Not that I suspect it will matter much to Trump supporters, but his repeated statements last night that the US military will do anything he tells them to do (case in point, torture and kill the families of terrorists) showed utter contempt for the military, abysmal ignorance of the Constitution and a willful disregard for what it means to be Commander in Chief.
Trump's vocabulary and odd word selections indicate he likely doesn't read very much, and he probably doesn't have a building in Nuremberg, so why should he know about some Tribunals conducted there 60 years ago?
Why will our military obey Trump's unlawful orders? Trump says, "because he's a "leader."" He keeps using that word. I don't think it means what he thinks it means. The word he's looking for is "autocrat."
He had a heads-up he might face this question, Hayden: U.S. Soldiers Would 'Refuse to Act' if President Trump Ordered Torture, and could have been prepared to mumble one of his typical evasions. Apparently, it wasn't on one of "the shows" which inform his worldview. Or, maybe he was prepared. Which would be even worse.
Most people would consider megalomania and control of the nuclear football as mutually exclusive. Though, as I say, his supporters probably still think he'd be a fine CiC. They are even now preparing to interpret what he "really meant" for the rest of us.* Trump may even be getting ready to walk it back in his typical fashion.
It won't wash. He said it strongly and clearly twice. It's not like insisting Dubya lied about WMD, then saying 'maybe' the next day - there's no third party to waffle about. It's not a interpretation problem. He didn't have a bad earpiece.
He just doesn't know any better.
*Update, Trump excusers (will add as I bump into them):
"Trump's all talk. There's no way he would get this passed to begin with. He'd never have the support for this, so it's really not an issue."
Right. It has to be "passed." (WTH?) So it's not an issue about Trump's qualifications or character. If you're as ignorant as Trump.
"Trump backs down from waterboarding comments, says he won’t ask troops to violate law"
Aaaand... here he is, The Donald recants. His advisors must be getting tired of explaining reality to him. And he doesn't want to explain himself at CPAC.
"Katrina Pierson, a Trump spokeswoman, said the candidate had been misunderstood.
"He realized they took him literally, that's why he put out the statement," she told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room." "What he's saying is that he wants to go after them with the full force of everything we have.""
Of course. When you're Donald Trump saying something clearly and repeatedly in response to a clear question doesn't count. That applies to every word that comes out of his mouth, every position he holds and every policy he claims he will implement.
"Trump is definitely not saying all torture to all people is OK. He is using the context of the barbarians who are chopping innocent people's heads off. How do you deal with those barbarians? I don't think he is suggesting doing bad stuff to the wife and the family. He is suggesting that they should certainly not be given safe passage at the very least. Why not hold them and interrogate them about what they know is his suggestion. He is not being intellectual about any of this and only suggesting common sense stuff which is why it is resonating with so many. You guys including Althouse are making this a big intellectual exercise which it is not."
No, he wasn't suggesting anything, he was guaranteeing that when he ordered our military to commit war crimes, they would do it. And, yes, that passes as common sense for Trump and his supporters.
"Trump's a negotiator first. If I take the threat of harming the families of terrorists off the table I have lost a very valuable negotiating tool. If I take the threat of "torture" off the table I have done the same thing. The worst current example of abandoning a negotiating tool needlessly was Obama's decision to remove all troops from Iraq; or maybe his failure to follow through on his redline threat to Assad; or withdrawing support for Ghadaffi, or the entire nuclear process with Iraq. You choose."
"If I take the threat of committing war crimes off the table I have lost a very valuable negotiating tool." There, fixed that for you.
Obama's failed threats were bad negotiating positions because he didn't follow through, but Trump's idiotic threats (which you claim he won't actually implement) are important negotiating tools? When Trump threatens to nuke Russia as a negotiating position, how will Putin react?
I choose NOT Trump.