Trump says that “with the terrorists you have to take out their families.” He doubled down on it in the Dec. 3 debate when Rand Paul questioned his plan. Trump replied, “So they can kill us, but we can’t kill them? That’s what you’re saying?”

Trump’s reason? “When they say they don’t care about their [own] lives, you have to take out their families.” That’s to stop future terrorists. Obviously you can’t kill the families ahead of time; you don’t know who they are. So after the attack, kill the families to scare the next would-be terrorist. Let’s think how that works … killing babies… 

The one family member that the San Bernardino terrorists cared about was their six-month old daughter, so that would work best. But would he just ask the police go in and blow her away. Would he have her beheaded in public to really send a message? Or would he take out the daughter and her grandmother by bombing the house?

Now on Fox News, O’Reilly argued that Trump likely would not kill them, and was only saying that to win votes. I guess Fox News figures Trump supporters really go for killing little kids of, and grandmother’s of, terrorists. Could this be right? Are 50% of Republicans really like that? I don’t think so, but it surprises me that I don’t hear more of them complaining about the new standard bearer of their party.

Here are the quotes:

“The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. … When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families.” CNN, 3 Dec 2015.

Rand Paul: “If you are going to kill the families of terrorists, realize that there’s something called the Geneva Convention we’re going to have to pull out of.” 15 Dec 2015. Trump responded, “So they can kill us, but we can’t kill them. That’s what you’re saying.”