While Beck may be serious or not serious, his language was NOT vague.

[undergroundrr]

Do you seriously intend for us to listen to all 72 minutes of this? Surely, if it's a cogent argument, it can be encapsulated in terse prose or you can give us some relevant time markers.

I've listened at length to Stef defending trump. For several years, I've had a general fondness for Stef's approach and followed FDR fairly regularly, but his #alwaystrump cul-de-sac is sad, disheartening and worst of all in this instance, too grating to even consider sitting through a 72-minute whiny diatribe about how mean #nevertrump people are to poor, misunderstood trump. I could listen to a couple Gentle Giant albums in that time.

[jllundqu]

Actually Stef came out against Trump during the Apple debacle. He gives Trump a 'pass' here because the language that he uses that gets people riled up is too vague to mean what people project on him to mean. It could also mean something that is totally reasonable.

While Beck may be serious or not serious, his language was NOT vague.

I listened to what Stef had to say and his logic is wrong. I'm not projecting anything. I heard what he said plain as day and I take it at face value. Here's where my understanding of Trump goes a little funky. He said he would take out family members of terrorists as 'red meat' for his rabid base... what's funny is I think he didn't mean it 'personally' but he did intend for that message to be conveyed to his supporters... Who knows. Would he actually kill innocent people? Probably not. Did he say he would? Yes... and his message was loud and clear to low info voters.

[tod evans]

Ya know, I decided to bite on this and give Molyneux another chance. I made it precisely 3 minutes and 12 seconds in

I don't even try.

The guys demeanor gets my hackles up...

[fcreature]

Stefan soon after changed his language and used the "Take-out" statement that was actually made (actually I believe he said both at some point, so it wasn't a lie). I'm not 100% sure what Trump means, but I have seen no evidence he means going and taking out innocent people.

If you are just going to turn off Stef when you disagree with him without hearing out his explanation, then maybe philosophy and deep thinking isn't for you.

As I said, I gave your request an honest attempt. I really did. I had committed myself to sitting down and listening to over an hour of him explaining to my why Trump's remarks were okay. Unfortunately the plan got sidelined by a big fat lie right in the beginning of his analysis. It's not about disagreeing with his opinion and listening to his reasons. It's that he lied about what Trump said, so my assumption has to be that any analysis after the fact is going to be based on said lie. As such, I stopped the exercise.

[dannno]

Do you seriously intend for us to listen to all 72 minutes of this? Surely, if it's a cogent argument, it can be encapsulated in terse prose or you can give us some relevant time markers.

I've listened at length to Stef defending trump. For several years, I've had a general fondness for Stef's approach and followed FDR fairly regularly, but his #alwaystrump cul-de-sac is sad, disheartening and worst of all in this instance, too grating to even consider sitting through a 72-minute whiny diatribe about how mean #nevertrump people are to poor, misunderstood trump. I could listen to a couple Gentle Giant albums in that time.

Like I said in the OP, he discusses it in the beginning, so you don't have to listen to all 72 minutes even though it is a pretty good episode worth listening to. He starts off with his line of reasoning, then he gets into the reality of the world and what is happening in other countries that I did not know about and compares that to what he believes Trump will do and ties that all in with his philosophy - I think all that gets done in the first 20-25 minutes.

I'm not a big Trump guy, but it's hard to argue with what Stef says about a lot of the issues Trump related. He makes me think about Trump differently than what I get around here, and ironically, in the mainstream media - and it can be quite refreshing to hear. Maybe it is refreshing because I once saw Trump as a Hitler incarnate and it feels better to know that our possibly future President isn't all that bad, but honestly he brings up some great points and important reasons why he supports him.

[dannno]

I listened to what Stef had to say and his logic is wrong. I'm not projecting anything. I heard what he said plain as day and I take it at face value. Here's where my understanding of Trump goes a little funky. He said he would take out family members of terrorists as 'red meat' for his rabid base... what's funny is I think he didn't mean it 'personally' but he did intend for that message to be conveyed to his supporters... Who knows. Would he actually kill innocent people? Probably not. Did he say he would? Yes... and his message was loud and clear to low info voters.

That wasn't the argument Stef made at all, I almost wish this comment would be deleted so as not to mislead other people who might consider listening.

[dannno]

As I said, I gave your request an honest attempt. I really did. I had committed myself to sitting down and listening to over an hour of him explaining to my why Trump's remarks were okay. Unfortunately the plan got sidelined by a big fat lie right in the beginning of his analysis. It's not about disagreeing with his opinion and listening to his reasons. It's that he lied about what Trump said, so my assumption has to be that any analysis after the fact is going to be based on said lie. As such, I stopped the exercise.

Like I said, it wasn't a lie, you misinterpreted it as a lie, and he eventually discussed the specific language Trump said which you cited.

If you can't sit back and be patient and listen to people who have different opinions than you without over-reacting, maybe deep thinking and philosophical discussions aren't for you.

[fcreature]

Like I said, it wasn't a lie, you misinterpreted it as a lie, and he eventually discussed the specific language Trump said which you cited.

If you can't sit back and be patient and listen to people who have different opinions than you without over-reacting, maybe deep thinking and philosophical discussions aren't for you.

You're right. It was an abrupt action I took and one I wouldn't have in the past; however my tolerance for Trump nonsense is at an all time low largely in part to the trolls roaming these forums. Patience wears thin and having watched many of Molyneux's recent Trump related videos, I guess I can blame it on a combination of the lie (or a factually incorrect statement on which his argument is based upon) and a prior experience with his recent content.

[undergroundrr]

I'm not a big Trump guy...

I know, and I respect that you're trying to maintain a measured perspective. I've put it in my Youtube Watch Later list and will try to get to it soon.

Stef is in that little collective of Rand-inspired libertarians who have mistakenly decided that trump is the incarnation of Hank Rearden. From what I've witnessed, Stef's man crush for trump is so heavy that it just gets a little gooey.

[jllundqu]

That wasn't the argument Stef made at all, I almost wish this comment would be deleted so as not to mislead other people who might consider listening.

I didn't say that was his argument. It's my argument. Stef's argument doesn't hold up. He misquotes what Trump actually said, then reads Trump's backpedalling press release saying "Trump would obey the law and wouldn't force military do violate law" blah blah blah. That is NOT what he said on the news and NOT what he said in the debates. He can spin and backpedal all day, but Trump said he would "take out" families of terrorists, then triple-downed on it, and said he would force the military to obey (in the Presidential debate). Of course, if your Stef and all you hear is "go after" the families 'criminally' and you give trump the benefit of the doubt, sure I can see that stretch. I, however, don't give Trump that benefit.

The argument I made above is that I don't actually think he WOULD take out families or force the military to do anything... he just wanted to be the toughest talking penis in the media... and ignorant voters ate it up.

[dannno]

You're right. It was an abrupt action I took and one I wouldn't have in the past; however my tolerance for Trump nonsense is at an all time low largely in part to the trolls roaming these forums. Patience wears thin and having watched many of Molyneux's recent Trump related videos, I guess I can blame it on a combination of the lie (or a factually incorrect statement on which his argument is based upon) and a prior experience with his recent content.

I'm not a Trump supporter, but I think there is a good chance that he isn't nearly as bad as the way he is portrayed by many here and in the media. Unless I'm wrong, which I could be, I think he would be far better than Hillary.

What specific problems have you had with his recent content? It look me a while to get used to Stefan supporting Trump also.. I was very much against it at first, especially when Rand was in the race.. but when I took his views in context with all of the videos he was producing, I could at least see where he was coming from. When I tried to think of arguments to put forward in comments sections against Trump, I realized that the arguments I would be making would largely be baseless, emotional responses to what he was saying. That's all I have seen so far here, in the first 2 pages of the thread. I would love to have some substantive debate, but I find when I post Stefan videos that rarely occurs. It's always filled with knee-jerk responses from people who don't want to listen to him, or don't take the time to think about what they are listening to.

[dannno]

I didn't say that was his argument. It's my argument. Stef's argument doesn't hold up. He misquotes what Trump actually said, then reads Trump's backpedalling press release saying "Trump would obey the law and wouldn't force military do violate law" blah blah blah. That is NOT what he said on the news and NOT what he said in the debates. He can spin and backpedal all day, but Trump said he would "take out" families of terrorists, then triple-downed on it, and said he would force the military to obey (in the Presidential debate). Of course, if your Stef and all you hear is "go after" the families 'criminally' and you give trump the benefit of the doubt, sure I can see that stretch. I, however, don't give Trump that benefit.

The argument I made above is that I don't actually think he WOULD take out families or force the military to do anything... he just wanted to be the toughest
talking penis in the media... and ignorant voters ate it up.

Ok, clearly you are skimming stef's video and not actually trying to take it in because you are missing huge chunks of his argument and mis-portraying them.

First of all,

Trump Says He Never Pledged To Kill Family Members Of Terrorists. “I didn't say kill. We have to go after them.” 03/09/2016

So that is not a misquote, you and one other person has said it was a lie or misquote when it was not. Stef discussed and used both quotes that Trump made. Stef should have included the quote I just posted in his video, it would have made his case much stronger, but he did specifically say that was what he meant and it turns out he was correct about that.

The other was was that he said we have to "take them out", but he didn't say, "We have to take out EVERY member of EVERY terrorist family", that is something you are projecting onto his statement. What he meant was thoroughly discussed by Stef in the video and you aren't portraying his arguments well at all here. Stef argues he is talking about family members who are guilty of aiding and abetting the terrorists, which is a very common occurrence, and it is in fact very common for other countries to go after the families of terrorists indiscriminately for that reason. Trump has said he is going to follow the laws, which would mean he would only go after or take out family members of terrorists who were found guilty of aiding and abetting terrorism, he claims he won't be doing it indiscriminately.

[nikcers]

I'm not a Trump supporter, but I think there is a good chance that he isn't nearly as bad as the way he is portrayed by many here and in the media. Unless I'm wrong, which I could be, I think he would be far better than Hillary.

What specific problems have you had with his recent content? It look me a while to get used to Stefan supporting Trump also.. I was very much against it at first, especially when Rand was in the race.. but when I took his views in context with all of the videos he was producing, I could at least see where he was coming from. When I tried to think of arguments to put forward in comments sections against Trump, I realized that the arguments I would be making would largely be baseless, emotional responses to what he was saying. That's all I have seen so far here, in the first 2 pages of the thread. I would love to have some substantive debate, but I find when I post Stefan videos that rarely occurs. It's always filled with knee-jerk responses from people who don't want to listen to him, or don't take the time to think about what they are listening to.

So do you think that Ron Paul projects and only sees Trump as he is in his minds eye when he says Trump is an authoritarian who is the opposite of a libertarian?

[erowe1]

I do now generally agree that this whole notion people are yammering on about Trump going after children and grandparents of terrorists is total bull$#@!

Of course you do.

[undergroundrr]

trump is one of two things:
1) A master communicator who says things in specific ways at specific times to disrupt and redirect the narrative.
2) Chance the gardener from Being There.

I'm going for #2. Perhaps trump is Dr Ron Paul II but we'll never know it because he's the worst communicator we've ever encountered in the political arena.

It's natural to parse the words of political figures, but it's just gotten ridiculous with this guy.

[dannno]

Of course you do.

Right, because I've now finally looked at using reason and evidence? And realize that most of the people who believe that are acting on emotions rather than logic?

You've gotten caught up in this crap, too. I dunno if Donald Trump will be great, or even good, I'm still not completely sure about his motivations but the media who attacks him is actually retarded, and you guys mostly just repeat their talking points.

[dannno]

So do you think that Ron Paul projects and only sees Trump as he is in his minds eye when he says Trump is an authoritarian who is the opposite of a libertarian?

He may be caught up in media hysteria to some extent, yes, but Trump is no libertarian either so he has some legitimate things to go on regarding that and that is why I don't support Trump either - but is he the total authoritarian that the media makes him out to be? I'm not convinced of that. Most of the anti-Trump stuff is total BS. I'd much rather have a substantive debate about what Trump says or believes than an emotionally hysterical one that isn't based on any reason or evidence.

[CPUd]

Trump says our laws are weak and ineffective. We need to bring back waterboarding and worse, because they're chopping off heads. We must beat the savages.