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

[phill4paul]

I sit here reading this thread and this line stuck out to me. What the heck has happened here? There was a time when almost everyone here was against war. Now we're going to get a lecture for holding that opinion? Everyone's OK with that? This is more evidence of the "Donald Trump effect" on RPF? With each passing day, we move further away from the values most claimed to uphold in 2007 in my opinion.

Got to crack a few eggs to make Amerika great again, don'tcha know?

[silverhandorder]

Wow you are an example of someone who needs 6 grade vocabulary to understand things.

[The Rebel Poet]

...maybe philosophy and deep thinking isn't for you.

Says the guy supporting Donald Trump.

[jllundqu]

Says the guy supporting Donald Trump.

ZING! But he says he doesn't support Trump... so who knows.

Outa rep.

And I agree with Cajun who mentioned the fact that we, as a group, have seriously moved away from what Ron Paul laid out in his runs... Here we are on RPF getting lectured about the benefits of war and torture... sigh.

Can't we just hit the reset button on this country... Tyler Dryden-style?

[undergroundrr]

Says the guy supporting Donald Trump.

I almost feel duped into watching that Youtube. But we'll see if @dannno wants to continue the conversation after he wakes up.

[dannno]

Right.

So if Obama or Hitlery, or even Ron Paul, talks about torture, then we all know pretty much what they mean. But if it's Trump?

Well he's just using the best words, I mean, the best...... and because his best words are so... best....we must have an interpreter to figure out what the ^%^& those best words mean.

When Hillary talks about torture, I don't believe one word she says.

When Donald Trump talks about torture, I don't know what he really believes for sure, but he gets attacked on what he says unjustly by the media and many people here - they say they think he wants to kill all families of all terrorists when it seems he only wants to go after the ones who were involved or allowed it to happen, using applicable laws - but more importantly he says he wants to change the environment so that we are only going after ISIS and not bombing countries into Democracy. Certainly a big improvement, if we can trust him, which I'm still unsure - but people who claim he lies all the time rather than exaggerating, which is what he writes all about in his books so we know that he is exaggerating when he talks at least, so we can at least gauge what he believes is the truth based on those statements..

When Ron Paul talks about torture, he is giving us 100% straight talk and I would do anything to get Ron Paul elected whereas I won't even vote for Trump - Ron Paul talks about torture in the context of what the media and everybody talks about our country's torture policies, and of course I believe he wouldn't use it which is great because he also would change the environment by improving our foreign policy much more so than Trump, and, like I said, I completely trust that he would do everything in his power to do that.

This thread isn't about supporting Trump's candidacy, this thread is about discussing Trump's candidacy in a more truthful and honest light. It's about stopping the lies that people apply to Trump's statements so we can have a real discussion on these issues and get down to what he really believes. I just don't like the layer of mistruths surrounding his candidacy, he has enough real reasons for me not to support him, I don't need fake reasons on top of that.

I don't support state torture, Molyneux doesn't support it either - but we also have to realize that in some extreme cases where people's lives are in danger torture can be used in a more just manner, if people aren't being tortured indiscriminately and it is being used to save people's lives obviously that is a different scenario than our country's past torture programs and they can't really be compared apples to apples, even if neither are ultimately preferable.

[dannno]

I sit here reading this thread and this line stuck out to me. What the heck has happened here? There was a time when almost everyone here was against war. Now we're going to get a lecture for holding that opinion? Everyone's OK with that? This is more evidence of the "Donald Trump effect" on RPF? With each passing day, we move further away from the values most claimed to uphold in 2007 in my opinion.

No, you have a better opinion than Donald Trump on war and torture and pretty much everything else. I'm not lecturing anybody to change their opinion on that - all I'm doing is actually getting people to think about these issues and what Donald Trump actually claims he wants to do in a more realistic sense, rather than talking about it like the retarded CNN anchors. I'm guessing you didn't watch any of the video.

[unknown]

Why do we need a video to "interpret" Trump.

As Ron and Rand Paul supporters are we so $#@!ing stupid that we need someone else to dictate our opinions to us?

Read and listen to what Trump said and form an opinion.

Trump is absolutely, without question, incredibly scary.

I so badly want to support the Libertarian Party but its no longer about voting for the lesser of two evils.

I now know that I have to vote against Trump.

Nothing has been so absolutely clear.

[Ender]

When Hillary talks about torture, I don't believe one word she says.

When Donald Trump talks about torture, I don't know what he really believes for sure, but he gets attacked on what he says unjustly by the media and many people here - they say they think he wants to kill all families of all terrorists when it seems he only wants to go after the ones who were involved or allowed it to happen, using applicable laws - but more importantly he says he wants to change the environment so that we are only going after ISIS and not bombing countries into Democracy. Certainly a big improvement, if we can trust him, which I'm still unsure - but people who claim he lies all the time rather than exaggerating, which is what he writes all about in his books so we know that he is exaggerating when he talks at least, so we can at least gauge what he believes is the truth based on those statements..

When Ron Paul talks about torture, he is giving us 100% straight talk and I would do anything to get Ron Paul elected whereas I won't even vote for Trump - Ron Paul talks about torture in the context of what the media and everybody talks about our country's torture policies, and of course I believe he wouldn't use it which is great because he also would change the environment by improving our foreign policy much more so than Trump, and, like I said, I completely trust that he would do everything in his power to do that.

This thread isn't about supporting Trump's candidacy, this thread is about discussing Trump's candidacy in a more truthful and honest light. It's about stopping the lies that people apply to Trump's statements so we can have a real discussion on these issues and get down to what he really believes. I just don't like the layer of mistruths surrounding his candidacy, he has enough real reasons for me not to support him, I don't need fake reasons on top of that.

I don't support state torture, Molyneux doesn't support it either - but we also have to realize that in some extreme cases where people's lives are in danger torture can be used in a more just manner, if people aren't being tortured indiscriminately and it is being used to save people's lives obviously that is a different scenario than our country's past torture programs and they can't really be compared apples to apples, even if neither are ultimately preferable.

I agree with everything except this:

When Donald Trump talks about torture, I don't know what he really believes for sure, but he gets attacked on what he says unjustly by the media and many people here - they say they think he wants to kill all families of all terrorists when it seems he only wants to go after the ones who were involved or allowed it to happen, using applicable laws - but more importantly he says he wants to change the environment so that we are only going after ISIS and not bombing countries into Democracy. Certainly a big improvement, if we can trust him, which I'm still unsure - but people who claim he lies all the time rather than exaggerating, which is what he writes all about in his books so we know that he is exaggerating when he talks at least, so we can at least gauge what he believes is the truth based on those statements..

I have seen/heard absolutely no evidence that Trump has clarified the above.

[dannno]

Why do we need a video to "interpret" Trump.

I'm guessing you didn't watch it. Ammirite?? Yes, I did need that video to interperet it because I had the wrong interpretation of his statements just like most people here who I'm arguing with (who also didn't watch the video). I had your interpretation before, I received more information and I changed my opinion a bit. I don't think we should be flinging misinformation around for the sake of opposing Trump.

As Ron and Rand Paul supporters are we so $#@!ing stupid that we need someone else to dictate our opinions to us?

Getting more outside input is always beneficial, you can always revert back to your former beliefs if you are a thinking person. In fact, my beliefs haven't changed on the topic itself, I just realized that Trump's beliefs are much different than what I had assumed before. That is the whole purpose of making this thread.

Read and listen to what Trump said and form an opinion.

What that does is take his statements out of context - what the video I posted does is put them in a much better context, even if Trump didn't immediately provide that context when he was in the debates or giving interviews.

Trump is absolutely, without question, incredibly scary.

I so badly want to support the Libertarian Party but its no longer about voting for the lesser of two evils.

I now know that I have to vote against Trump.

Nothing has been so absolutely clear.

You are voting for Hillary?? That's totally insane.. she is much worse than Trump, she represents the establishment which is worse than Trump on pretty much every issue across the board.. I'm not even totally convinced that Trump is part of the establishment - he MIGHT be, but at least there is a chance he isn't - we know what we are getting with Hillary.

I myself am writing in Rand Paul in the primary and voting Gary Johnson in the general election.

I do have a problem with Trumps' stances on the police state, privacy, internet, Snowden and a few other issues and that is why I won't support him. But he is preferable to Hillary on many other issues and it's important to recognize that, it is important to tell the truth to maintain your own credibility. I mean, Trump may like the police but I doubt he would order the Waco massacre of US military on civilians like Hillary did.. I'm not going to be apart of an anti-Trump cohort that goes around misrepresenting Trump's statements. If he was definetely part of the establishment and would be a puppet like McCain or Romney, you wouldn't see me supporting him in any way shape or form. The only reason I'm even willing to go out on a limb and defend him is all of the BS flying around about some the policies he floats which would be an improvement to where we are today - and the fact that he might not be part of the establishment - there is evidence for both sides of that one.

I agree with everything except this:



I have seen/heard absolutely no evidence that Trump has clarified the above.

So you didn't watch the video in the OP which is what this discussion is supposed to be about?

I clarified in the OP that I wasn't interested in debating what people thought of Trump's policies or statements on these issues because according to the logic in the video I posted the way they have been presented and interpreted (even by myself in the past) is horribly wrong. That is why the discussion is supposed to be about the video's interpretation of these statements. If you have noticed, in 14 pages that has still yet to be debated, at all... Think about that, nobody is actually willing to debate the logic in the video in the OP.

I'm not in total support of Trump on foreign policy and some of these related issues, but he does seem to be better than the establishment and much better than Hillary and he gets a bad wrap because people think that he is worse on foreign policy and torture than the establishment when that isn't necessarily the case, a good case can be made that his positions are far better. Of course it is hard to pin him down completely, that's another reason why I don't support him..

[kcchiefs6465]

Maybe Molyneux can do a video on Trump's nuking North Korea statement. I'sa just can't figger out what he's talkin' 'bout.

[kcchiefs6465]

Okay, I made it up to 26:36. Please, no offense, but I have no idea what anybody would start to find compelling about this. It rambles and doesn't make ANY point coherently, but I'll attempt to encapsulate:

===============
Stef gives a hypothetical:
"Bob" tells his family he's going to blow something up. Bob blows something up. Police find out the family knew and didn't tell anyone. Should Bob's family be subject to any repercussions? Stef's conclusion: "They have become criminals in the act of him becoming a criminal."

New topic: Stef says trump never said "kill the relatives of terrorists." "Take out" could mean disable, arrest, take them out of the picture, not necessarily kill them all. Stef fails to describe how non-violently disabling, arresting or taking them out of the picture would have any effect on a terrorist's actions. Unless we're somehow faking it to make the terrorists think we're being mean to the relatives while they're really sipping sloe gin fizzes in Tampa. This is evasive, idiotic, desperate trump apology by Stef.

After which Stef throws in that the Geneva Convention does not cover terrorists because they're not in uniform. So my stretch here is that since the family of the terrorist (if by some means we figured out they were informed of the impending act) are by extension terrorists then it's okay to violate the Geneva Convention all over them.

Then Stef notes that Putin made a law that forces relatives of terrorists to pay for damages caused by their attacks to create an incentive for people to report. Stef's conclusion: trump got the idea of "taking out terrorists' families" from the KGB via Putin.

He then sites a couple examples of how Russia/USSR treats terrorists.
NY TIMES (undated): about how Russians routinely arrest, torture and kill terrorist relatives. This purportedly unwound rebel leadership in Chechnya.
LA TIMES (1986! 30 yrs ago???): KGB secured 3 diplomats by castrating a relative of a Muslim leader and shooting him in the head and telling the Muslim leader more relatives would get it.

(But wait a minute, didn't Stef just suggest a few minutes ago that maybe trump didn't really mean anything bad by "taking out"?)

And that's pretty much all he's got to back up his argument on the efficacy of family torture I guess.

Then he takes a pointless 10 minute tangent about Chechen rebels holding people hostage in a movie theater that has nothing to do with anything.

Then Stef walks it back: he doesn't like this torture stuff but it's state action so whatever. And anyhow, trump would never do this because it's illegal.

Then Stef washes his hands of it: If society is debating torture, your society has taken a wrong turn. Philosophy (Stef's speciality that helps him to come to clear, irrefutable conclusions!) doesn't help with emergency situations. Philosophy is used to keep you from getting into such a pickle. Example: Nutritionist can't help a guy who's eaten burgers and fries every day for years and is having a heart attack.

At 19 minutes, Stef even concedes that torture doesn't get you good information!

Then he quotes various nation-state worship from trump and says (as a good trumpie should) that if if trump had been in power all this time, we wouldn't even be having this conversation because of the ultra-responsible non-interventionist foreign policy (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!).

Then he goes on about how trump is going to deal with ISIS: Take the oil that is the source of their funding. But warfare is so complicated that Stef doesn't even want to guess how trump's going to do it, but he's going to do it somehow.

===================

So, that was what I got from 00:00-26:36. Unfiltered equivocating, trump-worshiping garbage. Garbage! Please, give time markers if there's somewhere in the remaining 46:47 that he clarifies all this in such a way as to magically make sense of it.

Thank you. I was considering learning what words mean through Molyneux (because Danno was so insistent this was a good watch) but will instead listen to an episode of ContraKrugman.

Must spread some rep around.

[undergroundrr]

If you have noticed, in 14 pages that has still yet to be debated, at all... Think about that, nobody is actually willing to debate the logic in the video in the OP.

Au contraire. Please see post #120.

I'll boil Stef's argument down further.

1. Members of terrorist families are guilty of association.
2. trump didn't mean anything bad or violent by "take their families out."
3. Putin says it's okay to kill families of terrorists and that's where trump gets his ideas from. So trump is okay "taking their families out" of this mortal coil.
4. We wouldn't be in this position if trump had been guiding foreign policy with his non-interventionist ideas.
5. trump wants to steal the oil. How? Stef doesn't know because trump is smarter than Stef about war and trump will intervene correctly.

You might notice that some of these points are in contradiction with each other. Particularly 2 vs. 3 and 4 vs. 5. This is the "logic" in the video posted in the OP.

[Ender]

So you didn't watch the video in the OP which is what this discussion is supposed to be about?

I clarified in the OP that I wasn't interested in debating what people thought of Trump's policies or statements on these issues because according to the logic in the video I posted the way they have been presented and interpreted (even by myself in the past) is horribly wrong. That is why the discussion is supposed to be about the video's interpretation of these statements. If you have noticed, in 14 pages that has still yet to be debated, at all... Think about that, nobody is actually willing to debate the logic in the video in the OP.

I'm not in total support of Trump on foreign policy and some of these related issues, but he does seem to be better than the establishment and much better than Hillary and he gets a bad wrap because people think that he is worse on foreign policy and torture than the establishment when that isn't necessarily the case, a good case can be made that his positions are far better. Of course it is hard to pin him down completely, that's another reason why I don't support him..

Danno- when anybody else in America says to "take someone out", we all know what that means. But according to Trump supporters, what Trump says isn't what he actually means.

I'm not faulting you, Bro- just saying that this alone is a reason to mightily mistrust The Trump. I am not voting for him- or anyone else in this election unless a Ron Paul magically appears.

[dannno]

Maybe Molyneux can do a video on Trump's nuking North Korea statement. I'sa just can't figger out what he's talkin' 'bout.

When did Trump say he was going to nuke North Korea? I see statements out there about Trump wanting to take out their nuclear facilities, but I can't find anything about him wanting to nuke North Korea..

Maybe I'm wrong, and even if I am his statement on North Korea clearly indicate that his first line of attack would be to put pressure on China to deal with them, which is not nuking them - but if he hasn't even made statements about nuking North Korea then this is an example of the kind of sloppy crap anti-Trump people come out with that makes you guys look bad and makes Trump supporters have even more resolve.

I was very anti-Trump when the whole campaign got rolling and he was attacking Rand, but I've come around on a lot of Trump's beliefs through videos by Molyneux because he cuts through the bull$#@! of the mainstream media and all these people out there exaggerating his already exaggerated positions.

Personally, I like a guy like Ron Paul who is 100% straight talk - but when I listen to Trump I know what I'm getting, and that is exaggerations. But let Trump be the exaggerator, and let's evaluate him and his positions in a rational way.

[dannno]

Danno- when anybody else in America says to "take someone out", we all know what that means. But according to Trump supporters, what Trump says isn't what he actually means.

Clearly he means he wants to take them out on a date

The statement has multiple meanings, and he could mean multiple things based on the individual situation. It could mean capture them and take them out of play, it could mean assassinate them, or it could be a dinner with candles. But the fact is he clarified himself later on that he meant going after them - which also has multiple meanings - but he clarified that to mean capture them and interrogate them within the laws, at least in situations where we may be unsure. He may want to expand what the military can do as far as torture, but he also may vastly curtail the torture program compared to what we have had in the past. And I don't necessarily believe he means that he is going to use violent, brutal torture tactics - waterboarding I agree is torture but it's not violent or brutal - he could very well mean shining a bright light in their eyes for an extended period of time or other non-brutal forms of torture, who knows.

Anyway, I guess you didn't watch the video, or you turned it off after the first 3 minutes, which is a shame because we could be having a better discussion here.

I'm not faulting you, Bro- just saying that this alone is a reason to mightily mistrust The Trump. I am not voting for him- or anyone else in this election unless a Ron Paul magically appears.

I mistrust Trump too, and I'm not voting for him. In fact I will post my primary ballot with Rand Paul written in next to this post or some other post of mine and post it up - I will vote for Gary Johnson in the general and post that as well if people want to see it.

I just don't like the idea of being anti-Trump to the point where we are being dishonest, especially when there is a chance he may actually be an anti-establishment candidate.

[undergroundrr]

Anyway, I guess you didn't watch the video, or you turned it off after the first 3 minutes, which is a shame because we could be having a better discussion here.

As someone who watched the video, I would suggest that @Ender will not find anything there to assuage his concerns about trump. Stef actually spends most of his time bizarrely suggesting trump is okay to "take them out" in the mortal sense because that's what the Russkies do. At best, Ender might end up suspecting Stefan Molyneux of sycophantic delusion.

all I'm doing is actually getting people to think about these issues and what Donald Trump actually claims he wants to do in a more realistic sense, rather than talking about it like the retarded CNN anchors. I'm guessing you didn't watch any of the video.

You're throwing around the word "retarded" at people who don't deserve it. And no, the word "retarded" in the above quote isn't meant for the CNN anchors (who aren't reading this forum), it's being directed toward the people who are expressing an opinion opposed to trump's.

You're also making it clear that you're very sympathetic to the "I hate #nevertrumpers so bad I'm going to shill for trump just to show them" crowd. These people have totally shut down their brains to lash out against a phantom in the name of an intellectual pygmy who has lived his life without a moral compass. And that's particularly sad to see in the case of Molyneux, who used to have a pretty good brain.

And that's pretty much all that's been achieved with this thread. Next time you link to a source that purports to show new light on the views of the real retard in the room, trump himself, it needs to be way better than Molyneux's incoherent flailing. The more I think about what I witnessed on that video, the sadder I am for Stef.

[dannno]

Au contraire. Please see post #120.

Some how I missed that post this morning, thanks for pointing it out... finally somebody hits the topic of the thread, on page 13, not too bad I suppose...

I'll boil Stef's argument down further.

1. Members of terrorist families are guilty of association.

All? No, some.

2. trump didn't mean anything bad or violent by "take their families out."

Always? No, sometimes.

3. Putin says it's okay to kill families of terrorists and that's where trump gets his ideas from. So trump is okay "taking their families out" of this mortal coil.

He pointed out the tactics but he didn't say they were good - but he believes based on what Trump has said that he won't use the tactics in a brutal way like other countries have, but the underlying idea of holding people who knew responsible to some degree could in fact increase reporting or better yet the families can convince them not to do it at all..

Do you disagree with the premise that somebody who knows somebody is going to go kill innocent people is not responsible in any way? Are you actually arguing that position?

4. We wouldn't be in this position if trump had been guiding foreign policy with his non-interventionist ideas.

That's correct, we probably wouldn't be in this position - we might still have some issues, but they wouldn't be as bad if we had been using Trump's stated foreign policy the last 16 years. Whether he is lying or not, I dunno - but Bush being Bush was enough for me not to support him whether he was telling the truth about no nation building or not. I have never trusted the establishment. When I was 6 years old I asked my parents about the Bush/Dukakis election and I was trying to figure out how I could support neither of them, not being aware of third parties when I was in Kindergarten. I haven't supported an R or a D for President in a general election literally since Kindergarten.

5. trump wants to steal the oil. How? Stef doesn't know because trump is smarter than Stef about war and trump will intervene correctly.

You might notice that some of these points are in contradiction with each other. Particularly 2 vs. 3 and 4 vs. 5. This is the "logic" in the video posted in the OP.

I think stealing ISIS oil is probably a good strategy - I recognize we helped create them and I don't trust an establishment President to take them out, but Trump might not be establishment.

[dannno]

As someone who watched the video, I would suggest that @Ender will not find anything there to assuage his concerns about trump. Stef actually spends most of his time bizarrely suggesting trump is okay to "take them out" in the mortal sense because that's what the Russkies do. At best, Ender might end up suspecting Stefan Molyneux of sycophantic delusion.

A minute ago when I read the other long encapsulation post you made, I thought you had a better understanding of the video but now you are saying things that are just not true. He said he was under the impression he would be doing all this lawfully, capturing them and trying them in some form, not indiscriminately killing.

You're throwing around the word "retarded" at people who don't deserve it. And no, the word "retarded" in the above quote isn't meant for the CNN anchors (who aren't reading this forum), it's being directed toward the people who are expressing an opinion opposed to trump's.

You're also making it clear that you're very sympathetic to the "I hate #nevertrumpers so bad I'm going to shill for trump just to show them" crowd. These people have totally shut down their brains to lash out against a phantom in the name of an intellectual pygmy who has lived his life without a moral compass. And that's particularly sad to see in the case of Molyneux, who used to have a pretty good brain.

And that's pretty much all that's been achieved with this thread. Next time you link to a source that purports to show new light on the views of the real retard in the room, trump himself, it needs to be way better than Molyneux's incoherent flailing. The more I think about what I witnessed on that video, the sadder I am for Stef.

Well considering it seems that you didn't really listen or understand a lot of what he said, based on your statements that Stef was ok with Trump killing terrorist family members indiscriminately and it is ok because Russia did it, which is entirely untrue, I'm not sure if you are actually trying to understand what is being said or if you are listening in a combative way and trying to make up things that are wrong with the video.

[undergroundrr]

Some how I missed that post this morning, thanks for pointing it out... finally somebody hits the topic of the thread, on page 13, not too bad I suppose...

Page 4 for me

All? No, some.

Determined by what means? Before the fact or after the fact?

Always? No, sometimes.

I understand trying to be terse, but I have no idea what you mean.

He pointed out the tactics but he didn't say they were good - but he believes based on what Trump has said that he won't use the tactics in a brutal way like other countries have,

trump has been brutal in his language. Stef's assumptions about what's going on on the inside of trump's brain are irrational, subjective fantasizing that borders on dadaism.

but the underlying idea of holding people who knew responsible to some degree could in fact increase reporting or better yet the families can convince them not to do it at all..

This line of thinking leads directly to Orwell. It's the language of thought police.

Do you disagree with the premise that somebody who knows somebody is going to go kill innocent people is not responsible in any way? Are you actually arguing that position?

Do you believe we should have modules inserted into our brains to report dangerous thoughts to a central authority?

That's correct, we probably wouldn't be in this position - we might still have some issues, but they wouldn't be as bad if we had been using Trump's stated foreign policy the last 16 years. Whether he is lying or not, I dunno - but Bush being Bush was enough for me not to support him whether he was telling the truth about no nation building or not.

Well, there you go. You're comfortable calling trump a non-interventionist. He is the opposite to me. trump is truly all things to all people. His "best people" are interventionists par excellence. Those people are Donald "Bomb the $#@! out of 'em" trump's position as stated. Pro-intervention in Iraq, Libya, Syria. trump has not promised less war, he's promised less expensive war.

I have never trusted the establishment. When I was 6 years old I asked my parents about the Bush/Dukakis election and I was trying to figure out how I could support neither of them, not being aware of third parties when I was in Kindergarten. I haven't supported an R or a D for President in a general election literally since Kindergarten.

I think stealing ISIS oil is probably a good strategy - I recognize we helped create them and I don't trust an establishment President to take them out, but Trump might not be establishment.

This confounds me. He's the epitome of political shoulder-rubbing throughout his life. His political allies are the cream of the neocon establishment.

[The Rebel Poet]

trump has not promised less war, he's promised less expensive war.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to undergroundrr again.

[undergroundrr]

A minute ago when I read the other long encapsulation post you made, I thought you had a better understanding of the video but now you are saying things that are just not true. He said he was under the impression he would be doing all this lawfully, capturing them and trying them in some form, not indiscriminately killing.

And then went on to follow that equivocation by spending most of his time describing the supposed success of KGB tactics involving castration and killing of a suspected terrorist's father.

Well considering it seems that you didn't really listen or understand a lot of what he said, based on your statements that Stef was ok with Trump killing terrorist family members indiscriminately and it is ok because Russia did it, which is entirely untrue, I'm not sure if you are actually trying to understand what is being said or if you are listening in a combative way and trying to make up things that are wrong with the video.

Stef is okay with trump. Can we agree on that? Stef showed a clear understanding of trump's meaning (after the brief equivocation episode) by emphasizing the supposed success of the murderous tactics of the KGB and modern Russia, taking many minutes to do so.

Stef equated KGB tactics with trump's intentions. Why else did he go to such lengths to describe them? Did you zone during that part? It's pretty crucial.

Stef is okay with murdering families because - trump. Or at best, Stef is okay with trump even though - family murder. Take your pick. He doesn't make it clear, I guess because he's learned from trump that making something clear is undesirable.

I swear, watching that video, it's like Stef has never encountered a syllogism in his life. Or at least expects that his audience haven't.

[dannno]

And then went on to follow that equivocation by spending most of his time describing the supposed success of KGB tactics involving castration and killing of a suspected terrorist's father.

Did he advocate brutal tactics, or was he making a point that you can help dissuade terrorists by holding their families accountable in some form?

Stef is okay with trump. Can we agree on that? Stef showed a clear understanding of trump's meaning (after the brief equivocation episode) by emphasizing the supposed success of the murderous tactics of the KGB and modern Russia, taking many minutes to do so.

Stef equated KGB tactics with trump's intentions. Why else did he go to such lengths to describe them? Did you zone during that part? It's pretty crucial.

No I listened to that part just fine, but knowing Stef I knew that he wasn't advocating those things - in fact maybe you zoned out when the caller said, "so you think it is ok to castrate family members of terrorists?" Do you happen to recall what Stef's answer was to this question?


The rest of your post is totally disconnected from the reality of what Stef was saying, but let's start slowing with the above questions and we will get there soon..

Stef is okay with murdering families because - trump. Or at best, Stef is okay with trump even though - family murder. Take your pick. He doesn't make it clear, I guess because he's learned from trump that making something clear is undesirable.

I swear, watching that video, it's like Stef has never encountered a syllogism in his life. Or at least expects that his audience haven't.

He wasn't making a syllogism, that is where you are mistaken - but we will get to that after our Socratic dialogue that I started above, so let's focus on those two questions I asked earlier in this post.

[undergroundrr]

Did he advocate brutal tactics, or was he making a point that you can help dissuade terrorists by holding their families accountable in some form?

This deserves a Socratic answer. Why did Stef discuss the brutal tactics at all? I'll give you a hint. Go back to the part in the video where Stef equates "take out" with disable, arrest, take them out of the picture. Did Stef say "take out" meant those non-murder things or could mean those non-murder things?

No I listened to that part just fine, but knowing Stef I knew that he wasn't advocating those things - in fact maybe you zoned out when the caller said, "so you think it is ok to castrate family members of terrorists?" Do you happen to recall what Stef's answer was to this question?

Answer that by answering the following question - Is Stef advocating trump or not?

The rest of your post is totally disconnected from the reality of what Stef was saying, but let's start slowing with the above questions and we will get there soon..
He wasn't making a syllogism, that is where you are mistaken - but we will get to that after our Socratic dialogue that I started above, so let's focus on those two questions I asked earlier in this post.

I was speaking generally about the nature of logic. His premises contradict each other, therefore never lead to a conclusion except - #nevertrumpers are poopooheads.

[dannno]

This deserves a Socratic answer. Why did Stef discuss the brutal tactics at all? I'll give you a hint. Go back to the part in the video where Stef equates "take out" with disable, arrest, take them out of the picture. Did Stef say "take out" meant those non-murder things or could mean those non-murder things?

He said it could mean that, then he referenced statements by Trump that specifically said that was what he meant.

Answer that by answering the following question - Is Stef advocating trump or not?

The correct answer to the question:

"in fact maybe you zoned out when the caller said, "so you think it is ok to castrate family members of terrorists?" Do you happen to recall what Stef's answer was to this question?"

Is ------

"Oh God no......"

Stef thinks Trump is a good guy, in large part due to the fact that he believes he raised some well adjusted children and is against spanking and is financially successful and competent at running things. There is a narrative out there that Trump isn't competent at running things, but it's really hard to buy that line given his successful history.

I was speaking generally about the nature of logic. His premises contradict each other, therefore never lead to a conclusion except - #nevertrumpers are poopooheads.

I don't think you quite captured his logic.

[undergroundrr]

He said it could mean that, then he referenced statements by Trump that specifically said that was what he meant.

And then went on as if castrating and murdering family members was what trump meant.

The correct answer to the question:

"in fact maybe you zoned out when the caller said, "so you think it is ok to castrate family members of terrorists?" Do you happen to recall what Stef's answer was to this question?"

Is ------

"Oh God no......"

After spending inordinate time and effort telling us why castrating and murdering family members is effective. For no apparent reason since that's not what trump meant anyway(?). Do you not see the confusion of the argument there?

1. Does Molyneux support trump? Oh God YES.
2. Does trump support torture and murder of family members of terrorists? Oh God YES, and let Stef show you why these are effective ways to deal with terrorism.
3. Is Molyneux bothered by this? Oh God NO, and here's an article Stef scraped up from 1986 to show how great the Russians are at controlling opposition.

Stef thinks Trump is a good guy, in large part due to the fact that he believes he raised some well adjusted children and is against spanking and is financially successful and competent at running things. There is a narrative out there that Trump isn't competent at running things, but it's really hard to buy that line given his successful history.

You need to add - because he thinks trump's KGB-inspired ideas on neutralizing enemies have some merit.

I don't think you quite captured his logic.

To say the least. You suggested that his argument couldn't be crystallized without watching the whole video. Well, you can, but it won't make sense because it's fraught with logical contradictions.

[twomp]

Summary of the OP. Don't listen to what Trump actually said. Listen to one of his supporter's "interpretation" of what Trump said. Any more opinions of other Trump supporters that you would like to share with us? Perhaps his campaign manager's take on all this? Or maybe his children's opinion on all this? Let's hear what they think! But no, the OP isn't Trump supporter, he just likes to promote Trump.

[dannno]

Summary of the OP. Don't listen to what Trump actually said. Listen to one of his supporter's "interpretation" of what Trump said. Any more opinions of other Trump supporters that you would like to share with us? Perhaps his campaign manager's take on all this? Or maybe his children's opinion on all this? Let's hear what they think! But no, the OP isn't Trump supporter, he just likes to promote Trump.

That is such bull$#@!.

Trump is CONSTANTLY being maligned for stuff he says that is taken out of context. Just recently I was responding to a thread with an article about how Trump is against the idea of catastrophic man made global warming, but his golf course used global warming as a reason why they needed to build a sea wall. Well, some warming is occuring and it could be from natural causes.. the sea level is rising, very slowly... so I don't really see the problem, he needs to build a sea wall to protect from natural warming, but everybody else freaks out and thinks he is being hypocritical rather than actually using some critical thinking skills.

He talks tough, but when he breaks it down it ends up being pretty reasonable most of the time - not all the time - but in the cases where people are saying things like Trump wants to kill all terrorist families when that is absolute bull$#@!, and in fact his position is pretty reasonable and overall foreign policy is drastically better than what we have I think it's important to understand what his true intentions are - which I'm still not totally clear on - but what I do know is that the people who claim he wants to kill all members of families of terrorists are totally full of crap.

[dannno]

And then went on as if castrating and murdering family members was what trump meant.

No, he didn't.. this is why we can't have nice discussions. You are projecting what you think he was saying onto what he actually said instead of being patient and trying to understand the broader context of his argument afterward. Again, I thought you did a half decent job of summarizing his positions in detail in that long post, but then you weren't able to put it all together into a cohesive line of reasoning, you got the parts but not the whole.

Stef is a smart guy, he isn't going to say that he likes Trump one minute, and that Trump doesn't want to do brutal things, and then say that Trump wants to do brutal things and it's ok because Russia, and then say those things are horrible and he would never want to do them. Those are all contradictory, so if you think that's what he was saying, you have totally missed it. He was using those brutal examples to show how other countries treat terrorist families and why they do it, all he did was cite facts - then make the point that Trump wants to hold the families responsible, but in a less brutal way and in a less discriminatory way that is in accordance with our laws to achieve a similar effect of helping end terrorism.



It is completely ludicrous that you think this is all actually true:

After spending inordinate time and effort telling us why castrating and murdering family members is effective. For no apparent reason since that's not what trump meant anyway(?). Do you not see the confusion of the argument there?

1. Does Molyneux support trump? Oh God YES.
2. Does trump support torture and murder of family members of terrorists? Oh God YES, and let Stef show you why these are effective ways to deal with terrorism.
3. Is Molyneux bothered by this? Oh God NO, and here's an article Stef scraped up from 1986 to show how great the Russians are at controlling opposition.



You need to add - because he thinks trump's KGB-inspired ideas on neutralizing enemies have some merit.



To say the least. You suggested that his argument couldn't be crystallized without watching the whole video. Well, you can, but it won't make sense because it's fraught with logical contradictions.

All these contradictions are things you projected onto Stef - give me ONE QUOTE where Stef said that the brutal tactics were ok - you can't, because not only does it not exist, he specifically said, "Oh God no!" when the caller asked him if he thought they were ok. I didn't think he thought they were ok just because he mentioned them, Stef likes to tell history for reference that doesn't mean he is promoting it.. Yet the caller (who is anti-Trump) and you (who are anti-Trump) came up with this ridiculous idea that Stef was some how defending these brutal tactics. That doesn't bode well for anti-Trump folks.

[twomp]

then make the point that Trump wants to hold the families responsible, but in a less brutal way and in a less discriminatory way that is in accordance with our laws to achieve a similar effect of helping end terrorism.

The Trump troll is starting to lose his marbles. Trump wants to deal with them in accordance with the law? Please show me where Trump said that? He hasn't even shown signs he will follow the Constitution and here you are making all these ASSUMPTIONS about what he said. Wait it's not even you. You are making assumptions based on assumptions of another Trump supporter. Trump supporters. Dumb as rocks.