Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 01:30:52


Post by: Asterios


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Asterios wrote:
he made no mention of American Citizens, only foreign citizens, and the law is very enforceable as shown above.


He said "all Muslims". US citizens who are Muslim are very much part of that "all Muslims". Now he may have walked that back (I'm not sure), but until then it's unconstitutional.


think he said prevent muslims from entering the country, hard to prevent someone from entering that is already here, and yes very easy to enforce, just block all incomings from Muslim nations or nationals of muslim countries.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 01:44:18


Post by: Gordon Shumway


So a Muslim US citizen wants to go on a honeymoon to Vancouver? No coming back. Some people do go out to other countries and experience the world, you know. Regardless, he did walk it back the next day. First he qualified that us military members were exempt, then he said it was "people living here" Not surprised he walked it back, as he pretty much changes his position on every stance he takes and has ever taken (which really makes me wonder why his supporters trust him so much). I'm just surprised it took him a whole day. Usually he does so in just a few sentences.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 01:57:49


Post by: Co'tor Shas


Asterios wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Asterios wrote:
he made no mention of American Citizens, only foreign citizens, and the law is very enforceable as shown above.


He said "all Muslims". US citizens who are Muslim are very much part of that "all Muslims". Now he may have walked that back (I'm not sure), but until then it's unconstitutional.


think he said prevent muslims from entering the country, hard to prevent someone from entering that is already here, and yes very easy to enforce, just block all incomings from Muslim nations or nationals of muslim countries.


He didn't say "block people coming form Muslim nations", he said "block Muslims". And, in any case, even if there was some security risk so great we had to block all Muslims, what about the 44 million living in Europe? Are we going to block the entirety of Africa as well? India has a massive Islamic population, are we going to block them?


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 02:06:37


Post by: Asterios


 Gordon Shumway wrote:
So a Muslim US citizen wants to go on a honeymoon to Vancouver? No coming back. Some people do go out to other countries and experience the world, you know. Regardless, he did walk it back the next day. First he qualified that us military members were exempt, then he said it was "people living here" Not surprised he walked it back, as he pretty much changes his position on every stance he takes and has ever taken (which really makes me wonder why his supporters trust him so much). I'm just surprised it took him a whole day. Usually he does so in just a few sentences.


well see US citizens who are Muslim are protected by the Constitution.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 02:58:06


Post by: xraytango


Yeah, it's really some mental gymnastics when people go around saying that Trump wants to keep U.S. citizens and soldiers who are Muslim from coming in to the country after having been outside on vacation or deployment.

That was a strawman that they tried to build, it was addressed but of course, no one wanted to listen.

So Trump is a racist who wants to limit or ban travellers or immigrants from entering the country from Muslim countries. So a question that needs to be asked is, "was Jimmy Carter a racist for banning Iranians from coming into the country after the Iran hostage crisis?"

When people don't want dialogue these days, they scream racist instead of learning the motivations of the speaker.

Also Islam is an ideology, you can't be racist against an ideology. Was the United States racist against Communists during the cold war? No, because it is an ideology not a race. No one was actually racist against Russians, just their political ideas and the motivation thereof.

Also a point on the current use of the word "racist". This word is a very emotionally polarizing word. Unfortunately instead of engaging with someone who may not agree with one's views and opening dialogue for better understanding, many scream, "Racist!" and use one line slogans to try and shout or shut down anything or anyone that challenges their views.

Maybe I'm wrong, but so often lately it seems that I hear "racist" being used in an inappropriate and meaningless way.




Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 03:21:35


Post by: Gordon Shumway


Trump's views on letting or not letting Muslims into the country does not make him a racist. It makes his ideas bigoted, pandering and hugely impractical. Calling Mexicans "rapists" makes his comment racist. I don't think he is one himself. I don't think he has any personal belief system about other people because I don't think he thinks about anybody other than himself. The difference with Carter and Iran is that Iran is not a religion, it is a country. Had Trump said "let's not let people from Syria and Iraq in until the ISIS thing is resolved", I really don't think the story would have gone anywhere. As to your attempt at a parallel to the Cold War, you may remember a certain Senator named McCarthy. Yeah, he isn't really well regarded today, is he?


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 03:29:39


Post by: Asterios


 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Trump's views on letting or not letting Muslims into the country does not make him a racist. It makes his ideas bigoted, pandering and hugely impractical. Calling Mexicans "rapists" makes his comment racist. I don't think he is one himself. I don't think he has any personal belief system about other people because I don't think he thinks about anybody other than himself. The difference with Carter and Iran is that Iran is not a religion, it is a country. Had Trump said "let's not let people from Syria and Iraq in until the ISIS thing is resolved", I really don't think the story would have gone anywhere. As to your attempt at a parallel to the Cold War, you may remember a certain Senator named McCarthy. Yeah, he isn't really well regarded today, is he?


Wrong if Trump said that he would still be called names and such, why? because he is a threat to their party, these elections bring out the worse in people and call the oppositions candidates names and such even with very little to no evidence, also I don't really think Trump is a racist (definately outspoken with no censoring button) , just like I don't think Hilary is a racist even though her mentor was a card carrying KKK member, but you can bet that will come out (think it already has, but not so widespread).

yeah I thought about McCarthy when he mentioned communist and the cold war.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 03:46:05


Post by: xraytango


You do realize that Trump said that it was illegal immigrants that had a high proportion of criminal elements, not immigrants and not all Mexicans. Oddly being an illegal immigrant is already a crime, default to criminal. That's law, the law is not racist.

Iran under the ayatollah was a Muslim country. Ergo Carter was banning Muslims from Iran from coming get here, no doubt some Zoroastrians as well, so if Trump wants to ban travel from Middle Eastern countries that happen to be primarily Muslim then under U.S. Code he is allowed to do so. Still not a racist reason, an ideological reason perhaps.

My point about communism was that it was an ideology that was anethema to the ideology of a free democratic and capitalist country. It had nothing to do with racism.

McCarthy never entered into my example. Sure he went on an ill advised and fruitless witch hunt, but that is different from the issue at hand. It's easier to keep new ones out, than to expose those already here.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 04:22:36


Post by: Gordon Shumway


You do realize he was not discussing the crime of illegally crossing the border don't you?

Trump: ""When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Sounds like a racist comment to me (maybe it's his little caveat at the end there that makes you not think so).

Again, I don't think he himself is. He is just a blowhard who knows how to tap into gullible people's disillusionment and fears for the glory and benefit of himself. He is a stereotype of a shifty salesman attempting to con people into buying a lemon (or some delicious steaks, or overpriced ineffective "degrees") but with a much bigger stage. Frankly, I think I would prefer if he were a racist. He would be less popular.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 04:39:21


Post by: Ensis Ferrae


 Gordon Shumway wrote:

Again, I don't think he himself is. He is just a blowhard who knows how to tap into gullible people's disillusionment and fears for the glory and benefit of himself. He is a stereotype of a shifty salesman attempting to con people into buying a lemon (or some delicious steaks, or overpriced ineffective "degrees") but with a much bigger stage. Frankly, I think I would prefer if he were a racist. He would be less popular.


I don't know whether I think he actually is a racist or not, but I agree with you that he thinks for the betterment of himself. I don't see him wanting to "lead" the country so much as gain a position that will allow him to pad his own bank rolls.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 04:45:20


Post by: Gordon Shumway


 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
 Gordon Shumway wrote:

Again, I don't think he himself is. He is just a blowhard who knows how to tap into gullible people's disillusionment and fears for the glory and benefit of himself. He is a stereotype of a shifty salesman attempting to con people into buying a lemon (or some delicious steaks, or overpriced ineffective "degrees") but with a much bigger stage. Frankly, I think I would prefer if he were a racist. He would be less popular.


I don't know whether I think he actually is a racist or not, but I agree with you that he thinks for the betterment of himself. I don't see him wanting to "lead" the country so much as gain a position that will allow him to pad his own bank rolls.


Back in 1999 when he was thinking of running for Pres. (He wasn't really, he was just trying to get press) he was asked by Chris Matthews on Hardball who he would think would make a good running mate. He answered Oprah.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 04:51:38


Post by: xraytango


Let's try this, let's replace the word Mexico with Canada and see how that plays.

Trump: ""When Canada sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Basically what the disconnect seems to be is that people moving north are of a darker skin tone, so pointing out the problems that they bring with them must undoubtedly be due to racial bias and stereotyping.

The left has a real race fetish and it prevents them from seeing the facts. When they can't produce their own facts to in order to make a well reasoned counter argument they resort to name calling and throwing things.

It can't possibly be that his statements might be based on anything even remotely resembling facts. Drugs and human trafficking are certainly not prevalent on the Mexico U.S. border, are they? Have Mexican gangs who are staffed by violent people never crossed the border and caused havoc? It must be impossible that Mexican prisons release violent offenders (many who are gang members) who move north and continue their trade.

While there are problems on the northern border, they pale in comparison to the issues coming from the south.

The biggest reason for this is really that there are highly unstable countries all the way from Mexico to Peru. Not all "Mexicans" are Mexican. It really is just an easy classification for brevity, even though it isn't precisely correct.

It's certainly not a racial issue, but an issue of security. There are drugs and killers and rapists that come across the border, it wouldn't matter what race that are if they are criminals. There are also many people that come across who are seeking a better life. Immigration is a great thing, but illegal immigration not so much.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 05:12:02


Post by: Gordon Shumway


You seem to have me confused with someone who thinks or cares Trump is motivated by anything to do with race. I don't. Being a racist at least implies core convictions (as misguided as those may be). Trump has none.

And as far as, "The left has a real race fetish and it prevents them from seeing the facts. When they can't produce their own facts to in order to make a well reasoned counter argument they resort to name calling and throwing things" while attempting to defend "lyin Ted, Little Marco" Trump speaks volumes.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 05:23:32


Post by: xraytango


What about Ted and Marco, what have they got to do with anything?


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 05:28:42


Post by: Gordon Shumway


Sorry about that, I can see where that might have been confusing. They were being used as adjectives to Trump to illustrate he has absolutely no compunctions about crass name calling while attempting to convey any ideas or argument of substance. I wasn't referring to them at all, just his names for them.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 05:36:59


Post by: Kilkrazy


Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.


Right or Wrong it is the law. and until it is changed it is an option.


Do you believe it is right or wrong?


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 05:47:23


Post by: Asterios


 Kilkrazy wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.


Right or Wrong it is the law. and until it is changed it is an option.


Do you believe it is right or wrong?


doesn't matter what I think, the law is the law and until it is changed it is the law.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 05:49:47


Post by: xraytango


Well, Jeb! was pretty dull, he really did come across as "low energy" even before Trumpo attached that epithet from what I saw of him.

The thing about Cruz and Rubio is that they were rolling out the same talking points that the GOP has been using for the last 15 years and people were tired of the same old saw. Trump said everything people want to say but are afraid to, even if he isn't right he's definitely loud and that gets attention.

Seems that Trump only has two stated goals in his platform: better trade and border security, he is not an activist candidate as such.

I think that as a businessman he has learned how to size people up pretty well and uses it to his advantage.

I have to say here that I am not a fan of either Trump or Clinton, and not even Bernie. But I do like to see to it that issues are understood and not reduced to glib one line slogans.

The media has its agenda and is as much a part of the spin machine as any candidate's employee. Journalists have gone from reporting to commentating, speculating, and acting as activists in order to promote "their guy".

Anyhow that's my take, I probably have more to say, and probably haven't been as clear on some things here but this whole process is certainly different from anything ever before with a populist candidate bucking the party and drawing so much attention and ire.



Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 05:53:02


Post by: Asterios


xraytango wrote:
Well, Jeb! was pretty dull, he really did come across as "low energy" even before Trumpo attached that epithet from what I saw of him.


I don't think Jeb even wanted to run, or at least that is what it seemed like to me.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 05:55:30


Post by: Kilkrazy


Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.


Right or Wrong it is the law. and until it is changed it is an option.


Do you believe it is right or wrong?


doesn't matter what I think, the law is the law and until it is changed it is the law.


It does matter what you think because it influences your voting preference, the selection of the next president and the likelihood of the law getting used.

Since this thread is entirely about the presidential election, your thoughts on this aspect are relevant.



Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 05:58:07


Post by: xraytango


Asterios wrote:
xraytango wrote:
Well, Jeb! was pretty dull, he really did come across as "low energy" even before Trumpo attached that epithet from what I saw of him.


I don't think Jeb even wanted to run, or at least that is what it seemed like to me.



That's most likely the case, he seemed relieved to put it all behind him. I think he just wanted to go home and smoke a bowl with his wife. Pretty well known that Jeb likes the chronic.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 06:00:37


Post by: Asterios


 Kilkrazy wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.


Right or Wrong it is the law. and until it is changed it is an option.


Do you believe it is right or wrong?


doesn't matter what I think, the law is the law and until it is changed it is the law.


It does matter what you think because it influences your voting preference, the selection of the next president and the likelihood of the law getting used.

Since this thread is entirely about the presidential election, your thoughts on this aspect are relevant.



Ok I believe our border security should be first and foremost, I believe anyone coming from another country should be thoroughly vetted. I believe Illegal immigration should be stopped(whichever border they come across), now out of all the candidates running who comes closest to that?


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 09:26:56


Post by: Kilkrazy


That's rather different to banning all members of racial, religious or cultural group X from possible entry the USA, of course.

I don't think any of the candidates comes anywhere close to stopping illegal immigration. It's basically impossible to close all the borders and thoroughly vet everyone from a foreign country.

Trumpo has a fun narrative about making Mexico pay for a big wall, but it's impractical.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 10:37:00


Post by: Frazzled


Asterios wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:


Please show me the section of the Civil Roghts Act of 1964 that deals with federal immigration law and how it prevents Congress or PotUS from deciding who is allowed to immigrate to the USA.


me thinks people think the Constitution of the United States refers to everyone in the world, it does not It only refers to citizens of the United States.


Or where the US has jurisdiction.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 10:39:58


Post by: Kilkrazy


The Constitution actually refers to the government of the US. not the citizens

Any person in the continental US or a US overseas territory covered by the constitution is granted the protections provided by the constitution whether a citizen or not.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 10:43:16


Post by: Mozzyfuzzy


I always thought you got constitutionalized as soon as you set foot in the US.

Maybe they should offer some sort of vaccination...


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 10:50:17


Post by: Frazzled


Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.


Right or Wrong it is the law. and until it is changed it is an option.


Do you believe it is right or wrong?


doesn't matter what I think, the law is the law and until it is changed it is the law.


You cannot obey an illegal law. You should know that. "Just following orders" will put you in the clink or the hangman.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's rather different to banning all members of racial, religious or cultural group X from possible entry the USA, of course.

I don't think any of the candidates comes anywhere close to stopping illegal immigration. It's basically impossible to close all the borders and thoroughly vet everyone from a foreign country.

Trumpo has a fun narrative about making Mexico pay for a big wall, but it's impractical.


It can definitely be done if we have the will. Europe is also discovering they need to do that.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 12:08:27


Post by: Rosebuddy


xraytango wrote:
Let's try this, let's replace the word Mexico with Canada and see how that plays.

Trump: ""When Canada sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."


I feel confident in saying that there aren't entire states where cops go after Canadian-looking people to harass them for their papers or where people elect the politicians and sheriffs who promise to keep the Canadians on a tight leash.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 12:16:08


Post by: Co'tor Shas


Rosebuddy wrote:
xraytango wrote:
Let's try this, let's replace the word Mexico with Canada and see how that plays.

Trump: ""When Canada sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."


I feel confident in saying that there aren't entire states where cops go after Canadian-looking people to harass them for their papers or where people elect the politicians and sheriffs who promise to keep the Canadians on a tight leash.

I wish they would. Damn Canadians with their free healthcare, being nice to everyone. They're up to something, I know it!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So...NK just endorsed Trump. It's fitting.

https://www.rt.com/usa/345045-north-korea-endorses-trump/


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 13:11:22


Post by: kronk


Rosebuddy wrote:
xraytango wrote:
Let's try this, let's replace the word Mexico with Canada and see how that plays.

Trump: ""When Canada sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."


I feel confident in saying that there aren't entire states where cops go after Canadian-looking people to harass them for their papers or where people elect the politicians and sheriffs who promise to keep the Canadians on a tight leash.


Because Canadians look like us*. Sneaky gaks.


*Melting pot of white, brown, everything in between.

Let's play spot the Canadian.

'Hockey sucks!"


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 13:23:49


Post by: Easy E


When I was a teenager and was learning about Fascism, what it was, the ideology, and how it was perpetuated in Europe I used to wonder if I would have been a fascist? There were parts of it that I could see as being alluring.

1. Efficiency as business and government partner closely together.
2. The focus on action and aggressive action to move your goals forward.
3. Focus on strong central authority.
4. Being able to blame others for your problems.

I can safely say in 2016, after hearing people espouse fascist and Authoritarian doctrines since 9/11/01 that I would not in fact have been a Fascist at any point in my life. That is one of life's questions i have been able to answer and am happy to know about myself.

Now, I have to determine if I would have fallen for being a Red Guard or Khymer Rouge.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 13:27:27


Post by: jmurph


Summary of things I have learned from this thread:
-Catholics are not Christians
-Banning Muslims from entry into the US is legal and not unconstitutional
-But the Constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens anyway
-Calling Mexican immigrants criminals and characterizing Mexican immigrants as criminals/drug mules/rapists is not racist or bigoted
-Trump is not a politician despite investing heavily in politics, repeatedly pandering to various groups, changing his positions constantly, and running for the presidency

Anything I missed?


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 13:30:18


Post by: Mozzyfuzzy


You can replace any race with Canada/ians and everything is fine.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 13:53:25


Post by: Asterios


 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's rather different to banning all members of racial, religious or cultural group X from possible entry the USA, of course.

I don't think any of the candidates comes anywhere close to stopping illegal immigration. It's basically impossible to close all the borders and thoroughly vet everyone from a foreign country.

Trumpo has a fun narrative about making Mexico pay for a big wall, but it's impractical.


and I repeat, what other candidate comes close to what I desire?


 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Constitution actually refers to the government of the US. not the citizens

Any person in the continental US or a US overseas territory covered by the constitution is granted the protections provided by the constitution whether a citizen or not.


Actually you are wrong here is the preamble of the constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


where on that does it say, people visiting the US? or people dropping by or breaking into the US? it does not, it says "WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES"

 Frazzled wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.


Right or Wrong it is the law. and until it is changed it is an option.


Do you believe it is right or wrong?


doesn't matter what I think, the law is the law and until it is changed it is the law.


You cannot obey an illegal law. You should know that. "Just following orders" will put you in the clink or the hangman.


think you are confusing an order with the law, the law is not an order which can break the law, it is the law. also no such thing as an illegal law when it comes to the Government. in fact if you do not follow the law illegal or not, you will get into trouble.

Rosebuddy wrote:
xraytango wrote:
Let's try this, let's replace the word Mexico with Canada and see how that plays.

Trump: ""When Canada sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."


I feel confident in saying that there aren't entire states where cops go after Canadian-looking people to harass them for their papers or where people elect the politicians and sheriffs who promise to keep the Canadians on a tight leash.


lets face it people go after illegal Mexicans and others from south of the border because it is easier to pick them out, but on the other hand there is also discrimination from both sides too, if a Hispanic woman in San Francisco (has a job and everything) is being deported for being here illegally there will be a big ruckus and furor over it and people being accused of being racist and bigoted and such, but now if it was a white European woman instead you wouldn't hear a peep from those same groups. (this actually happened too. barely got a one paragraph comment anywhere.)





Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 14:01:10


Post by: Ouze


 jmurph wrote:
Summary of things I have learned from this thread:

(snip)

Anything I missed?


Now we're on "when a hispanic woman gets deported, it's a big ruckus, but if a white woman does, no one cares".

Since there were approximately 400,000 deportations last year, it's surprising the media has time to report on anything else, what with reporting on the 1,100 deportations a day and all.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 14:06:19


Post by: Asterios


 Ouze wrote:
 jmurph wrote:
Summary of things I have learned from this thread:

(snip)

Anything I missed?


Now we're on "when a hispanic woman gets deported, it's a big ruckus, but if a white woman does, no one cares".

Since there were approximately 400,000 deportations last year, it's surprising the media has time to report on anything else, what with reporting on the 1,100 deportations a day and all.


i'm not talking about deportations anywhere else, but a deportation in San Francisco a sanctuary city that did not offer sanctuary to a white illegal alien.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 14:06:52


Post by: Prestor Jon


 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's rather different to banning all members of racial, religious or cultural group X from possible entry the USA, of course.

I don't think any of the candidates comes anywhere close to stopping illegal immigration. It's basically impossible to close all the borders and thoroughly vet everyone from a foreign country.

Trumpo has a fun narrative about making Mexico pay for a big wall, but it's impractical.


Congress banned Chinese people, anarchists and communists from entering the US in the past. We've also set immigration quotas for countries and regions numerous times in the past. If it was legal then why would it be illegal now? SCOTUS very rarely ever rules against established legal precedent.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 14:11:45


Post by: Frazzled


 jmurph wrote:
Summary of things I have learned from this thread:
-Catholics are not Christians
-Banning Muslims from entry into the US is legal and not unconstitutional
-But the Constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens anyway
-Calling Mexican immigrants criminals and characterizing Mexican immigrants as criminals/drug mules/rapists is not racist or bigoted
-Trump is not a politician despite investing heavily in politics, repeatedly pandering to various groups, changing his positions constantly, and running for the presidency

Anything I missed?


One more thing-Canadian bacon is not, in fact, bacon.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 14:14:16


Post by: Asterios


 Frazzled wrote:
 jmurph wrote:
Summary of things I have learned from this thread:
-Catholics are not Christians
-Banning Muslims from entry into the US is legal and not unconstitutional
-But the Constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens anyway
-Calling Mexican immigrants criminals and characterizing Mexican immigrants as criminals/drug mules/rapists is not racist or bigoted
-Trump is not a politician despite investing heavily in politics, repeatedly pandering to various groups, changing his positions constantly, and running for the presidency

Anything I missed?


One more thing-Canadian bacon is not, in fact, bacon.



nooooo say it isn't soooo.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 14:15:38


Post by: Kilkrazy


Prestor Jon wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's rather different to banning all members of racial, religious or cultural group X from possible entry the USA, of course.

I don't think any of the candidates comes anywhere close to stopping illegal immigration. It's basically impossible to close all the borders and thoroughly vet everyone from a foreign country.

Trumpo has a fun narrative about making Mexico pay for a big wall, but it's impractical.


Congress banned Chinese people, anarchists and communists from entering the US in the past. We've also set immigration quotas for countries and regions numerous times in the past. If it was legal then why would it be illegal now? SCOTUS very rarely ever rules against established legal precedent.


Do you want to ban all Muslims?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's rather different to banning all members of racial, religious or cultural group X from possible entry the USA, of course.

I don't think any of the candidates comes anywhere close to stopping illegal immigration. It's basically impossible to close all the borders and thoroughly vet everyone from a foreign country.

Trumpo has a fun narrative about making Mexico pay for a big wall, but it's impractical.


and I repeat, what other candidate comes close to what I desire?


 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Constitution actually refers to the government of the US. not the citizens

Any person in the continental US or a US overseas territory covered by the constitution is granted the protections provided by the constitution whether a citizen or not.


Actually you are wrong here is the preamble of the constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


where on that does it say, people visiting the US? or people dropping by or breaking into the US? it does not, it says "WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES"

 Frazzled wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.


Right or Wrong it is the law. and until it is changed it is an option.


Do you believe it is right or wrong?


doesn't matter what I think, the law is the law and until it is changed it is the law.


You cannot obey an illegal law. You should know that. "Just following orders" will put you in the clink or the hangman.


think you are confusing an order with the law, the law is not an order which can break the law, it is the law. also no such thing as an illegal law when it comes to the Government. in fact if you do not follow the law illegal or not, you will get into trouble.

Rosebuddy wrote:
xraytango wrote:
Let's try this, let's replace the word Mexico with Canada and see how that plays.

Trump: ""When Canada sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."


I feel confident in saying that there aren't entire states where cops go after Canadian-looking people to harass them for their papers or where people elect the politicians and sheriffs who promise to keep the Canadians on a tight leash.


lets face it people go after illegal Mexicans and others from south of the border because it is easier to pick them out, but on the other hand there is also discrimination from both sides too, if a Hispanic woman in San Francisco (has a job and everything) is being deported for being here illegally there will be a big ruckus and furor over it and people being accused of being racist and bigoted and such, but now if it was a white European woman instead you wouldn't hear a peep from those same groups. (this actually happened too. barely got a one paragraph comment anywhere.)





Trumpo won't manage to come close to what you want, he's just telling you a story you like hearing in order to get you to vote for him.

The people wrote the constitution to form a government that is limited by the constitution. The constitution limits the government's power. The government for example can't search people's houses without a warrant or prevent them practicing their religion. This applies to everyone within the purview of the government whatever citizenship they may hold.



Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 14:22:14


Post by: Jihadin


 Kilkrazy wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's rather different to banning all members of racial, religious or cultural group X from possible entry the USA, of course.

I don't think any of the candidates comes anywhere close to stopping illegal immigration. It's basically impossible to close all the borders and thoroughly vet everyone from a foreign country.

Trumpo has a fun narrative about making Mexico pay for a big wall, but it's impractical.


Congress banned Chinese people, anarchists and communists from entering the US in the past. We've also set immigration quotas for countries and regions numerous times in the past. If it was legal then why would it be illegal now? SCOTUS very rarely ever rules against established legal precedent.


Do you want to ban all Muslims?


We talking refugee asylum or actual immigration? Not aiming that directly at you Kil but for gawdsake clarify the subject with the rest of them. IIRC he Trump made that comment after Obama agreed to bring a huge number of Muslim Refugee's with barely to no vetting of those arriving in Europe.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 14:26:46


Post by: Asterios


 Kilkrazy wrote:


Trumpo won't manage to come close to what you want, he's just telling you a story you like hearing in order to get you to vote for him.

The people wrote the constitution to form a government that is limited by the constitution. The constitution limits the government's power. The government for example can't search people's houses without a warrant or prevent them practicing their religion. This applies to everyone within the purview of the government whatever citizenship they may hold.



of course not, but you avoid the question, what other candidate comes closer to what I want?

also you are wrong about the warrant too, look up rights of felons on probation and parole, no search warrants needed to search their places.

also the government has given the president the power to enforce its laws, which include keeping out illegals. he can use anything and everything to keep them out since it is upholding the law of the land. furthermore the constitution applies to only the people of the United States of America.

 Jihadin wrote:

We talking refugee asylum or actual immigration? Not aiming that directly at you Kil but for gawdsake clarify the subject with the rest of them. IIRC he Trump made that comment after Obama agreed to bring a huge number of Muslim Refugee's with barely to no vetting of those arriving in Europe.


people have a tendency to gloss over things that are said when something occurs. meanwhile I find it ironic that Obama was also trying to send money to another country so they could build a wall/fence to keep out said refugees.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 14:28:34


Post by: Kilkrazy


At the moment it seems that Trump wants to ban people for being a Muslim. It doesn't matter if they are asylum seekers, immigrants or temporary visitors like the Mayor of London.

Leaving aside the human rights angle, it isn't necessarily practical to "prove" someone is a Muslim who therefore must be banned.

So I am asking people if this is what they want to do.

People could give a valid answer to my question with something along the lines of, "No, I want to ban Muslims who were convicted murderers, had tax defaults over X value, or blah blah blah various conditions that realistically are deleterious and can be detected."


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 14:30:37


Post by: Asterios


 Kilkrazy wrote:
At the moment it seems that Trump wants to ban people for being a Muslim. It doesn't matter if they are asylum seekers, immigrants or temporary visitors like the Mayor of London.

Leaving aside the human rights angle, it isn't necessarily practical to "prove" someone is a Muslim who therefore must be banned.

So I am asking people if this is what they want to do.

People could give a valid answer to my question with something along the lines of, "No, I want to ban Muslims who were convicted murderers, had tax defaults over X value, or blah blah blah various conditions that realistically are deleterious and can be detected."


already said what i wanted, ban em all till they can be better vetted.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 14:32:22


Post by: Frazzled




Now we're on "when a hispanic woman gets deported, it's a big ruckus, but if a white woman does, no one cares".



Is there a relationship? The Truth is Out there!

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/06/01/jetblue_forbade_a_passenger_from_boarding_until_she_changed_her_too_short.html


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's rather different to banning all members of racial, religious or cultural group X from possible entry the USA, of course.

I don't think any of the candidates comes anywhere close to stopping illegal immigration. It's basically impossible to close all the borders and thoroughly vet everyone from a foreign country.

Trumpo has a fun narrative about making Mexico pay for a big wall, but it's impractical.


Congress banned Chinese people, anarchists and communists from entering the US in the past. We've also set immigration quotas for countries and regions numerous times in the past. If it was legal then why would it be illegal now? SCOTUS very rarely ever rules against established legal precedent.


equating communists with All Muslims= does not compute.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 14:34:37


Post by: Kilkrazy


Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
At the moment it seems that Trump wants to ban people for being a Muslim. It doesn't matter if they are asylum seekers, immigrants or temporary visitors like the Mayor of London.

Leaving aside the human rights angle, it isn't necessarily practical to "prove" someone is a Muslim who therefore must be banned.

So I am asking people if this is what they want to do.

People could give a valid answer to my question with something along the lines of, "No, I want to ban Muslims who were convicted murderers, had tax defaults over X value, or blah blah blah various conditions that realistically are deleterious and can be detected."


already said what i wanted, ban em all till they can be better vetted.


To confirm, you want to ban all Muslims.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 14:36:14


Post by: Frazzled


The Wiener Dog Party Platform #2 Rule:
*Ban all Cat People


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 14:37:14


Post by: Kanluwen


Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
At the moment it seems that Trump wants to ban people for being a Muslim. It doesn't matter if they are asylum seekers, immigrants or temporary visitors like the Mayor of London.

Leaving aside the human rights angle, it isn't necessarily practical to "prove" someone is a Muslim who therefore must be banned.

So I am asking people if this is what they want to do.

People could give a valid answer to my question with something along the lines of, "No, I want to ban Muslims who were convicted murderers, had tax defaults over X value, or blah blah blah various conditions that realistically are deleterious and can be detected."


already said what i wanted, ban em all till they can be better vetted.

Right, because "better vetting" solves all the issues.

Please. Stop reiterating talking points, actually do some friggin' research yourself and realize that there's a LOT of vetting going on when it comes to people being allowed in.
You know how you can tell that?

The fact that we have not had a major terrorist act from a foreign national in how many years?
Banning people from entering the country will not solve one of the major issues relating to jihadist related violence, which is US citizens being radicalized.

And quite frankly? You're more likely to be shot by some US citizen who got a gun legally and had an axe to grind than you are to be killed in an act of terror on US soil.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 14:39:21


Post by: Asterios


 Kilkrazy wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
At the moment it seems that Trump wants to ban people for being a Muslim. It doesn't matter if they are asylum seekers, immigrants or temporary visitors like the Mayor of London.

Leaving aside the human rights angle, it isn't necessarily practical to "prove" someone is a Muslim who therefore must be banned.

So I am asking people if this is what they want to do.

People could give a valid answer to my question with something along the lines of, "No, I want to ban Muslims who were convicted murderers, had tax defaults over X value, or blah blah blah various conditions that realistically are deleterious and can be detected."


already said what i wanted, ban em all till they can be better vetted.


To confirm, you want to ban all Muslims.


muslim, protestent, Catholic, Jewish, what have you, keep em out till better vetted, but more concerned with Muslim terrorists (not saying all Muslims are terrorists, but in America it seems all Terrorists have been Muslim as of late), since have heard of any Irish terrorists or the dreaded Jewish terrorist striking lately, but other then Muslims would also like to throw emphasis on banning any and all Catholic Priests too.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 14:41:00


Post by: Kilkrazy


Ban everyone?



Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 14:42:15


Post by: Kanluwen


Ugh.

The reason "all terrorists have been Muslim as of late" is because of the fact that only certain kinds of acts have been getting labeled as terrorism.

The Bundy crap was domestic terrorism and that was basically all white guys in a cabin, but not labeled as domestic terrorism by many news outlets.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 14:46:26


Post by: Asterios


 Kilkrazy wrote:
Ban everyone?






 Frazzled wrote:
The Wiener Dog Party Platform #2 Rule:
*Ban all Cat People


ooh my kind of party.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
At the moment it seems that Trump wants to ban people for being a Muslim. It doesn't matter if they are asylum seekers, immigrants or temporary visitors like the Mayor of London.

Leaving aside the human rights angle, it isn't necessarily practical to "prove" someone is a Muslim who therefore must be banned.

So I am asking people if this is what they want to do.

People could give a valid answer to my question with something along the lines of, "No, I want to ban Muslims who were convicted murderers, had tax defaults over X value, or blah blah blah various conditions that realistically are deleterious and can be detected."


already said what i wanted, ban em all till they can be better vetted.

Right, because "better vetting" solves all the issues.

Please. Stop reiterating talking points, actually do some friggin' research yourself and realize that there's a LOT of vetting going on when it comes to people being allowed in.
You know how you can tell that?

The fact that we have not had a major terrorist act from a foreign national in how many years?
Banning people from entering the country will not solve one of the major issues relating to jihadist related violence, which is US citizens being radicalized.

And quite frankly? You're more likely to be shot by some US citizen who got a gun legally and had an axe to grind than you are to be killed in an act of terror on US soil.


so guess you are going to say the Boston Marathon didn't happen? or the military recruitment office shooting in 2015? didn't happen? and those are the ones that happened from foreign nationals.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Ugh.

The reason "all terrorists have been Muslim as of late" is because of the fact that only certain kinds of acts have been getting labeled as terrorism.

The Bundy crap was domestic terrorism and that was basically all white guys in a cabin, but not labeled as domestic terrorism by many news outlets.


Bundy? you need to define your definition of terrorism.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 14:47:44


Post by: Frazzled


 Kilkrazy wrote:
Ban everyone?



Now here's something I can get behind. Don't discriminate, be mean to everyone!


so guess you are going to say the Boston Marathon didn't happen? or the military recruitment office shooting in 2015? didn't happen? and those are the ones that happened from foreign nationals.

San Bernardino as well.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 14:52:19


Post by: Asterios


 Frazzled wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Ban everyone?



Now here's something I can get behind. Don't discriminate, be mean to everyone!


so guess you are going to say the Boston Marathon didn't happen? or the military recruitment office shooting in 2015? didn't happen? and those are the ones that happened from foreign nationals.

San Bernardino as well.


San Bernardino was done by locals who committed to the beliefs, but technically think she was from outside of the country, and she might have been the ring leader, hard to call so went with definites.

but remember the guy my response is for thinks ted Bundy was a terrorist, me thinks he needs to check the definition of terrorist.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 14:57:05


Post by: Rosebuddy


Asterios wrote:

lets face it people go after illegal Mexicans and others from south of the border because it is easier to pick them out, but on the other hand there is also discrimination from both sides too, if a Hispanic woman in San Francisco (has a job and everything) is being deported for being here illegally there will be a big ruckus and furor over it and people being accused of being racist and bigoted and such, but now if it was a white European woman instead you wouldn't hear a peep from those same groups. (this actually happened too. barely got a one paragraph comment anywhere.)





People go after Mexicans and other people from Central and South America because they make for a convenient racial underclass. White Europeans are not as a group hounded by the authorities or hung up in media channels as some vast, amorphous threat to white American security, jobs and women.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 15:12:21


Post by: Asterios


also to make note I erred in saying all terrorists recently were Muslim when that is not true they have been Muslim and Islamic recently with Islamic being more prevalant as of late.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 15:20:06


Post by: Kanluwen


Asterios wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
At the moment it seems that Trump wants to ban people for being a Muslim. It doesn't matter if they are asylum seekers, immigrants or temporary visitors like the Mayor of London.

Leaving aside the human rights angle, it isn't necessarily practical to "prove" someone is a Muslim who therefore must be banned.

So I am asking people if this is what they want to do.

People could give a valid answer to my question with something along the lines of, "No, I want to ban Muslims who were convicted murderers, had tax defaults over X value, or blah blah blah various conditions that realistically are deleterious and can be detected."


already said what i wanted, ban em all till they can be better vetted.

Right, because "better vetting" solves all the issues.

Please. Stop reiterating talking points, actually do some friggin' research yourself and realize that there's a LOT of vetting going on when it comes to people being allowed in.
You know how you can tell that?

The fact that we have not had a major terrorist act from a foreign national in how many years?
Banning people from entering the country will not solve one of the major issues relating to jihadist related violence, which is US citizens being radicalized.

And quite frankly? You're more likely to be shot by some US citizen who got a gun legally and had an axe to grind than you are to be killed in an act of terror on US soil.


so guess you are going to say the Boston Marathon didn't happen? or the military recruitment office shooting in 2015? didn't happen? and those are the ones that happened from foreign nationals.

Question:
How many foreign nationals of Muslim faith come into the country every day?

So you can come up with two examples off the top of your head. That's two examples in how many years with how many people coming into the country?


 Kanluwen wrote:
Ugh.

The reason "all terrorists have been Muslim as of late" is because of the fact that only certain kinds of acts have been getting labeled as terrorism.

The Bundy crap was domestic terrorism and that was basically all white guys in a cabin, but not labeled as domestic terrorism by many news outlets.


Bundy? you need to define your definition of terrorism.

Do you actually know what the definition of terrorism is?

Terrorism and Organized Hate Crime Intelligence Gathering, Analysis, and Investigations 2nd Edition
The FBI defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
The U.S. Department of State defines terrrorism as "an activity, directed against persons involving violent acts or acts dangerous to human life which would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the U.S.; and is intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping."
The Department of Defense defines terrorism as "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."


There's three definitions used by US government agencies.

Cliven Bundy's Dildo Brigade definitely fall under the auspices of domestic terrorists. They took over Malheur, promised violence if the government evicted them, and generally continued to make threats and try to push a political agenda.

YOU might not agree, but you have no clue what in the world you're talking about.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 15:23:28


Post by: Frazzled




San Bernardino was done by locals who committed to the beliefs, but technically think she was from outside of the country, and she might have been the ring leader, hard to call so went with definites.

The wife was from Palestine, and not Palestine, Texas. There is now evidence they were part of a network that intended to shoot up freeways and attack nearby universities.


Cliven Bundy's Dildo Brigade definitely fall under the auspices of domestic terrorists.

Best phrase of the morning.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 15:33:47


Post by: whembly


State Department admits tampering with video of tough Fox News question
Spoiler:
Now here’s an interesting evolution: When the State Department was first pressed on why a tough question from Fox News correspondent James Rosen was missing from a Dec. 2, 2013, press briefing, a spokeswoman attributed the matter to a “glitch.” “There was a glitch in the State Department video,” said State’s Elizabeth Trudeau at a briefing in mid-May.

A different story issued today from the State Department’s podium. Asked about the situation, Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs John Kirby said that an internal probe into the matter had revealed that a “specific request was made to excise” the video.


Given the circumstances of the disappearance, that is not a shock.

To review the facts: In February 2013, Rosen posed a prescient question to then-State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland: Was the U.S. government engaged in “secret, bilateral” discussions with Iran? No, came the response from Nuland. By December of that year, rumors surfaced that such Iran-United States talks had indeed been ongoing. So Rosen, in a Dec. 2, 2013, session, asked then-State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki about it:

QUESTION: Is it the policy of the State Department, where the preservation or the secrecy of secret negotiations is concerned, to lie in order to achieve that goal?

MS. PSAKI: James, I think there are times where diplomacy needs privacy in order to progress. This is a good example of that. Obviously, we have made clear and laid out a number of details in recent weeks about discussions and about a bilateral channel that fed into the P5+1 negotiations, and we’ve answered questions on it, we’ve confirmed details. We’re happy to continue to do that, but clearly, this was an important component leading up to the agreement that was reached a week ago.

Fireworks!

As anyone following the current presidential campaign knows quite well, the Obama administration succeeded in getting a nuclear deal with Iran. It entered into force in January, and in recent months has kicked up a fair bit of dissent. In a piece published in the New York Times Magazine, David Samuels profiled Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communication Ben Rhodes and ripped the administration for laying out an “actively misleading” timeline for the deal:
The president set out the timeline himself in his speech announcing the nuclear deal on July 14, 2015: “Today, after two years of negotiations, the United States, together with our international partners, has achieved something that decades of animosity has not.” While the president’s statement was technically accurate — there had in fact been two years of formal negotiations leading up to the signing of the J.C.P.O.A. — it was also actively misleading, because the most meaningful part of the negotiations with Iran had begun in mid-2012, many months before [President Hassan] Rouhani and the “moderate” camp were chosen in an election among candidates handpicked by Iran’s supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

After Samuels’s story kicked up a Washington mediastorm, Rosen asked a colleague to check for the video of Psaki answering his question about diplomatic mendacity. The colleague came back with an eerie response: The exchange was gone from the videotape, replaced by a flash of white light. The gap was evident not only on the State Department website, but also on its YouTube page. State Department officials, in a series of briefings, struggled to explain the matter. Trudeau talked about a glitch but also noted that there was no evidence that this glitch had selectively attacked any other embarrassing moments from the press briefings. Kirby later expressed deep concern about the subject.

Today, Kirby brought the goods:
A portion of the State Department’s December 2nd, 2013 press briefing was missing from the video that we posted on our YouTube account and on our website. That missing portion covered a series of questions about U.S negotiations with Iran. When alerted to this, I immediately directed the video to be restored in its entirety with a full and complete copy that exists and had existed since the day of the briefing on the Defense Video and Imagery Distribution system website otherwise known as DIVIDS. I also verified that the full transcript of the briefing which we also post on our website was intact and had been so since the date of the briefing. I asked the office of the legal advisor to look at this including a look at any rules that we had in place. In so doing, they learned that a specific request was made to excise that portion of the briefing. We do not know who made the request to edit the video or why it was made. To my surprise, the Bureau of Public Affairs did not have in place any rules governing this type of action therefore we are taking immediate steps to craft appropriate protocols on this issue as we believe that deliberately removing a portion of the video was not and is not in keeping with the State Department’s commitment to transparency and public accountability. Specifically, we are going to make clear that all video and transcripts from daily press briefings will be immediately and permanently archived in their entirety. In the unlikely event, that narrow compelling circumstances require edits to be made such as the inadvertent release of privacy protected information, they will only be made with the expressed permission of the Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs and with an appropriate level of annotation and disclosure. I have communicated this new policy to my staff and it takes effect immediately.

Those are worthy commitments, for the future.

As for the past, more must be known — though it probably won’t. Followup questions to Kirby drilled in on the whodunnit aspect of the video disappearance. Would the department do more investigating to determine precisely how this happened? No, said Kirby, who noted that the individual who received the phone request for video elimination doesn’t remember “anything other than that the caller was passing on the request from somewhere else in the bureau.” Furthermore, said Kirby, “There were no rules in place to govern this sort of action, so while I believe it was an inappropriate step to take, I see little foundation for pressing forward with a formal investigation.” Spoken like a true bureaucrat.

Someone sought to upend government transparency at the State Department. This blog, accordingly, sees “massive foundation for pressing forward with a formal investigation.”

Update: From former State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki: “I had no knowledge of nor would I have approved of any form of editing or cutting my briefing transcript on any subject while at the State Department. I believe deeply in providing the press as much information on important issues as possible.”

And they couldn't determine who made that "specific request was made to excise that portion of the briefing.".

Man this administration has issues with those "youtube videos".



Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 15:53:18


Post by: Kilkrazy


OMG there's no way Obama is gonna get reelected after this!


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 16:27:37


Post by: Prestor Jon


 Kilkrazy wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's rather different to banning all members of racial, religious or cultural group X from possible entry the USA, of course.

I don't think any of the candidates comes anywhere close to stopping illegal immigration. It's basically impossible to close all the borders and thoroughly vet everyone from a foreign country.

Trumpo has a fun narrative about making Mexico pay for a big wall, but it's impractical.


Congress banned Chinese people, anarchists and communists from entering the US in the past. We've also set immigration quotas for countries and regions numerous times in the past. If it was legal then why would it be illegal now? SCOTUS very rarely ever rules against established legal precedent.


Do you want to ban all Muslims?


No, I personally think that position is ridiculous and most of Trump's immigration policy is laughable, grossly misleading and dangerous. I also know that we already have federal immigration laws on the books that specifically grant immigration officials the ability to bar any known or suspected terrorist from entry so there is no need to pass any additional laws to better protect us from terrorists trying to legally immigrate to the US.

However, if the President or Congress wanted to ban all Muslims they would have the power to do so, as evidenced by prior immigration laws that have been passed. We have previously banned immigration from specific countries and people holding specific beliefs, we've also set quotas strictly limitting the number of people allowed to legally immigrate to the US from specific nations or regions. I am not aware of any current laws that prohibit the ability for a current President or Congress to pass similar laws now or to provide grounds for SCOTUS to rule such immigration laws as unconstitutional.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 16:33:38


Post by: whembly


 Kilkrazy wrote:
OMG there's no way Obama is gonna get reelected after this!

ZOMG! Watch the Clinton (or Trump) administration do the same thing and go largely unscathed!


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 16:39:31


Post by: jmurph


 Frazzled wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Ban everyone?



Now here's something I can get behind. Don't discriminate, be mean to everyone!


This. If we could just get rid of all the *people* we wouldn't have all the problems. Look, I don't want to sound prejudiced, but 100% of all murders are committed by people. That's not all- every known rapist is, you guessed it, a person (and it is highly suspected even the unknown perps are also people). You can't deny the numbers- all crime is committed by people and every single terrorist has been a person. The solution is simple- keep out the people and crime will fall. The fact that our so called "leaders" refuse to address this and continue to pander to the people vote just demonstrates how broken our current system is.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 16:51:40


Post by: Deadnight


Asterios wrote:

muslim, protestent, Catholic, Jewish, what have you, keep em out till better vetted, but more concerned with Muslim terrorists (not saying all Muslims are terrorists, but in America it seems all Terrorists have been Muslim as of late), since have heard of any Irish terrorists or the dreaded Jewish terrorist striking lately, but other then Muslims would also like to throw emphasis on banning any and all Catholic Priests too.


Why are we banning Protestants and Catholics now?

Why are we banning the Irish and Italians?


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 17:36:28


Post by: Kovnik Obama


Asterios wrote:
[...]but other then Muslims would also like to throw emphasis on banning any and all Catholic Priests too.


What the holy frak? When's the last time a Catholic priest turned terrorist?


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 17:40:30


Post by: Steve steveson


Prestor Jon wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's rather different to banning all members of racial, religious or cultural group X from possible entry the USA, of course.

I don't think any of the candidates comes anywhere close to stopping illegal immigration. It's basically impossible to close all the borders and thoroughly vet everyone from a foreign country.

Trumpo has a fun narrative about making Mexico pay for a big wall, but it's impractical.


Congress banned Chinese people, anarchists and communists from entering the US in the past. We've also set immigration quotas for countries and regions numerous times in the past. If it was legal then why would it be illegal now? SCOTUS very rarely ever rules against established legal precedent.


Do you want to ban all Muslims?


No, I personally think that position is ridiculous and most of Trump's immigration policy is laughable, grossly misleading and dangerous. I also know that we already have federal immigration laws on the books that specifically grant immigration officials the ability to bar any known or suspected terrorist from entry so there is no need to pass any additional laws to better protect us from terrorists trying to legally immigrate to the US.

However, if the President or Congress wanted to ban all Muslims they would have the power to do so, as evidenced by prior immigration laws that have been passed. We have previously banned immigration from specific countries and people holding specific beliefs, we've also set quotas strictly limitting the number of people allowed to legally immigrate to the US from specific nations or regions. I am not aware of any current laws that prohibit the ability for a current President or Congress to pass similar laws now or to provide grounds for SCOTUS to rule such immigration laws as unconstitutional.


Let's be clear, legal or not there is no way the US is going to ban Mulims from entering the country. The question is not about IF it will happen, but if it is racist to say it should or not.

Why will it not happen? Because the backlash for the US would be huge. There are far to many countries with Muslim majorities or large minority's who would have to respond, including the UK, India and Saudi Arabia.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 17:47:56


Post by: Asterios


 Kanluwen wrote:
Asterios wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
At the moment it seems that Trump wants to ban people for being a Muslim. It doesn't matter if they are asylum seekers, immigrants or temporary visitors like the Mayor of London.

Leaving aside the human rights angle, it isn't necessarily practical to "prove" someone is a Muslim who therefore must be banned.

So I am asking people if this is what they want to do.

People could give a valid answer to my question with something along the lines of, "No, I want to ban Muslims who were convicted murderers, had tax defaults over X value, or blah blah blah various conditions that realistically are deleterious and can be detected."


already said what i wanted, ban em all till they can be better vetted.

Right, because "better vetting" solves all the issues.

Please. Stop reiterating talking points, actually do some friggin' research yourself and realize that there's a LOT of vetting going on when it comes to people being allowed in.
You know how you can tell that?

The fact that we have not had a major terrorist act from a foreign national in how many years?
Banning people from entering the country will not solve one of the major issues relating to jihadist related violence, which is US citizens being radicalized.

And quite frankly? You're more likely to be shot by some US citizen who got a gun legally and had an axe to grind than you are to be killed in an act of terror on US soil.


so guess you are going to say the Boston Marathon didn't happen? or the military recruitment office shooting in 2015? didn't happen? and those are the ones that happened from foreign nationals.

Question:
How many foreign nationals of Muslim faith come into the country every day?

So you can come up with two examples off the top of your head. That's two examples in how many years with how many people coming into the country?


and how many terrorists attacks in the US since then?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Ugh.

The reason "all terrorists have been Muslim as of late" is because of the fact that only certain kinds of acts have been getting labeled as terrorism.

The Bundy crap was domestic terrorism and that was basically all white guys in a cabin, but not labeled as domestic terrorism by many news outlets.


Bundy? you need to define your definition of terrorism.

Do you actually know what the definition of terrorism is?

Terrorism and Organized Hate Crime Intelligence Gathering, Analysis, and Investigations 2nd Edition
The FBI defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
The U.S. Department of State defines terrrorism as "an activity, directed against persons involving violent acts or acts dangerous to human life which would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the U.S.; and is intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping."
The Department of Defense defines terrorism as "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."


There's three definitions used by US government agencies.

Cliven Bundy's Dildo Brigade definitely fall under the auspices of domestic terrorists. They took over Malheur, promised violence if the government evicted them, and generally continued to make threats and try to push a political agenda.

YOU might not agree, but you have no clue what in the world you're talking about.


oh thought you meant Ted Bundy, but still lets break down your definition of terrorism shall we?

The FBI defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."


as it goes it was peaceful and a standoff, no one blew up things or went shooting people

The U.S. Department of State defines terrrorism as "an activity, directed against persons involving violent acts or acts dangerous to human life which would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the U.S.


was anyone killed by the group?no, was anyone killed by the cops?yes so are the cops the terrorists?did anyone feel threatened? no.

and is intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;


who were they trying to coerce?

or to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.


was someone kidnapped and or assassinated?

The Department of Defense defines terrorism as "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."


his stance was about not wanting to pay money, not political, not religious and not ideological

and for the finale, he was not charged nor convicted of Terrorist actions, so what you may presume is not the same thing as what is.

 Steve steveson wrote:


Let's be clear, legal or not there is no way the US is going to ban Mulims from entering the country. The question is not about IF it will happen, but if it is racist to say it should or not.

Why will it not happen? Because the backlash for the US would be huge. There are far to many countries with Muslim majorities or large minority's who would have to respond, including the UK, India and Saudi Arabia.


actually several European countries have already started banning them.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 17:58:35


Post by: d-usa


That post was so far removed from reality...


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 18:08:25


Post by: Steve steveson


Asterios wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:


Let's be clear, legal or not there is no way the US is going to ban Mulims from entering the country. The question is not about IF it will happen, but if it is racist to say it should or not.

Why will it not happen? Because the backlash for the US would be huge. There are far to many countries with Muslim majorities or large minority's who would have to respond, including the UK, India and Saudi Arabia.


actually several European countries have already started banning them.


No they haven't, and the European convention on human rights would make it illigal, and free movement laws would make it impossible. Some countries suggest they might restrict the number of Muslim refugees, but were very quickly told that was illegal. No countries in Europe have tried or want to try to ban Muslims.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 18:17:57


Post by: Asterios


 Steve steveson wrote:
Asterios wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:


Let's be clear, legal or not there is no way the US is going to ban Mulims from entering the country. The question is not about IF it will happen, but if it is racist to say it should or not.

Why will it not happen? Because the backlash for the US would be huge. There are far to many countries with Muslim majorities or large minority's who would have to respond, including the UK, India and Saudi Arabia.


actually several European countries have already started banning them.


No they haven't, and the European convention on human rights would make it illigal, and free movement laws would make it impossible. Some countries suggest they might restrict the number of Muslim refugees, but were very quickly told that was illegal. No countries in Europe have tried or want to try to ban Muslims.


http://www.thenation.com/article/european-countries-closing-their-borders-to-refugees-is-collective-punishment/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2015/11/syria_s_refugee_crisis_is_a_european_emergency_far_right_parties_are_rising.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/world/middleeast/united-nations-ban-ki-moon-syria-refugees.html?_r=0

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/09/slovenia-and-croatia-ban-the-transit-of-refugees

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/03/syria-war-urges-leaders-accept-refugees-160330092114353.html

nuff said


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 18:24:59


Post by: Kanluwen


Asterios wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
Asterios wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
At the moment it seems that Trump wants to ban people for being a Muslim. It doesn't matter if they are asylum seekers, immigrants or temporary visitors like the Mayor of London.

Leaving aside the human rights angle, it isn't necessarily practical to "prove" someone is a Muslim who therefore must be banned.

So I am asking people if this is what they want to do.

People could give a valid answer to my question with something along the lines of, "No, I want to ban Muslims who were convicted murderers, had tax defaults over X value, or blah blah blah various conditions that realistically are deleterious and can be detected."


already said what i wanted, ban em all till they can be better vetted.

Right, because "better vetting" solves all the issues.

Please. Stop reiterating talking points, actually do some friggin' research yourself and realize that there's a LOT of vetting going on when it comes to people being allowed in.
You know how you can tell that?

The fact that we have not had a major terrorist act from a foreign national in how many years?
Banning people from entering the country will not solve one of the major issues relating to jihadist related violence, which is US citizens being radicalized.

And quite frankly? You're more likely to be shot by some US citizen who got a gun legally and had an axe to grind than you are to be killed in an act of terror on US soil.


so guess you are going to say the Boston Marathon didn't happen? or the military recruitment office shooting in 2015? didn't happen? and those are the ones that happened from foreign nationals.

Question:
How many foreign nationals of Muslim faith come into the country every day?

So you can come up with two examples off the top of your head. That's two examples in how many years with how many people coming into the country?


and how many terrorists attacks in the US since then?

Since when?

There have been 20 attacks classed as terrorist acts in the United States since 2010. One of those(the Sony pictures hack timeframe) is a cyber attack.

Out of those 19 attacks which actually utilized violence or threats of violence, 8 can be directly linked to Islamic perpetrators/recently radicalized Islamic converts. One of those was an Iranian national in Mississippi making threats against a hospital and assaulting two sheriff's deputies.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Ugh.

The reason "all terrorists have been Muslim as of late" is because of the fact that only certain kinds of acts have been getting labeled as terrorism.

The Bundy crap was domestic terrorism and that was basically all white guys in a cabin, but not labeled as domestic terrorism by many news outlets.


Bundy? you need to define your definition of terrorism.

Do you actually know what the definition of terrorism is?

Terrorism and Organized Hate Crime Intelligence Gathering, Analysis, and Investigations 2nd Edition
The FBI defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
The U.S. Department of State defines terrrorism as "an activity, directed against persons involving violent acts or acts dangerous to human life which would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the U.S.; and is intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping."
The Department of Defense defines terrorism as "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."


There's three definitions used by US government agencies.

Cliven Bundy's Dildo Brigade definitely fall under the auspices of domestic terrorists. They took over Malheur, promised violence if the government evicted them, and generally continued to make threats and try to push a political agenda.

YOU might not agree, but you have no clue what in the world you're talking about.


oh thought you meant Ted Bundy, but still lets break down your definition of terrorism shall we?

The FBI defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."


as it goes it was peaceful and a standoff, no one blew up things or went shooting people

"Violence against property" was used, actually. They bulldozed the fences on the Malheur refuge that prevented the two dumbass ranchers who had set forest fires from "moving their herds".


The U.S. Department of State defines terrrorism as "an activity, directed against persons involving violent acts or acts dangerous to human life which would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the U.S.


was anyone killed by the group?no, was anyone killed by the cops?yes so are the cops the terrorists?did anyone feel threatened? no.

Just so we're clear:
The reason "anyone was killed by the cops" is because they were stupid enough to pull a gun on cops and because they kept utilizing rhetoric about how they would "never be taken alive". LEOs had every reason to believe that their lives were in genuine danger when some nutter who had been posting up video blogs about how everyone present was willing to die, etc etc yaddayadda heroic nonsense.

and is intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;


who were they trying to coerce?

Do you even know what was going on with Malheur?

They were trying pretty desperately to get the "citizens of a false government" around the country to raise up arms and join them.

or to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.


was someone kidnapped and or assassinated?

Do you know what the word "or" means?

When a government agency is breaking something down to the point you are, they would have organized it like this:
<Insert first text explaining the basics here>
(a)<Insert first subtext condition>
or
(b)<Insert second subtext condition>

etc etc as needed

The Department of Defense defines terrorism as "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."


his stance was about not wanting to pay money, not political, not religious and not ideological
You do realize that a large portion of the Dildo Brigade rhetoric absolutely was ideological and political, right? The stance about "not wanting to pay money" was because he refused to recognize the authority of the Bureau of Land Management.
Hell, there was even a bit of religious rhetoric in there claiming that Christians are "persecuted".

So yes: Absolutely 100% "political, religious, or ideological".

and for the finale, he was not charged nor convicted of Terrorist actions, so what you may presume is not the same thing as what is.

Not being charged or convicted of something does not equate to you not having done that thing.

What it does equate to is that likely the prosecutor wanted charges that would actually stick, and that they could use as a way to weed out jurors who would be biased.

In any regards, educate yourself before spouting off again.




Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 18:28:20


Post by: Steve steveson


Asterios wrote:
 Steve steveson wrote:
Asterios wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:


Let's be clear, legal or not there is no way the US is going to ban Mulims from entering the country. The question is not about IF it will happen, but if it is racist to say it should or not.

Why will it not happen? Because the backlash for the US would be huge. There are far to many countries with Muslim majorities or large minority's who would have to respond, including the UK, India and Saudi Arabia.


actually several European countries have already started banning them.


No they haven't, and the European convention on human rights would make it illigal, and free movement laws would make it impossible. Some countries suggest they might restrict the number of Muslim refugees, but were very quickly told that was illegal. No countries in Europe have tried or want to try to ban Muslims.


http://www.thenation.com/article/european-countries-closing-their-borders-to-refugees-is-collective-punishment/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2015/11/syria_s_refugee_crisis_is_a_european_emergency_far_right_parties_are_rising.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/world/middleeast/united-nations-ban-ki-moon-syria-refugees.html?_r=0

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/09/slovenia-and-croatia-ban-the-transit-of-refugees

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/03/syria-war-urges-leaders-accept-refugees-160330092114353.html

nuff said


No, those links say nothing about European countries banning Muslims. At worst they are about some countries trying to restrict the number of refugees. Not the same thing at all.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 18:29:52


Post by: Asterios


 Steve steveson wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Steve steveson wrote:
Asterios wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:


Let's be clear, legal or not there is no way the US is going to ban Mulims from entering the country. The question is not about IF it will happen, but if it is racist to say it should or not.

Why will it not happen? Because the backlash for the US would be huge. There are far to many countries with Muslim majorities or large minority's who would have to respond, including the UK, India and Saudi Arabia.


actually several European countries have already started banning them.


No they haven't, and the European convention on human rights would make it illigal, and free movement laws would make it impossible. Some countries suggest they might restrict the number of Muslim refugees, but were very quickly told that was illegal. No countries in Europe have tried or want to try to ban Muslims.


http://www.thenation.com/article/european-countries-closing-their-borders-to-refugees-is-collective-punishment/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2015/11/syria_s_refugee_crisis_is_a_european_emergency_far_right_parties_are_rising.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/world/middleeast/united-nations-ban-ki-moon-syria-refugees.html?_r=0

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/09/slovenia-and-croatia-ban-the-transit-of-refugees

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/03/syria-war-urges-leaders-accept-refugees-160330092114353.html

nuff said


No, those links say nothing about European countries banning Muslims. They are all about some countries trying to restrict the number of refugees. Not the same thing at all.


refugees who are Muslim.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 18:33:50


Post by: Steve steveson


No, not all of them are, and their religion is incidental anyway. They are not banning Muslims, which is what you said. They are trying to restrict the number of refugees, some of who happen to be Muslim. Totally different things.

Some of those are just about restrict the movement of refugees once they are in the EU.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 18:38:35


Post by: Asterios


 Kanluwen wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
Asterios wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
At the moment it seems that Trump wants to ban people for being a Muslim. It doesn't matter if they are asylum seekers, immigrants or temporary visitors like the Mayor of London.

Leaving aside the human rights angle, it isn't necessarily practical to "prove" someone is a Muslim who therefore must be banned.

So I am asking people if this is what they want to do.

People could give a valid answer to my question with something along the lines of, "No, I want to ban Muslims who were convicted murderers, had tax defaults over X value, or blah blah blah various conditions that realistically are deleterious and can be detected."


already said what i wanted, ban em all till they can be better vetted.

Right, because "better vetting" solves all the issues.

Please. Stop reiterating talking points, actually do some friggin' research yourself and realize that there's a LOT of vetting going on when it comes to people being allowed in.
You know how you can tell that?

The fact that we have not had a major terrorist act from a foreign national in how many years?
Banning people from entering the country will not solve one of the major issues relating to jihadist related violence, which is US citizens being radicalized.

And quite frankly? You're more likely to be shot by some US citizen who got a gun legally and had an axe to grind than you are to be killed in an act of terror on US soil.


so guess you are going to say the Boston Marathon didn't happen? or the military recruitment office shooting in 2015? didn't happen? and those are the ones that happened from foreign nationals.

Question:
How many foreign nationals of Muslim faith come into the country every day?

So you can come up with two examples off the top of your head. That's two examples in how many years with how many people coming into the country?


and how many terrorists attacks in the US since then?

Since when?

There have been 20 attacks classed as terrorist acts in the United States since 2010. One of those(the Sony pictures hack timeframe) is a cyber attack.

Out of those 19 attacks which actually utilized violence or threats of violence, 8 can be directly linked to Islamic perpetrators/recently radicalized Islamic converts. One of those was an Iranian national in Mississippi making threats against a hospital and assaulting two sheriff's deputies.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Ugh.

The reason "all terrorists have been Muslim as of late" is because of the fact that only certain kinds of acts have been getting labeled as terrorism.

The Bundy crap was domestic terrorism and that was basically all white guys in a cabin, but not labeled as domestic terrorism by many news outlets.


Bundy? you need to define your definition of terrorism.

Do you actually know what the definition of terrorism is?

Terrorism and Organized Hate Crime Intelligence Gathering, Analysis, and Investigations 2nd Edition
The FBI defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
The U.S. Department of State defines terrrorism as "an activity, directed against persons involving violent acts or acts dangerous to human life which would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the U.S.; and is intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping."
The Department of Defense defines terrorism as "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."


There's three definitions used by US government agencies.

Cliven Bundy's Dildo Brigade definitely fall under the auspices of domestic terrorists. They took over Malheur, promised violence if the government evicted them, and generally continued to make threats and try to push a political agenda.

YOU might not agree, but you have no clue what in the world you're talking about.


oh thought you meant Ted Bundy, but still lets break down your definition of terrorism shall we?

The FBI defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."


as it goes it was peaceful and a standoff, no one blew up things or went shooting people

"Violence against property" was used, actually. They bulldozed the fences on the Malheur refuge that prevented the two dumbass ranchers who had set forest fires from "moving their herds".


The U.S. Department of State defines terrrorism as "an activity, directed against persons involving violent acts or acts dangerous to human life which would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the U.S.


was anyone killed by the group?no, was anyone killed by the cops?yes so are the cops the terrorists?did anyone feel threatened? no.

Just so we're clear:
The reason "anyone was killed by the cops" is because they were stupid enough to pull a gun on cops and because they kept utilizing rhetoric about how they would "never be taken alive". LEOs had every reason to believe that their lives were in genuine danger when some nutter who had been posting up video blogs about how everyone present was willing to die, etc etc yaddayadda heroic nonsense.

and is intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;


who were they trying to coerce?

Do you even know what was going on with Malheur?

They were trying pretty desperately to get the "citizens of a false government" around the country to raise up arms and join them.

or to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.


was someone kidnapped and or assassinated?



etc etc as needed

The Department of Defense defines terrorism as "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."


his stance was about not wanting to pay money, not political, not religious and not ideological
You do realize that a large portion of the Dildo Brigade rhetoric absolutely was ideological and political, right? The stance about "not wanting to pay money" was because he refused to recognize the authority of the Bureau of Land Management.
Hell, there was even a bit of religious rhetoric in there claiming that Christians are "persecuted".

So yes: Absolutely 100% "political, religious, or ideological".

and for the finale, he was not charged nor convicted of Terrorist actions, so what you may presume is not the same thing as what is.

Not being charged or convicted of something does not equate to you not having done that thing.

What it does equate to is that likely the prosecutor wanted charges that would actually stick, and that they could use as a way to weed out jurors who would be biased.

In any regards, educate yourself before spouting off again.


and I repeat if any of those laws accounted for him they would have used them against them, since the government is all big about charging terrorism, hell if you threaten someone you can be charged with Terrorist threats. and yet that group was not charged, the only fatality that happened occurred during a traffic stop. where Bundy did give up his firearms in fact his whole crew did except for two and there is debate on who fired first.

as too the Islamic terrorists attacks if you bothered reading my posts, several posts up, you would have seen I said that Islamic attacks have been more prevalant of late, furthermorethe call to block muslims is from blocking the muslim refugees who have already had terrorists sneak in and attack Paris itself and not talking about those videos in the other discussions but actual terrorists attacks including one stopped by US soldiers on vacation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Steve steveson wrote:
No, not all of them are, and their religion is incidental anyway. They are not banning Muslims, which is what you said. They are trying to restrict the number of refugees, some of who happen to be Muslim. Totally different things.

Some of those are just about restrict the movement of refugees once they are in the EU.


thats why the UN is finding it hard to get some countries to take them. restricting means limiting, right now some countries in Europe are blocking them.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 18:43:06


Post by: Steve steveson


So you agree some countries limiting the number of refugees is not the same as European countries banning Muslims?


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 18:44:09


Post by: Asterios


 Steve steveson wrote:
So you agree some countries limiting the number of refugees is not the same as European countries banning Muslims?


I didn't say all European countries were, just some of them are not allowing the muslim refugees in.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 18:47:24


Post by: Steve steveson


No, you said some countries are banning Muslims, (which is not true) in response to me saying that the US could not get away with banning Muslims. I didn't say you said all European countries are doing anything.

This argument is getting silly. Your twisting and turning to make yourself look right. No country in the EU has or wants to ban any religious group. The US will not be able to either.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 18:54:11


Post by: Asterios


 Steve steveson wrote:
No, you said some countries are banning Muslims, (which is not true) in response to me saying that the US could not get away with banning Muslims. I didn't say you said all European countries are doing anything.

This argument is getting silly. Your twisting and turning to make yourself look right. No country in the EU has or wants to ban any religious group. The US will not be able to either.


the US can ban people from Muslim countries, easy to do and within the law.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 19:03:42


Post by: d-usa


Every day I feel dumber for having read this thread. I think the amount of verbal twisting and circular logic could actually out-trump Trump. I see why he would vote for him.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 19:18:52


Post by: dethork


So, how many people are taking Trump's statements at face value, rather than as hyperbole to drive coverage and to dictate the conversation (holding initiative), coupled with asking high and regular everyday virtue signalling? Which seques into, if people are taking everything at face value, are they irrational or likewise virtue signalling?

I think Trump is saying outrageous things primarily to connect with his base voters on an emotional level (I hear what you are saying and acknowledge your interests) and giving him lots of room to moderate within - letting him compromise whilst still being able to appease his base.

Example:
Trump: "I'm gonna ban all Mohammedans from coming into the US lest they use massive cannons to shoot down the walls of Washington DC and rename it with some bastardized Turkic version of "the City"!!!!"

People who would actually vote for Trump: "Look! A candidate who is willing to put the words "Islamic" and "Terrorism" together in the same sentence! We've been saying this for years! He actually listens to us!!!!"

People who wouldn't have voted for Trump anyway: "Errmagherrd!!! I can't believe he just said that! It's Twenty Sixteeeen! I can't even. Really. Wow. I puked in my mouth a little. I need to change my underpants because I defecated in them like an incontinent toddler. I can't even. Wow."

White House Spokeswoman Zofiya Zbrechniewskichenskowicz, former Slovenian supermodel: [read the following in a sexy accent] "President Trump would like to announce that at this time the United States will not be taking any refugees from the Middle East. Stricter protocols are being introduced by the Department of State to ensure that all visa petitioners are properly vetted before being granted immigrant and non-immigrant visas. The construction start date on the border wall has been postponed until next year though Congress has agreed to increase funding for the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Department of Education funding has been withheld from three "Sanctuary Cities". The Mexican Government has agreed to increase patrols on their side of the border. American relief funds to Mexico will continue throughout 2017."


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 19:21:46


Post by: Frazzled


I generally take dictators and terrorists at their word.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 19:23:05


Post by: Asterios


dethork wrote:

White House Spokeswoman Zofiya Zbrechniewskichenskowicz, former Slovenian supermodel: [read the following in a sexy accent] "President Trump would like to announce that at this time the United States will not be taking any refugees from the Middle East. Stricter protocols are being introduced by the Department of State to ensure that all visa petitioners are properly vetted before being granted immigrant and non-immigrant visas. The construction start date on the border wall has been postponed until next year though Congress has agreed to increase funding for the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Department of Education funding has been withheld from three "Sanctuary Cities". The Mexican Government has agreed to increase patrols on their side of the border. American relief funds to Mexico will continue throughout 2017."


oh how I wish this would happen, but reality wise, maybe not, i'm not voting for Trump because of what hes saying, i'm voting for Trump because I know what Clinton would do.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 19:31:39


Post by: dethork


 Frazzled wrote:
I generally take dictators and terrorists at their word.


That's generally a good policy. Even if you are wrong, the additional caution didn't cost as much as being lax would have. I take it you do support banning Muslims from entering the US, then? I respect your reasoning, but personally think that we can have decent safety standards without an absolute ban.

Even with expansions on Executive power, I don't think we've gone quite to dictatorship levels. Trump has done much to discredit the media, and without a compliant media a dictatorship has little chance. Perhaps if the next president (Sanders, Biden, or Trump) does overstep his bounds, this time if Congress tries to control the purse strings (aka "shutting down the government") perhaps people won't listen to the media poo-flinging.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 19:33:32


Post by: Frazzled


"I take it you do support banning Muslims from entering the US"
I view any agent who supports that as committing Treason under the Constitution of the United States. Is that clear enough?

Trump will be a dictator. He gives off all the hallmarks of a Latin American strong man.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 19:35:21


Post by: Asterios


 Frazzled wrote:
"I take it you do support banning Muslims from entering the US"
I view any agent who supports that as committing Treason under the Constitution of the United States. Is that clear enough?


if they are not citizens of the United States it is not treason of the Constitution.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 19:37:39


Post by: Prestor Jon


 Steve steveson wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's rather different to banning all members of racial, religious or cultural group X from possible entry the USA, of course.

I don't think any of the candidates comes anywhere close to stopping illegal immigration. It's basically impossible to close all the borders and thoroughly vet everyone from a foreign country.

Trumpo has a fun narrative about making Mexico pay for a big wall, but it's impractical.


Congress banned Chinese people, anarchists and communists from entering the US in the past. We've also set immigration quotas for countries and regions numerous times in the past. If it was legal then why would it be illegal now? SCOTUS very rarely ever rules against established legal precedent.


Do you want to ban all Muslims?


No, I personally think that position is ridiculous and most of Trump's immigration policy is laughable, grossly misleading and dangerous. I also know that we already have federal immigration laws on the books that specifically grant immigration officials the ability to bar any known or suspected terrorist from entry so there is no need to pass any additional laws to better protect us from terrorists trying to legally immigrate to the US.

However, if the President or Congress wanted to ban all Muslims they would have the power to do so, as evidenced by prior immigration laws that have been passed. We have previously banned immigration from specific countries and people holding specific beliefs, we've also set quotas strictly limitting the number of people allowed to legally immigrate to the US from specific nations or regions. I am not aware of any current laws that prohibit the ability for a current President or Congress to pass similar laws now or to provide grounds for SCOTUS to rule such immigration laws as unconstitutional.


Let's be clear, legal or not there is no way the US is going to ban Mulims from entering the country. The question is not about IF it will happen, but if it is racist to say it should or not.

Why will it not happen? Because the backlash for the US would be huge. There are far to many countries with Muslim majorities or large minority's who would have to respond, including the UK, India and Saudi Arabia.


The argument was put forth that the US couldn't ban Muslims from immigrating to the US because it was unconstitutional. Clearly that is not the case as the US has banned groups of people from immigrating based upon personal beliefs multiple times in the past.

If Trump gets elected president and he still wants to ban Muslims from entering the country it would be theoretically possible for him to do so. It is also theoretically possible for Congress to do so. The argument was never about the likelihood of it happening it was about the legality of it.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 19:40:01


Post by: whembly


 Frazzled wrote:
I generally take dictators and terrorists at their word.

So you believe Hillary Clinton would institute a program similar to Australia's Gun Confiscation?


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 19:41:57


Post by: Tannhauser42


Asterios wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
"I take it you do support banning Muslims from entering the US"
I view any agent who supports that as committing Treason under the Constitution of the United States. Is that clear enough?


if they are not citizens of the United States it is not treason of the Constitution.


Take a good long look at the First Amendment. Then look at it again. And again. And keep looking at until the words "Congress shall make no law... " finally sink in.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 19:46:44


Post by: Asterios


 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
"I take it you do support banning Muslims from entering the US"
I view any agent who supports that as committing Treason under the Constitution of the United States. Is that clear enough?


if they are not citizens of the United States it is not treason of the Constitution.


Take a good long look at the First Amendment. Then look at it again. And again. And keep looking at until the words "Congress shall make no law... " finally sink in.


take a long hard look at the Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


and let that sink in, notice it does not say we the people of the world, but we the people of the United States.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 19:50:51


Post by: Tannhauser42


Which provides no exception at all to the words "Congress shall make no law".

Until this day, I never believed in using the Ignore function I always believed that everyone, no matter how disagreeable, still had at least something productive and useful to contribute. Until today.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 19:56:19


Post by: Frazzled


Asterios wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
"I take it you do support banning Muslims from entering the US"
I view any agent who supports that as committing Treason under the Constitution of the United States. Is that clear enough?


if they are not citizens of the United States it is not treason of the Constitution.


Treason against the United States by violating its Amendments.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 19:56:38


Post by: Asterios


 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Which provides no exception at all to the words "Congress shall make no law".

Until this day, I never believed in using the Ignore function I always believed that everyone, no matter how disagreeable, still had at least something productive and useful to contribute. Until today.


yes Congress shall make no law that infringes on a citizen of the United States from practicing religion, i'm not against Muslims or Islamics who are Citizens of this country.

thanks too Islamaphobin:




but I do believe we need to better vet immigrants coming to this country, and even enforce our own Immigration laws.

just because you do not realize our constitution has no weight or control on people outside of it, is not my fault, the constitution was created for the people of the United States, not the world.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 20:00:10


Post by: whembly


...and trying to change the conversation.

This site is neato:
Ideological Perceptions of the 2016 Presidential Candidates
Spoiler:
Below, we use Aldrich-McKelvey scaling (see here and here for background) to analyze voters’ ideological perceptions of the 2016 presidential candidates and other political figures. The 2016 pilot study of the American National Election Study asked respondents to place themselves and each of these figures on a seven-point ideological scale ranging from “extremely liberal” to “extremely conservative.” The Aldrich-McKelvey scaling procedure allows us to recover bias-corrected estimates of the respondents and candidates on the underlying ideological dimension.

The estimated scores (plotted below) show that three Democratic figures (the Democratic Party, President Obama, and Secretary Clinton) are ideologically clustered together. Clinton is a bit closer to the center than the other two, but not by much. On the other hand, there is considerable heterogeneity in ideological perceptions of the four Republican stimuli: Senator Rubio, Donald Trump, the Republican Party, Senator Cruz. It’s probably not surprising that Rubio is perceived to be the most moderate and Cruz is perceived to be the most conservative of the four.

What is noteworthy is that Trump is placed at nearly the same spot as Rubio. Trump, however, has the the greatest amount of uncertainty associated with his ideological score (as a technical note, we estimate 95% confidence intervals for the Aldrich-McKelvey scores using 1,000 bootstrap replications, as described in Chapter 3 of our book on estimating spatial models).

This is equivalent to saying that respondents differ the most in where they place Trump on the ideological scale. The width of Trump’s confidence interval is about twice that of Clinton’s, for instance. This uncertainty could be a factor in the 2016 race, as some political science research suggests that voters reward candidate ambiguity (see also here).

We wondered if voter uncertainty about Trump’s ideological position was being driven by a divide among self-identified conservative respondents; that is, between those who embrace Trump and believe he’s a conservative, and those (e.g., #NeverTrumpers) who doubt Trump’s conservative credentials. To look into this possibility, we plotted the mean placements of Trump and Clinton by respondents’ ideological self-identifications. “1” indicates extremely liberal, “2” indicates liberal, and so on until “7” for extremely conservative. Respondents are sorted in this way on on the vertical axis of the graph below.

For each ideological category of respondents, mean placements of Clinton and Trump are shown along the same seven-point liberal-conservative scale on the horizontal axis. For example, the most conservative respondents (self-identified “7”‘s or extremely conservative) place Clinton furthest to the left. The gray bars represent variation in the corresponding group’s ideological placements of Clinton and Trump.

Interesting, across the ideological categories, respondents are pretty evenly uncertain about Trump’s position on the liberal-conservative scale. On the whole, self-identified conservatives do view Trump as somewhat more moderate than do self-identified liberals (evidence of what is known as interpersonal incomparability or differential item-functioning). But, it is self-identified moderates who place Trump closest to the center (and have the least variation in their Trump placements).



Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 20:00:43


Post by: jreilly89


Ah yes, how could we forget? "Bring me your tired, your poor, your hungry, but no Muslims"


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 20:01:20


Post by: Frazzled


Asterios wrote:
 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
"I take it you do support banning Muslims from entering the US"
I view any agent who supports that as committing Treason under the Constitution of the United States. Is that clear enough?


if they are not citizens of the United States it is not treason of the Constitution.


Take a good long look at the First Amendment. Then look at it again. And again. And keep looking at until the words "Congress shall make no law... " finally sink in.


take a long hard look at the Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


and let that sink in, notice it does not say we the people of the world, but we the people of the United States.


The Preamble holds absolutely no force of law. Sorry, thats pretty basic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 jreilly89 wrote:
Ah yes, how could we forget? "Bring me your tired, your poor, your hungry, but no Muslims"


Also no Cat People.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 20:02:35


Post by: Asterios


 jreilly89 wrote:
Ah yes, how could we forget? "Bring me your tired, your poor, your hungry, but no Muslims"


wouldn't be the first time this country has kept out specific groups before.

 Frazzled wrote:


The Preamble holds absolutely no force of law. Sorry, thats pretty basic.


the Preamble sets what the constitution is about and for.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 20:03:14


Post by: Frazzled


And we evolved. We used to have slaves too.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 20:06:24


Post by: Asterios


 Frazzled wrote:
And we evolved. We used to have slaves too.


Thats why this Country is not bringing in any Syrian Refugees? Obama wants to but Congress has said no and so it is not done.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 20:13:15


Post by: Jihadin


 jreilly89 wrote:
Ah yes, how could we forget? "Bring me your tired, your poor, your hungry, but no Muslims"


Its a poem. Yes its engraved on the statue. It is by no means a law. Also lets compare the time frame of that time to this time. Two major animals

The title of the poem and the first two lines refer to the Colossus of Rhodes, which was one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. The poem talks about the millions of immigrants who came to the United States (many of them through Ellis Island at the port of New York).

The "air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame" refers to New York City and Brooklyn, which were consolidated into one unit in 1898, 15 years after the poem was written.



Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 20:13:29


Post by: Frazzled


Thats why this Country is not bringing in any Syrian Refugees? Obama wants to but Congress has said no and so it is not done.


They must have because my church has some in Austin. I've met them. I've broke bread with them. What the hell planet are you on?


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 20:14:12


Post by: NuggzTheNinja


Asterios wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
And we evolved. We used to have slaves too.


Thats why this Country is not bringing in any Syrian Refugees? Obama wants to but Congress has said no and so it is not done.


Given the atrocities that Islamic migrants have visited upon Europe, hopefully this continues to be the case.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 20:14:26


Post by: d-usa


Is there a high score for "most factually incorrect posts" per day/week/month?


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 20:14:28


Post by: jreilly89


Asterios wrote:
 jreilly89 wrote:
Ah yes, how could we forget? "Bring me your tired, your poor, your hungry, but no Muslims"


wouldn't be the first time this country has kept out specific groups before.



So it's okay to keep Muslims out, but if we tried to do that to Christians, it's religious persecution, right?


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 20:15:04


Post by: Frazzled


Asterios wrote:
 jreilly89 wrote:
Ah yes, how could we forget? "Bring me your tired, your poor, your hungry, but no Muslims"


wouldn't be the first time this country has kept out specific groups before.

 Frazzled wrote:


The Preamble holds absolutely no force of law. Sorry, thats pretty basic.


the Preamble sets what the constitution is about and for.


And it holds NO FORCE OF LAW. Thats settled case law.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 d-usa wrote:
Is there a high score for "most factually incorrect posts" per day/week/month?


No one can come close to my record, set in 2012. Don't even think about it!


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 20:16:25


Post by: Asterios


 Frazzled wrote:
Thats why this Country is not bringing in any Syrian Refugees? Obama wants to but Congress has said no and so it is not done.


They must have because my church has some in Austin. I've met them. I've broke bread with them. What the hell planet are you on?


and there are illegal immigrants in this country, does not make them legal?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Frazzled wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 jreilly89 wrote:
Ah yes, how could we forget? "Bring me your tired, your poor, your hungry, but no Muslims"


wouldn't be the first time this country has kept out specific groups before.

 Frazzled wrote:


The Preamble holds absolutely no force of law. Sorry, thats pretty basic.


the Preamble sets what the constitution is about and for.


And it holds NO FORCE OF LAW. Thats settled case law.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 d-usa wrote:
Is there a high score for "most factually incorrect posts" per day/week/month?


No one can come close to my record, set in 2012. Don't even think about it!


no what is settled is that when the Constitution refers to the People it refers to the Citizens of the United States, you notice when immigration law is enforced, those who entered this country illegally are deported.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 jreilly89 wrote:
Ah yes, how could we forget? "Bring me your tired, your poor, your hungry, but no Muslims"


wouldn't be the first time this country has kept out specific groups before.



So it's okay to keep Muslims out, but if we tried to do that to Christians, it's religious persecution, right?


if they are a threat to this country then I vote keep them out, I have already said i'm all for keeping Catholic Priests out of this country.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 20:18:57


Post by: d-usa


How many wrong posts does someone have to make for everyone to use the ignore function?


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 20:21:17


Post by: whembly


<--- stubborn mule...

Looks like Paul Ryan endorses Trump now...

le sigh...


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 20:22:02


Post by: kronk


This thread is a mess and you should all feel bad.

I'm going home and getting hammered.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 20:22:49


Post by: jreilly89


Asterios wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 jreilly89 wrote:
Ah yes, how could we forget? "Bring me your tired, your poor, your hungry, but no Muslims"


wouldn't be the first time this country has kept out specific groups before.



So it's okay to keep Muslims out, but if we tried to do that to Christians, it's religious persecution, right?


if they are a threat to this country then I vote keep them out, I have already said i'm all for keeping Catholic Priests out of this country.


Something something slippery slope. From NOFX's "Re-gaining Unconsciousness"

First they put away the dealers,
keep our kids safe and off the street.
Then they put away the prostitutes,
keep married men cloistered at home.

Then they shooed away the bums,
then they beat and bashed the queers,
turned away asylum-seekers,
fed us suspicions and fears.
We didn't raise our voice,
we didn't make a fuss.
It's funny there was no one left to notice
when they came for us.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 20:23:13


Post by: Frazzled


 d-usa wrote:
How many wrong posts does someone have to make for everyone to use the ignore function?

Bad idea. If you disagree with someone argue the point, wrestle the ideas. Thats how its supposed to work. Ignoring them leads to wishing to ban them. Unless they don't like TexMex in which case they are witches and need to be thrown into the river immediately.


and there are illegal immigrants in this country, does not make them legal?

This doesn't relate to my statement. You said there aren't Syrian refugees here, but there are.

Also Syrian refugees does not equal all persons of the Islamic faith (after all there are Christian Syrians, and Muslims from Malaysia are not Syrian).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 kronk wrote:
This thread is a mess and you should all feel bad.

I'm going home and getting hammered.


Amateur. Thats was what breakfast is for.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 20:23:53


Post by: whembly


 kronk wrote:
This thread is a mess and you should all feel bad.

I'm going home and getting hammered.

But... you said the "joke is on me" for not having any beer!

Spoiler:
Oh! you didn't say anything about bourbon!
<plugging in kronk's address in my Waze navigator>


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 20:24:07


Post by: d-usa


 kronk wrote:
This thread is a mess and you should all feel bad.


At this point it only serves to remind us all that there is no good reason to keep the OT section around, especially since "geek media" was split off a short while ago.

Hell, at this point it would be a favor towards me to ban me for the words I am saying as a facedesk after every new post.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 20:27:20


Post by: Minx


 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Given the atrocities that Islamic migrants have visited upon Europe, hopefully this continues to be the case.


I am currently living in Europe and must've missed all these atrocities. Care to elaborate?


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 20:30:38


Post by: Asterios


 Frazzled wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
How many wrong posts does someone have to make for everyone to use the ignore function?

Bad idea. If you disagree with someone argue the point, wrestle the ideas. Thats how its supposed to work. Ignoring them leads to wishing to ban them. Unless they don't like TexMex in which case they are witches and need to be thrown into the river immediately.


and there are illegal immigrants in this country, does not make them legal?

This doesn't relate to my statement. You said there aren't Syrian refugees here, but there are.

Also Syrian refugees does not equal all persons of the Islamic faith (after all there are Christian Syrians, and Muslims from Malaysia are not Syrian).


no I said Congress would not allow Obama to bring Syrian Refugees here. just like the law does not allow immigrants to come to this country illegally, yet here they are.

 Minx wrote:
 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Given the atrocities that Islamic migrants have visited upon Europe, hopefully this continues to be the case.


I am currently living in Europe and must've missed all these atrocities. Care to elaborate?


don't tell that too the french people who died during the recent Terrorist attack caused by a couple of those "Refugees" albeit they have not noticed with their regular rounds of rioting?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/11/17/were-syrian-refugees-involved-in-the-paris-attacks-what-we-know-and-dont-know/

also this hit close to home for me:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/us/terror-charges-refugees/


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 20:33:02


Post by: Frazzled


But he brought them here. Again, I literally know some.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 20:36:03


Post by: NuggzTheNinja


 Minx wrote:
 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Given the atrocities that Islamic migrants have visited upon Europe, hopefully this continues to be the case.


I am currently living in Europe and must've missed all these atrocities. Care to elaborate?


It's been all over the news...how have you missed it?

http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/cologne-is-every-day-europes-rape-epidemic/news-story/e2e618e17ad4400b5ed65045e65e141d

26 women sexually assaulted at music festival...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/world/europe/darmstadt-germany-migrants-assaults.html?_r=0

Mass rape attack on New Year's Eve...

http://nypost.com/2016/01/10/germans-slam-rapefugees-in-wake-of-mass-sexual-attack/



Have you really been missing this, or are you intentionally ignoring the evidence in the name of multiculturalism?


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 20:40:16


Post by: Asterios


 Frazzled wrote:
But he brought them here. Again, I literally know some.


then they got in before the stop and they might be in danger of being deported with the current Sting Obama has initiated to take place this month or next I think? (but that is mostly for those coming from far down south.)


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 20:43:22


Post by: Frazzled


Sting? They have legal documentation. I don't know what sting you are referring to.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 20:46:20


Post by: Kilkrazy


 Frazzled wrote:
I generally take dictators and terrorists at their word.


Trump's done all kinds of weird gak in his "career" so far.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 20:48:06


Post by: Asterios


 Frazzled wrote:
Sting? They have legal documentation. I don't know what sting you are referring to.


then what kind of Visa did they enter the country under?


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 20:54:34


Post by: whembly


Asterios wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Sting? They have legal documentation. I don't know what sting you are referring to.


then what kind of Visa did they enter the country under?

Asterios... there's an existing Refugee program. Think of it as a different version of political asylum.

You and I argued that the President has statutory authority to preventing immigrants into the US?

Conversely, the President (and certain administration officials) has authority granting aliens immigration privileges.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 20:59:19


Post by: Asterios


 whembly wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Sting? They have legal documentation. I don't know what sting you are referring to.


then what kind of Visa did they enter the country under?

Asterios... there's an existing Refugee program. Think of it as a different version of political asylum.

You and I argued that the President has statutory authority to preventing immigrants into the US?

Conversely, the President (and certain administration officials) has authority granting aliens immigration privileges.


and you said they were here legally which would indicate you know what kind of Visa they entered the country under?

reason i'm asking is a Church near me which was housing allegedly legal refugees from "Columbia" I think? just got raided by ICE 2 weeks ago and it turns out they were not here legally.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 21:01:03


Post by: dethork


 Frazzled wrote:
"I take it you do support banning Muslims from entering the US"
I view any agent who supports that as committing Treason under the Constitution of the United States. Is that clear enough?


Speaking of unconstitutional...Treason is defined in the Constitution of the United States (Article III Section 3). I don't know if proposing to ban Muslim immigration counts as espionage or sedition (easier charges to try for) but you'd have a hard time making Treason charges stick in a court. Treason charges are pretty rare and seem to have a high rate of acquittal. Seeing as Jefferson Davis was acquitted I'm pretty sure Donald would be fine.


Regarding the First Amendment, the Supreme Court seems to generally defer to Congress in matters of Immigration, and the Executive Branch has a lot of room to maneuver through the Secretary of State. It is the Court's prerogative to interpret the Constitution, but they are generally very conservative (i.e., status quo rather than Conservative ideologically) in these matters.

"Congress shall make not law..." - They shall make no law unless the Supreme Court upholds said law, or at least doesn't strike it down. See also "shall not be infringed".

And it is all a moot point. I doubt any proposed law would state "666 USC § 2017: Were gunna ban all the muslims cuz they smell funny yeeeehaaawww!!!!!". They'd probably just reduce the quotas for "certain countries" to the point that once all the doctors, millionaires, and friends of friends got in, there'd be maybe three and a half slots left open. Non-immigrant visas would be very easy to deny - just slap it with a 214(b) Denial and say "the applicant didn't provide sufficient proof that they were not trying to illegally immigrate". This is "facially legitimate and bona fide" and the Supreme Court has historically upheld this.


That all said, I have reasons why I think that a universal Muslim ban would be detrimental, but I cannot organize my argument as well. Basically, convoluted and capricious immigration law creates incentive for illegal immigration. It is my opinion that immigration can be a net gain for the country, but it must be controlled in an orderly fashion. Unfortunately, most arguments against immigration restrictions are emotional and just rely on "it's against the Constitution" when it demonstrably is not. Arguments against the practicality of a Muslim ban are much better because while it is enforceable, to do so requires making legal immigration an even bigger headache, something I am strongly opposed to.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 21:02:01


Post by: Frazzled


 whembly wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Sting? They have legal documentation. I don't know what sting you are referring to.


then what kind of Visa did they enter the country under?

Asterios... there's an existing Refugee program. Think of it as a different version of political asylum.

You and I argued that the President has statutory authority to preventing immigrants into the US?

Conversely, the President (and certain administration officials) has authority granting aliens immigration privileges.


This.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 21:03:42


Post by: Asterios


 Frazzled wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Sting? They have legal documentation. I don't know what sting you are referring to.


then what kind of Visa did they enter the country under?

Asterios... there's an existing Refugee program. Think of it as a different version of political asylum.

You and I argued that the President has statutory authority to preventing immigrants into the US?

Conversely, the President (and certain administration officials) has authority granting aliens immigration privileges.


This.


and it still does not answer the question.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 21:04:13


Post by: whembly


Bernie Sanders just got another endorsement!
JUST IN: Venezuelan president wants "revolutionary friend" Bernie Sanders to win https://t.co/E53K8wjCKE pic.twitter.com/gp0KxOweNA

— The Hill (@thehill) June 2, 2016


A good thing that socialism is such a resounding success in Venezuela... no?


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 21:04:50


Post by: Minx


 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
 Minx wrote:
 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Given the atrocities that Islamic migrants have visited upon Europe, hopefully this continues to be the case.


I am currently living in Europe and must've missed all these atrocities. Care to elaborate?


It's been all over the news...how have you missed it?

http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/cologne-is-every-day-europes-rape-epidemic/news-story/e2e618e17ad4400b5ed65045e65e141d

26 women sexually assaulted at music festival...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/world/europe/darmstadt-germany-migrants-assaults.html?_r=0

Mass rape attack on New Year's Eve...

http://nypost.com/2016/01/10/germans-slam-rapefugees-in-wake-of-mass-sexual-attack/



Have you really been missing this, or are you intentionally ignoring the evidence in the name of multiculturalism?

Oh, "those" kinds of atrocities. Yeah, it's a real shame that some people believe all this trumped up nonsense. The extend of what happened is very far from what some "news" tried to make of it. The perpetrators are usually Germans or illegal north Africans and very seldom refugees from the middle east. And their faith usually isn't a significant reason for any of those thefts and assaults. So, don't let racism cloud your judgement.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 21:06:37


Post by: Frazzled


Asterios wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Sting? They have legal documentation. I don't know what sting you are referring to.


then what kind of Visa did they enter the country under?

Asterios... there's an existing Refugee program. Think of it as a different version of political asylum.

You and I argued that the President has statutory authority to preventing immigrants into the US?

Conversely, the President (and certain administration officials) has authority granting aliens immigration privileges.


This.


and it still does not answer the question.


Sure it does. They are legally here under the Fed's refugee settlement program. They were placed with us by them.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 21:13:38


Post by: Kilkrazy


Asterios wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Sting? They have legal documentation. I don't know what sting you are referring to.


then what kind of Visa did they enter the country under?

Asterios... there's an existing Refugee program. Think of it as a different version of political asylum.

You and I argued that the President has statutory authority to preventing immigrants into the US?

Conversely, the President (and certain administration officials) has authority granting aliens immigration privileges.


and you said they were here legally which would indicate you know what kind of Visa they entered the country under?

reason i'm asking is a Church near me which was housing allegedly legal refugees from "Columbia" I think? just got raided by ICE 2 weeks ago and it turns out they were not here legally.


Your statement is again merely another piece of hearsay anecdotal evidence unsupported by any documentation.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that if you're right it's best to give a link to a reputable news article or something like that.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 21:22:21


Post by: Asterios


 Frazzled wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Sting? They have legal documentation. I don't know what sting you are referring to.


then what kind of Visa did they enter the country under?

Asterios... there's an existing Refugee program. Think of it as a different version of political asylum.

You and I argued that the President has statutory authority to preventing immigrants into the US?

Conversely, the President (and certain administration officials) has authority granting aliens immigration privileges.


This.


and it still does not answer the question.


Sure it does. They are legally here under the Fed's refugee settlement program. They were placed with us by them.


you should play the lottery since if you know some of the less then 1100 (1736, still a far cry from the 10K Obama pledged to bring over.) Syrian Refugees allowed into the country, you must have some good luck going for you.


 Kilkrazy wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Sting? They have legal documentation. I don't know what sting you are referring to.


then what kind of Visa did they enter the country under?

Asterios... there's an existing Refugee program. Think of it as a different version of political asylum.

You and I argued that the President has statutory authority to preventing immigrants into the US?

Conversely, the President (and certain administration officials) has authority granting aliens immigration privileges.


and you said they were here legally which would indicate you know what kind of Visa they entered the country under?

reason i'm asking is a Church near me which was housing allegedly legal refugees from "Columbia" I think? just got raided by ICE 2 weeks ago and it turns out they were not here legally.


Your statement is again merely another piece of hearsay anecdotal evidence unsupported by any documentation.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that if you're right it's best to give a link to a reputable news article or something like that.


oh like Frazzled should since i'm sure Syrian refugees to a town would make the paper more then an illegal immigrant family being deported? also this didn't even make a blurb in the 911 section of the local paper.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 21:26:03


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


The Constitution only applies to Americans, you say. The First Amendment begins with "Congress shall pass no law...". The Constitution is thus telling us what Congress may or may not do. Congress, being made up of American citizens, is thus bound by the constitution. It doesn't matter if the people being affected by this hypothetical law are foreigners or not, because the Constitution is telling American citizens that such a law is prohibited. How is this argument still being pushed?


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 21:27:51


Post by: Asterios


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The Constitution only applies to Americans, you say. The First Amendment begins with "Congress shall pass no law...". The Constitution is thus telling us what Congress may or may not do. Congress, being made up of American citizens, is thus bound by the constitution. It doesn't matter if the people being affected by this hypothetical law are foreigners or not, because the Constitution is telling American citizens that such a law is prohibited. How is this argument still being pushed?


yes Congress shall pass no law that infringes on the rights of citizens of the United States, as it goes the law exists and it has been used before and it is not challenged.

also here is the whole first Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

no where does it say it cannot keep people out for any reason.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 21:29:45


Post by: Kilkrazy


Asterios wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Sting? They have legal documentation. I don't know what sting you are referring to.


then what kind of Visa did they enter the country under?

Asterios... there's an existing Refugee program. Think of it as a different version of political asylum.

You and I argued that the President has statutory authority to preventing immigrants into the US?

Conversely, the President (and certain administration officials) has authority granting aliens immigration privileges.


This.


and it still does not answer the question.


Sure it does. They are legally here under the Fed's refugee settlement program. They were placed with us by them.


you should play the lottery since if you know some of the less then 1100 (1736, still a far cry from the 10K Obama pledged to bring over.) Syrian Refugees allowed into the country, you must have some good luck going for you.


 Kilkrazy wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Sting? They have legal documentation. I don't know what sting you are referring to.


then what kind of Visa did they enter the country under?

Asterios... there's an existing Refugee program. Think of it as a different version of political asylum.

You and I argued that the President has statutory authority to preventing immigrants into the US?

Conversely, the President (and certain administration officials) has authority granting aliens immigration privileges.


and you said they were here legally which would indicate you know what kind of Visa they entered the country under?

reason i'm asking is a Church near me which was housing allegedly legal refugees from "Columbia" I think? just got raided by ICE 2 weeks ago and it turns out they were not here legally.


Your statement is again merely another piece of hearsay anecdotal evidence unsupported by any documentation.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that if you're right it's best to give a link to a reputable news article or something like that.


oh like Frazzled should since i'm sure Syrian refugees to a town would make the paper more then an illegal immigrant family being deported? also this didn't even make a blurb in the 911 section of the local paper.


Maybe you just made it up.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 21:30:55


Post by: d-usa


Did you have a 30 minute training video in "civics for fast food assistant managers" class?

Because at this point you either have to be this wrong on purpose, about everything, or be the poster child for a failed educational system.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 21:31:33


Post by: Asterios


 Kilkrazy wrote:

Maybe you just made it up.


nope not made up was an exciting afternoon with a bunch of assorted agencies showing up there. (local PD, sheriff's, ICE and a couple others I couldn't make out.), and like you said maybe Frazzled made up his?


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 21:32:42


Post by: d-usa


Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:

Maybe you just made it up.


nope not made up was an exciting afternoon with a bunch of assorted agencies showing up there. (local PD, sheriff's, ICE and a couple others I couldn't make out.), and like you said maybe Frazzled made up his?


And none of them could afford a PIO, dang budget cuts.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 21:33:26


Post by: Kilkrazy


Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:

Maybe you just made it up.


nope not made up was an exciting afternoon with a bunch of assorted agencies showing up there. (local PD, sheriff's, ICE and a couple others I couldn't make out.), and like you said maybe Frazzled made up his?


I don't believe you.



Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 21:34:42


Post by: Asterios


 Kilkrazy wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:

Maybe you just made it up.


nope not made up was an exciting afternoon with a bunch of assorted agencies showing up there. (local PD, sheriff's, ICE and a couple others I couldn't make out.), and like you said maybe Frazzled made up his?


I don't believe you.



didn't ask you too and to be honest I just don't care what you think, just like I don't believe Frazzled, each to our own and our own opinions and beliefs.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 21:35:11


Post by: DutchWinsAll


 d-usa wrote:
Did you have a 30 minute training video in "civics for fast food assistant managers" class?

Because at this point you either have to be this wrong on purpose, about everything, or be the poster child for a failed educational system.


There's a word for people that spam ridiculous bs all day online while complaining about all the problems others create.

Flargabarg? That's not right, but its close.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 21:37:50


Post by: Kilkrazy


Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:

Maybe you just made it up.


nope not made up was an exciting afternoon with a bunch of assorted agencies showing up there. (local PD, sheriff's, ICE and a couple others I couldn't make out.), and like you said maybe Frazzled made up his?


I don't believe you.



didn't ask you too and to be honest I just don't care what you think, just like I don't believe Frazzled, each to our own and our own opinions and beliefs.


Whenever you make a statement you ask people to believe it. It's a standard part of human communication. Please don't try and evade the point by blowing me off. It's extremely rude.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 21:40:37


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


Asterios wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The Constitution only applies to Americans, you say. The First Amendment begins with "Congress shall pass no law...". The Constitution is thus telling us what Congress may or may not do. Congress, being made up of American citizens, is thus bound by the constitution. It doesn't matter if the people being affected by this hypothetical law are foreigners or not, because the Constitution is telling American citizens that such a law is prohibited. How is this argument still being pushed?


yes Congress shall pass no law that infringes on the rights of citizens of the United States


That's not what it says though.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 21:45:10


Post by: Asterios


 Kilkrazy wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:

Maybe you just made it up.


nope not made up was an exciting afternoon with a bunch of assorted agencies showing up there. (local PD, sheriff's, ICE and a couple others I couldn't make out.), and like you said maybe Frazzled made up his?


I don't believe you.



didn't ask you too and to be honest I just don't care what you think, just like I don't believe Frazzled, each to our own and our own opinions and beliefs.


Whenever you make a statement you ask people to believe it. It's a standard part of human communication. Please don't try and evade the point by blowing me off. It's extremely rude.


you just called me a liar, so yeah I can blow you off. and just ignore you.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The Constitution only applies to Americans, you say. The First Amendment begins with "Congress shall pass no law...". The Constitution is thus telling us what Congress may or may not do. Congress, being made up of American citizens, is thus bound by the constitution. It doesn't matter if the people being affected by this hypothetical law are foreigners or not, because the Constitution is telling American citizens that such a law is prohibited. How is this argument still being pushed?


yes Congress shall pass no law that infringes on the rights of citizens of the United States


That's not what it says though.


it also does not say that foreign nationals have to be allowed into the US either.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 21:58:28


Post by: Kilkrazy


Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:

Maybe you just made it up.


nope not made up was an exciting afternoon with a bunch of assorted agencies showing up there. (local PD, sheriff's, ICE and a couple others I couldn't make out.), and like you said maybe Frazzled made up his?


I don't believe you.



didn't ask you too and to be honest I just don't care what you think, just like I don't believe Frazzled, each to our own and our own opinions and beliefs.


Whenever you make a statement you ask people to believe it. It's a standard part of human communication. Please don't try and evade the point by blowing me off. It's extremely rude.


you just called me a liar, so yeah I can blow you off. and just ignore you.
...


I didn't call you a liar. I said I don't believe you.

The reason I don't believe you is that you make claims to support your statements and positions without any evidence to back them up. Then you refuse to engage with criticism on the point.

If you want to characterise that kind of behaviour as lying, that's your choice of words.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 22:08:45


Post by: d-usa


DutchWinsAll wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
Did you have a 30 minute training video in "civics for fast food assistant managers" class?

Because at this point you either have to be this wrong on purpose, about everything, or be the poster child for a failed educational system.


There's a word for people that spam ridiculous bs all day online while complaining about all the problems others create.

Flargabarg? That's not right, but its close.


"When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 22:12:03


Post by: Tannhauser42


dethork wrote:


And it is all a moot point. I doubt any proposed law would state "666 USC § 2017: Were gunna ban all the muslims cuz they smell funny yeeeehaaawww!!!!!". They'd probably just reduce the quotas for "certain countries" to the point that once all the doctors, millionaires, and friends of friends got in, there'd be maybe three and a half slots left open. Non-immigrant visas would be very easy to deny - just slap it with a 214(b) Denial and say "the applicant didn't provide sufficient proof that they were not trying to illegally immigrate". This is "facially legitimate and bona fide" and the Supreme Court has historically upheld this.



That's my whole point with regards to the First Amendment. Congress can make up all sorts of reasons to pass a law to stop Muslim immigrants. The one reason they cannot explicitly use is "because they're Muslim".


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 22:17:16


Post by: Jihadin


They can tighten the vetting process.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 22:40:57


Post by: dogma


 Frazzled wrote:

The wife was from Palestine, and not Palestine, Texas.


She was Pakistani, not Palestinian.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 22:44:20


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


Asterios wrote:


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The Constitution only applies to Americans, you say. The First Amendment begins with "Congress shall pass no law...". The Constitution is thus telling us what Congress may or may not do. Congress, being made up of American citizens, is thus bound by the constitution. It doesn't matter if the people being affected by this hypothetical law are foreigners or not, because the Constitution is telling American citizens that such a law is prohibited. How is this argument still being pushed?


yes Congress shall pass no law that infringes on the rights of citizens of the United States


That's not what it says though.


it also does not say that foreign nationals have to be allowed into the US either.


Nope, but it does say you're not allowed to pass a law that discriminates based on religion.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 22:46:53


Post by: Asterios


 Tannhauser42 wrote:
dethork wrote:


And it is all a moot point. I doubt any proposed law would state "666 USC § 2017: Were gunna ban all the muslims cuz they smell funny yeeeehaaawww!!!!!". They'd probably just reduce the quotas for "certain countries" to the point that once all the doctors, millionaires, and friends of friends got in, there'd be maybe three and a half slots left open. Non-immigrant visas would be very easy to deny - just slap it with a 214(b) Denial and say "the applicant didn't provide sufficient proof that they were not trying to illegally immigrate". This is "facially legitimate and bona fide" and the Supreme Court has historically upheld this.



That's my whole point with regards to the First Amendment. Congress can make up all sorts of reasons to pass a law to stop Muslim immigrants. The one reason they cannot explicitly use is "because they're Muslim".


http://ivn.us/2015/12/11/reality-check-right-or-wrong-the-president-could-ban-muslims-from-entering-u-s/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/12/08/banning-muslims-from-entering-the-u-s-is-a-very-bad-idea-but-it-may-be-constitutionally-permissible/



Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 23:03:53


Post by: Relapse


Is there any real point to this give and take that has been going on this past few days? It feels like seeing people whose opinions and intelligence I have a high respect for, even though we often disagree, are being drawn into a conversation that is going nowhere but huge circles.
My thoughts are that this has to be some type of social experiment and wonder how many sites this is happening in.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 23:23:31


Post by: whembly


Hillary Clinton's speech today was good:
http://time.com/4355797/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-foreign-policy-speech-transcript/

If this were "a generic Democrat", the speech would be a very effective contrast to Trump.

The trouble for Clinton is that... every criticism levied against Trump rebounds back to her...


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 23:50:33


Post by: Ouze


Relapse wrote:
Is there any real point to this give and take that has been going on this past few days? It feels like seeing people whose opinions and intelligence I have a high respect for, even though we often disagree, are being drawn into a conversation that is going nowhere but huge circles.
My thoughts are that this has to be some type of social experiment and wonder how many sites this is happening in.


No gak, I miss the glory days of just a week or so ago, before this guy started showing up in every thread with his shtick of throwing up a tornado of garbage and sucking all the air out of every thread.




Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 23:52:11


Post by: Asterios


 whembly wrote:
Hillary Clinton's speech today was good:
http://time.com/4355797/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-foreign-policy-speech-transcript/

If this were "a generic Democrat", the speech would be a very effective contrast to Trump.

The trouble for Clinton is that... every criticism levied against Trump rebounds back to her...


problem is with that speech Benghazi will come back to haunt her.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 23:52:51


Post by: Ouze


Asterios wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Hillary Clinton's speech today was good:
http://time.com/4355797/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-foreign-policy-speech-transcript/

If this were "a generic Democrat", the speech would be a very effective contrast to Trump.

The trouble for Clinton is that... every criticism levied against Trump rebounds back to her...


problem is with that speech Benghazi will come back to haunt her.


And so begins the partnership the OT deserves.



Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 23:58:04


Post by: whembly


 Ouze wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Hillary Clinton's speech today was good:
http://time.com/4355797/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-foreign-policy-speech-transcript/

If this were "a generic Democrat", the speech would be a very effective contrast to Trump.

The trouble for Clinton is that... every criticism levied against Trump rebounds back to her...


problem is with that speech Benghazi will come back to haunt her.


And so begins the partnership the OT deserves.


Well...not sure Trump is astute enough to bring it up. I mean, the only retort I've seen from Trump today was a tweet saying she "doesn't look presidential".

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

This guy is Biden his time:
Spoiler:


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I think I'd vote for Biden over Trump. What does that make me?


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/02 23:59:52


Post by: d-usa


 Ouze wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Hillary Clinton's speech today was good:
http://time.com/4355797/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-foreign-policy-speech-transcript/

If this were "a generic Democrat", the speech would be a very effective contrast to Trump.

The trouble for Clinton is that... every criticism levied against Trump rebounds back to her...


problem is with that speech Benghazi will come back to haunt her.


And so begins the partnership the OT deserves.



Is this our "Senpai, notice me" moment?


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 00:10:33


Post by: Asterios


 whembly wrote:
 Ouze wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Hillary Clinton's speech today was good:
http://time.com/4355797/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-foreign-policy-speech-transcript/

If this were "a generic Democrat", the speech would be a very effective contrast to Trump.

The trouble for Clinton is that... every criticism levied against Trump rebounds back to her...


problem is with that speech Benghazi will come back to haunt her.


And so begins the partnership the OT deserves.


Well...not sure Trump is astute enough to bring it up. I mean, the only retort I've seen from Trump today was a tweet saying she "doesn't look presidential".

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

This guy is Biden his time:
Spoiler:


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I think I'd vote for Biden over Trump. What does that make me?


Think I read his son said something about that Michael Bay movie about that Benghazi attack or something.

as far as Democrats go, they should have had one like Hillary but without all the baggage.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 00:59:18


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 whembly wrote:

I think I'd vote for Biden over Trump. What does that make me?


A sane human being.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 01:33:05


Post by: DutchWinsAll


 d-usa wrote:
DutchWinsAll wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
Did you have a 30 minute training video in "civics for fast food assistant managers" class?

Because at this point you either have to be this wrong on purpose, about everything, or be the poster child for a failed educational system.


There's a word for people that spam ridiculous bs all day online while complaining about all the problems others create.

Flargabarg? That's not right, but its close.


"When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."


Damn, that's some Ouze level satire right there. Have an exalt.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 02:43:28


Post by: sebster


Asterios wrote:
Well just saw this and thought it looks like a good read, until it took a very hard turn into the twilight zone:


It was flying rodent gak from the first line, about Trump getting killed. And then it got stupid in a really sad kind of way.

The article tried made this vague kind of claim that 'socialist' Democrats had close ties with business. Which is stupid in itself - either call them corporate cronies, or call them socialists, being one means they're not the other. But then it goes it to pants on head crazy land when it claims that Trump doesn't have ties to business. Trump... the businessman. Making an argument that people should elect the businessman because he doesn't have ties to business borders on parody.

It makes the claim that Trump is self-funding his campaign. Whether this is a bald faced lie or a woeful level of ignorance I don't know. Trump self-funded his primary campaign... or rather didn't fund it at all, and instead ran a very cheap campaign driven by free media coverage. But his run in the general is all about big money, and he's now attached himself nicely to the conventional Republican machine to use their standard funding sources.

The article has no idea how congressional control of funding works. It seems to think if you control congress you can just stop funding any existing program when you want. Again, not sure if this is a lie or ignorance.

The article actually tries to make Trump's idiotic birther nonsense in to a selling point. Remember all the angry noise Trump made about something that was always stupidly wrong, and proven as such years ago? Let's pretend this is in Trump's favour! Our candidate is an idiot who's wrong about basic facts! That's different to other politicians, and we want something different!

This was also the first time I'd read anyone questioning the trade deal with Russia. The stupid complaints about the deals with China and Mexico are common and existed long before Trump became a prominent political figure, but Russia? Russia doesn't even have a bi-lateral deal with the US - they rely on the default WTO trade conditions, and they've only recently returned to that after the US was previously inflicting massive damage on the Russian economy as punishment over their actions in the Ukraine. Complaining the US has a bad deal with Russia is exactly as stupid as complaining the US has a bad deal with Atlantis.

The whole article is pretty much just pure crazy from start to finish. Which is, admittedly, not particularly surprising for something coming from the Heritage Foundation. What is surprising is that it's a complete reversal from their normal crazy. They typically spend their time making up insane nonsense about why big business needs to be given more money to job create, or alternately insane nonsense about how freedom means capitalism and that means giving big business more money. But here they've flipped entirely around, now big business is bad and the only hope is a billionaire businessman who tells lots of stupid lies.

I just hope that when the 2016 campaign is over that people remember how shamelessly political Heritage really is. I used to think there was a problem with organisations like Heritage sacrificing truth for the sake of ideology, now it's clear they don't even care about ideology - to fit Trump that had to go and so they dropped it. All we're left with is people who will say anything because they simply don't give a gak as long as they get paid.

Welcome to the Republican party circa 2016. A lot of you are voting for it to continue to be this way.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 02:45:54


Post by: Ouze


 sebster wrote:
Welcome to the Republican party circa 2016. A lot of you are voting for it to continue to be this way.


As a moderate who leans liberal, I am totally OK with that.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 02:50:18


Post by: sebster


Asterios wrote:
maybe not good policy but a winning one, you are right he does pander to the most base instincts he says what people fear to say for fear of being labeled a racist and so forth.


The problem with so much of the debate is that people think the problem with saying those things is that you might get called racist etc. The real problem with saying those things is that they are stupid and factually incorrect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
Now we know why the Clinton campaign are crappy bricks now, as their own internal polling must have shown this:
Reid J. EpsteinVerified account
‏@reidepstein
WSJ/NBC/Marist California poll

Hillary 49
Bernie 47


Ya'll ready for a nail biter?


First up, cherry picking polls is the #1 way to get your political hopes dashed. Individual polls go all over the place - there's also recent polls showing Clinton with a margin close to 20%. 538's aggregate polling data says Clinton 55, Sanders 43 in California.

Second up, Sanders needs to win about 66% of the vote in the remaining states to draw level in pledged delegates, and even more than that to win the vote total.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 03:37:20


Post by: whembly


 sebster wrote:
Asterios wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Now we know why the Clinton campaign are crappy bricks now, as their own internal polling must have shown this:
Reid J. EpsteinVerified account
‏@reidepstein
WSJ/NBC/Marist California poll

Hillary 49
Bernie 47


Ya'll ready for a nail biter?


First up, cherry picking polls is the #1 way to get your political hopes dashed. Individual polls go all over the place - there's also recent polls showing Clinton with a margin close to 20%. 538's aggregate polling data says Clinton 55, Sanders 43 in California.

Second up, Sanders needs to win about 66% of the vote in the remaining states to draw level in pledged delegates, and even more than that to win the vote total.

First up... Sanders has no chance unless a significant portion of the Super Delegates "flips" to him.

Secondly... that's not cherry picking. Marist is one of the few polling outfits has been really strong this year. Even 538 gives them an "A" rating.

Thirdly... look at RCP's aggregated trend:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ca/california_democratic_presidential_primary-5321.html

What's notable is that, in California, HRC is trending downward, whereas Sanders is trending upwards in these last few weeks.

Conversely, look at the nation DNC primary trend:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html
HRC is trending upward at the expense of Sanders.

So while HRC should win... it's telling that she can't close this out.

EDITED FOR CLARITY.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 03:37:50


Post by: sebster


Asterios wrote:
I don't think Jeb even wanted to run, or at least that is what it seemed like to me.


Bush certainly wanted to be president. He just didn't want to have to run in that Republican primary, where the audience seemed to crave crazier and nastier lies by the day. Trump in part created that environment, and then reveled in it. Bush never really figured out how bad things had gotten.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 03:41:58


Post by: whembly


 sebster wrote:
Asterios wrote:
I don't think Jeb even wanted to run, or at least that is what it seemed like to me.


Bush certainly wanted to be president. He just didn't want to have to run in that Republican primary, where the audience seemed to crave crazier and nastier lies by the day. Trump in part created that environment, and then reveled in it. Bush never really figured out how bad things had gotten.

RNC had their chance...

They could've listed to the more "bourgeoisie" Tea Party movement.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 03:45:23


Post by: Asterios


 sebster wrote:
Asterios wrote:
I don't think Jeb even wanted to run, or at least that is what it seemed like to me.


Bush certainly wanted to be president. He just didn't want to have to run in that Republican primary, where the audience seemed to crave crazier and nastier lies by the day. Trump in part created that environment, and then reveled in it. Bush never really figured out how bad things had gotten.


well, can't blame Trump really he is the result of this generation which has been brought up on reality TV, in reality TV people don't root for the stable person, they root for the insane maniac, which is why so many cause its good sense for networks, Trump is not an idiot he knows this and he uses it, HRC and Sanders are so disconnected from todays reality they have no clue still what is going on, and the way things stand Trump will win the election, he can say that disability should be cut to better regulate and fix it, and people will eat it up, they want the zany, they want the crazy, they want the loony tunes to win the show and that is all it is too them thanks to the networks.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 03:48:45


Post by: Ensis Ferrae


Asterios wrote:
[HRC and Sanders are so disconnected from todays reality they have no clue still what is going on,



You must not have seen/heard any of Sanders' speeches... Sure, some on these boards think his ideas are "pie in the sky," but the majority of his statements are certainly grounded in reality.

Wage stagnation is a real thing. College tuition has sky rocketed, outstripping the potential earnings/salary once people leave school, etc. etc. etc.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 03:50:35


Post by: Asterios


 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Asterios wrote:
[HRC and Sanders are so disconnected from todays reality they have no clue still what is going on,



You must not have seen/heard any of Sanders' speeches... Sure, some on these boards think his ideas are "pie in the sky," but the majority of his statements are certainly grounded in reality.

Wage stagnation is a real thing. College tuition has sky rocketed, outstripping the potential earnings/salary once people leave school, etc. etc. etc.


and none of that is new, that is the same line politicians have been using for years now, so no he is still disconnected from reality, which is also why hes losing the race.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 03:54:56


Post by: sebster


 whembly wrote:
<--- stubborn mule...

Looks like Paul Ryan endorses Trump now...[/url]


Remember when I called the Ryan and Trump meetings as political theatre? Yeah. The party establishment drops their ideology to suit their immediate political interests. And why wouldn't they? Guys like Ryan have been con artists from the start, selling a make believe intellectual conservatism, but just shilling whatever needed to be sold at any given time.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 03:56:07


Post by: xraytango


Asterios wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Sting? They have legal documentation. I don't know what sting you are referring to.


then what kind of Visa did they enter the country under?

Asterios... there's an existing Refugee program. Think of it as a different version of political asylum.

You and I argued that the President has statutory authority to preventing immigrants into the US?

Conversely, the President (and certain administration officials) has authority granting aliens immigration privileges.


This.


and it still does not answer the question.


Sure it does. They are legally here under the Fed's refugee settlement program. They were placed with us by them.


you should play the lottery since if you know some of the less then 1100 (1736, still a far cry from the 10K Obama pledged to bring over.) Syrian Refugees allowed into the country, you must have some good luck going for you.


 Kilkrazy wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Sting? They have legal documentation. I don't know what sting you are referring to.


then what kind of Visa did they enter the country under?

Asterios... there's an existing Refugee program. Think of it as a different version of political asylum.

You and I argued that the President has statutory authority to preventing immigrants into the US?

Conversely, the President (and certain administration officials) has authority granting aliens immigration privileges.


and you said they were here legally which would indicate you know what kind of Visa they entered the country under?

reason i'm asking is a Church near me which was housing allegedly legal refugees from "Columbia" I think? just got raided by ICE 2 weeks ago and it turns out they were not here legally.


Your statement is again merely another piece of hearsay anecdotal evidence unsupported by any documentation.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that if you're right it's best to give a link to a reputable news article or something like that.


oh like Frazzled should since i'm sure Syrian refugees to a town would make the paper more then an illegal immigrant family being deported? also this didn't even make a blurb in the 911 section of the local paper.




More like 76,000 quietly placed in towns all across the U.S. without papers and no interrogation as to their need to come here.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/02/obama-plans-to-bring-thousands-more-syrian-refugees-into-the-u-s/

In the town I live in I have seen a lot of Muslims recently, I wonder if we got some of them here.

This next point might not come across the right way as I have been working 14 hour days of late but here goes:

There seems to be a disconnect when people are talking about Muslims from the middle east as though it is a 1st amendment issue and some such thing like that, being upset that a group would be discriminated from entry because of their ideology. Okay fine I understand the liberal view (morally liberal as in, let's all get along, ( not a bad thing certainly)) but remember even if you discriminate ONLY on country of origin you will still be discriminating against their ideology as well. Why? Because in those country 99.79 percent of the population is Muslim by default, it is all they are allowed to be, they have no choice of religion or even to reject religion.

That's a point I think needed making, hope it was understandable. Seems logical and no malice intended only truth.

Also for the user Minx that lives in Europe and hasn't been tuned in to what has happened in Cologne, Brussels, Paris and other places, please look up the video on YouTube about something called "Taharrush", it is quite disturbing. I was watching a video commentary and they showed a clip from the train station security camera. The woman's screams were so blood curdling,, I hope I never hear that again; fortunately the video cut before anything more disturbing was shown.

You have an influx of young single Muslim men who's culture tells them that any woman a) not a Muslim and b) not dressed to Muslim standards are fair game for this sort of assault.

I'm not trying to race bait or say anything bad, but I think some of this is a real problem and we might start seeing it here in the U.S.

Additionally the Somali Muslim community in Michigan has been trying to get their local governments to enact Shari'ah law.
Sharia law allows for "honor killings" and other violence such as a weekly beating of one's wife.

This cutural/religious law code is diametrically opposed to any and all federal, state, and local statues.

...food for thought...


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 03:58:05


Post by: whembly


 sebster wrote:
 whembly wrote:
<--- stubborn mule...

Looks like Paul Ryan endorses Trump now...[/url]


Remember when I called the Ryan and Trump meetings as political theatre? Yeah. The party establishment drops their ideology to suit their immediate political interests. And why wouldn't they? Guys like Ryan have been con artists from the start, selling a make believe intellectual conservatism, but just shilling whatever needed to be sold at any given time.

That's pretty harsh...

He's the Speaker of the House AND the main man at the RNC Convention. So he's expected to try to work with whomever's the President.

Ben Sasse or Ted Cruz can afford to be #NeverTrump, while Ryan needed to "flex" his p90 muscle to remind Trump that he has to work with Congressional Leadership (McConnagal tacticly endorsed Trump a few days ago).



Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 03:59:31


Post by: sebster


Asterios wrote:
each to our own and our own opinions and beliefs.


You are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ouze wrote:
As a moderate who leans liberal, I am totally OK with that.


As someone who thinks democracy works best when everyone is contributing substantial and intelligent discourse, as that leads to beneficial public policy, I really am not okay with this. The Republican party as it is today is not okay. It wasn't okay before Trump, and it's been shown to be even worse as its fallen in behind him.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 04:05:13


Post by: Prestor Jon


Asterios wrote:
 sebster wrote:
Asterios wrote:
I don't think Jeb even wanted to run, or at least that is what it seemed like to me.


Bush certainly wanted to be president. He just didn't want to have to run in that Republican primary, where the audience seemed to crave crazier and nastier lies by the day. Trump in part created that environment, and then reveled in it. Bush never really figured out how bad things had gotten.


well, can't blame Trump really he is the result of this generation which has been brought up on reality TV, in reality TV people don't root for the stable person, they root for the insane maniac, which is why so many cause its good sense for networks, Trump is not an idiot he knows this and he uses it, HRC and Sanders are so disconnected from todays reality they have no clue still what is going on, and the way things stand Trump will win the election, he can say that disability should be cut to better regulate and fix it, and people will eat it up, they want the zany, they want the crazy, they want the loony tunes to win the show and that is all it is too them thanks to the networks.


I don't think reality tv show loving millennials were anywhere close to being a significant portion of Republican primary voters. I think the Republican Party's continued use of disjointed counter productive rhetoric and pandering over the last several years finally caught up with them. When party members put forth narratives and campaign platforms that actively hurt their base's opinion of the party establishment and senior representatives they end up encouraging voters to embrace an outsider candidate because they've destroyed the perception of their own party by their party members.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 04:09:50


Post by: xraytango


 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Asterios wrote:
[HRC and Sanders are so disconnected from todays reality they have no clue still what is going on,



You must not have seen/heard any of Sanders' speeches... Sure, some on these boards think his ideas are "pie in the sky," but the majority of his statements are certainly grounded in reality.

Wage stagnation is a real thing. College tuition has sky rocketed, outstripping the potential earnings/salary once people leave school, etc. etc. etc.



Wage stagnation is a real thing and now all the hamburger flippers and grocery baggers want $15 an hour?
Those jobs aren't worth that, nor are they intended to be used to support oneself. Why is a hamburger flipper worth being paid just a little less than a skilled tradesman?

You want more money? Get skills. Simple as that.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 04:21:08


Post by: Prestor Jon


Spoiler:
xraytango wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Sting? They have legal documentation. I don't know what sting you are referring to.


then what kind of Visa did they enter the country under?

Asterios... there's an existing Refugee program. Think of it as a different version of political asylum.

You and I argued that the President has statutory authority to preventing immigrants into the US?

Conversely, the President (and certain administration officials) has authority granting aliens immigration privileges.


This.


and it still does not answer the question.


Sure it does. They are legally here under the Fed's refugee settlement program. They were placed with us by them.


you should play the lottery since if you know some of the less then 1100 (1736, still a far cry from the 10K Obama pledged to bring over.) Syrian Refugees allowed into the country, you must have some good luck going for you.


 Kilkrazy wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Sting? They have legal documentation. I don't know what sting you are referring to.


then what kind of Visa did they enter the country under?

Asterios... there's an existing Refugee program. Think of it as a different version of political asylum.

You and I argued that the President has statutory authority to preventing immigrants into the US?

Conversely, the President (and certain administration officials) has authority granting aliens immigration privileges.


and you said they were here legally which would indicate you know what kind of Visa they entered the country under?

reason i'm asking is a Church near me which was housing allegedly legal refugees from "Columbia" I think? just got raided by ICE 2 weeks ago and it turns out they were not here legally.


Your statement is again merely another piece of hearsay anecdotal evidence unsupported by any documentation.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that if you're right it's best to give a link to a reputable news article or something like that.


oh like Frazzled should since i'm sure Syrian refugees to a town would make the paper more then an illegal immigrant family being deported? also this didn't even make a blurb in the 911 section of the local paper.




xraytango wrote:
More like 76,000 quietly placed in towns all across the U.S. without papers and no interrogation as to their need to come here.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/02/obama-plans-to-bring-thousands-more-syrian-refugees-into-the-u-s/

In the town I live in I have seen a lot of Muslims recently, I wonder if we got some of them here.

This next point might not come across the right way as I have been working 14 hour days of late but here goes:

There seems to be a disconnect when people are talking about Muslims from the middle east as though it is a 1st amendment issue and some such thing like that, being upset that a group would be discriminated from entry because of their ideology. Okay fine I understand the liberal view (morally liberal as in, let's all get along, ( not a bad thing certainly)) but remember even if you discriminate ONLY on country of origin you will still be discriminating against their ideology as well. Why? Because in those country 99.79 percent of the population is Muslim by default, it is all they are allowed to be, they have no choice of religion or even to reject religion.

That's a point I think needed making, hope it was understandable. Seems logical and no malice intended only truth.

Also for the user Minx that lives in Europe and hasn't been tuned in to what has happened in Cologne, Brussels, Paris and other places, please look up the video on YouTube about something called "Taharrush", it is quite disturbing. I was watching a video commentary and they showed a clip from the train station security camera. The woman's screams were so blood curdling,, I hope I never hear that again; fortunately the video cut before anything more disturbing was shown.

You have an influx of young single Muslim men who's culture tells them that any woman a) not a Muslim and b) not dressed to Muslim standards are fair game for this sort of assault.

I'm not trying to race bait or say anything bad, but I think some of this is a real problem and we might start seeing it here in the U.S.

Additionally the Somali Muslim community in Michigan has been trying to get their local governments to enact Shari'ah law.
Sharia law allows for "honor killings" and other violence such as a weekly beating of one's wife.

This cutural/religious law code is diametrically opposed to any and all federal, state, and local statues.

...food for thought...


The sharia law thing is a red herring. Pocket communities of ethnic/religious groups living in accordance to their beliefs have always existed in the US. We see it with Orthodox Jews in NYC, Amish in PA, Quakers in Ohio, Mormons in Utah etc. Acts like honor killings are literally impossible to legalize in the US. There is no religious exemption for textbook premeditated murder. That's just hyperbolic fear mongering.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 04:25:24


Post by: sebster


 whembly wrote:
First up... Sanders has no chance unless a significant portion of the Super Delegates "flips" to him.


That's been a red herring from the start. The super-delegates have shown they will flip to support the candidate with the lead in pledged delegates, per 2008. The reason Sanders can't flip them is because he hasn't won the pledged delegates.

Secondly... that's not cherry picking. Marist is one of the few polling outfits has been really strong this year. Even 538 gives them an "A" rating.


Cherry picking isn't about the quality of the source, it's about picking the outlying survey. Looking at 538 for the last 10 California primary surveys, 6 of them give Clinton a win in excess of 10 points, and four show very close races (weirdly enough not one forecasts between 5 and 10%). So why pick one of the close results only?

What's notable is that, in California, HRC is trending downward, whereas Sanders is trending upwards in these last few weeks.

Conversely, look at the nation DNC primary trend:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html
HRC is trending upward at the expense of Sanders.


Again, you're looking at a single survey source. Use the 538 aggregator and you'll see a different dynamic, where Clinton has spent almost all of the year about 45%, she then started growing in support, pushing up 10 points, 45% in March, and 55% in May. Then from late may until today we've seen a tightening in the poll results. It's an interesting shift this late in the campaign, but as to whether it's a genuine shift in 'momentum' we will have to wait to see.

So while HRC should win... it's telling that she can't close this out.


Sort of. It first up speaks to the issue of the Democratic system, it lacks decisive results. I don't like winner take all results as they're basically undemocratic, but that doesn't mean the Democratic system of proportional results is any better. It makes the primaries run on with these wearying grinding process - instead of quick mathematical elimination we watch the process drag out as the secondary candidate slowly go from 'possible but improbable' to 'mathematically possible but not actually possible'.

Second up, I really don't think it says anything about the general. Clinton is in an election against Sanders, decided by the Democrat base. After this she will enter a race against Trump decided by the whole electorate. They're really not the same thing. That is, of course, assuming that Sanders doesn't do anything stupid after June 7 - the issue has always been the risk of splitting the Democrat vote is Sanders tried a Nader.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 04:29:55


Post by: NuggzTheNinja


 Minx wrote:
 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
 Minx wrote:
 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Given the atrocities that Islamic migrants have visited upon Europe, hopefully this continues to be the case.


I am currently living in Europe and must've missed all these atrocities. Care to elaborate?


It's been all over the news...how have you missed it?

http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/cologne-is-every-day-europes-rape-epidemic/news-story/e2e618e17ad4400b5ed65045e65e141d

26 women sexually assaulted at music festival...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/world/europe/darmstadt-germany-migrants-assaults.html?_r=0

Mass rape attack on New Year's Eve...

http://nypost.com/2016/01/10/germans-slam-rapefugees-in-wake-of-mass-sexual-attack/



Have you really been missing this, or are you intentionally ignoring the evidence in the name of multiculturalism?

Oh, "those" kinds of atrocities. Yeah, it's a real shame that some people believe all this trumped up nonsense. The extend of what happened is very far from what some "news" tried to make of it. The perpetrators are usually Germans or illegal north Africans and very seldom refugees from the middle east. And their faith usually isn't a significant reason for any of those thefts and assaults. So, don't let racism cloud your judgement.


So...you have facts to substantiate your opinion? Please don't let cultural marxism cloud YOUR judgment.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 04:38:20


Post by: xraytango


Prestor Jon wrote:
Spoiler:
xraytango wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Sting? They have legal documentation. I don't know what sting you are referring to.


then what kind of Visa did they enter the country under?

Asterios... there's an existing Refugee program. Think of it as a different version of political asylum.

You and I argued that the President has statutory authority to preventing immigrants into the US?

Conversely, the President (and certain administration officials) has authority granting aliens immigration privileges.


This.


and it still does not answer the question.


Sure it does. They are legally here under the Fed's refugee settlement program. They were placed with us by them.


you should play the lottery since if you know some of the less then 1100 (1736, still a far cry from the 10K Obama pledged to bring over.) Syrian Refugees allowed into the country, you must have some good luck going for you.


 Kilkrazy wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Sting? They have legal documentation. I don't know what sting you are referring to.


then what kind of Visa did they enter the country under?

Asterios... there's an existing Refugee program. Think of it as a different version of political asylum.

You and I argued that the President has statutory authority to preventing immigrants into the US?

Conversely, the President (and certain administration officials) has authority granting aliens immigration privileges.


and you said they were here legally which would indicate you know what kind of Visa they entered the country under?

reason i'm asking is a Church near me which was housing allegedly legal refugees from "Columbia" I think? just got raided by ICE 2 weeks ago and it turns out they were not here legally.


Your statement is again merely another piece of hearsay anecdotal evidence unsupported by any documentation.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that if you're right it's best to give a link to a reputable news article or something like that.


oh like Frazzled should since i'm sure Syrian refugees to a town would make the paper more then an illegal immigrant family being deported? also this didn't even make a blurb in the 911 section of the local paper.




xraytango wrote:
More like 76,000 quietly placed in towns all across the U.S. without papers and no interrogation as to their need to come here.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/02/obama-plans-to-bring-thousands-more-syrian-refugees-into-the-u-s/

In the town I live in I have seen a lot of Muslims recently, I wonder if we got some of them here.

This next point might not come across the right way as I have been working 14 hour days of late but here goes:

There seems to be a disconnect when people are talking about Muslims from the middle east as though it is a 1st amendment issue and some such thing like that, being upset that a group would be discriminated from entry because of their ideology. Okay fine I understand the liberal view (morally liberal as in, let's all get along, ( not a bad thing certainly)) but remember even if you discriminate ONLY on country of origin you will still be discriminating against their ideology as well. Why? Because in those country 99.79 percent of the population is Muslim by default, it is all they are allowed to be, they have no choice of religion or even to reject religion.

That's a point I think needed making, hope it was understandable. Seems logical and no malice intended only truth.

Also for the user Minx that lives in Europe and hasn't been tuned in to what has happened in Cologne, Brussels, Paris and other places, please look up the video on YouTube about something called "Taharrush", it is quite disturbing. I was watching a video commentary and they showed a clip from the train station security camera. The woman's screams were so blood curdling,, I hope I never hear that again; fortunately the video cut before anything more disturbing was shown.

You have an influx of young single Muslim men who's culture tells them that any woman a) not a Muslim and b) not dressed to Muslim standards are fair game for this sort of assault.

I'm not trying to race bait or say anything bad, but I think some of this is a real problem and we might start seeing it here in the U.S.

Additionally the Somali Muslim community in Michigan has been trying to get their local governments to enact Shari'ah law.
Sharia law allows for "honor killings" and other violence such as a weekly beating of one's wife.

This cutural/religious law code is diametrically opposed to any and all federal, state, and local statues.

...food for thought...


The sharia law thing is a red herring. Pocket communities of ethnic/religious groups living in accordance to their beliefs have always existed in the US. We see it with Orthodox Jews in NYC, Amish in PA, Quakers in Ohio, Mormons in Utah etc. Acts like honor killings are literally impossible to legalize in the US. There is no religious exemption for textbook premeditated murder. That's just hyperbolic fear mongering.




And you realize that you will see fewer and fewer cases of heinous acts prosecuted as cultural Marxism takes over.

IIRC NPR actually reported on that being the case, are you saying that NPR is far mongering? It has been a few years ago, but I remember hearing about the Somali Muslim community, or at least some of their more radical clerics pushing for leeway from local governments so that they could practice Sharia.

Evidently not as much of a red herring as you might think:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/for-the-first-majority-muslim-us-city-residents-tense-about-its-future/2015/11/21/45d0ea96-8a24-11e5-be39-0034bb576eee_story.html

And that's from the Washington Post! Notice the person quoted in the article who voices his concern over the mistreatment of women.

So info like this is coming from both the right and the left, can you really say that it shouldn't be a concern?



Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 04:43:09


Post by: Gordon Shumway


Sebster, that RCP trend poll that Whembly posted a link to that shows Clinton pulling away from Sanders recently is an aggregate of many polls and it is interesting because it shows that CA is the outlier (the race seems to be tightening there) States that have already voted must have seen the writing on the wall. To me it implies that Clinton is already consolidating the democratic vote.

538's own national trend poll shows a similar Clinton bump, though much less drastic than RCP's (perhaps 538 vets the pollsters' more stringently). http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/national-primary-polls/democratic/


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 04:47:28


Post by: sebster


 whembly wrote:
RNC had their chance...

They could've listed to the more "bourgeoisie" Tea Party movement.


Listen to the Tea Party how? Those guys were worried made lots of noise about the deficit, and about socialist takeover of health. Trying to run on that would have got you dead and buried in the 2016 Republican primary. Trump came along and talked about all kinds of nonsense that'd sink the budget, and he differentiated himself from the rest of the field by promising to protect medicare and all the other 'socialist' health stuff.

The Republican party has a basic problem that 'low taxes and growth' just doesn't cut it as a primary message anymore. They're fishing around for something different. Despite every effort to avoid they've got stuck with Trump in this election, so they'll have to run with his nationalistic stuff, but going forward who knows? Probably depends on how Trump does in November.

I have a pet theory that support for Trump might collapse about September or October, and Johnson might benefit massively from that. Right now Trump is holding the GOP vote together with two elements. The first are the 40% or so of Republican voters who really think Trump is good - the crazies basically. Then there's the rest who are basically holding their noise and agreeing to support Trump, because they're team red, and because the other side is blue and horrible and also because they really hate Clinton.

But how will that 60% continue to think if it becomes clear Trump is not going to win? If Clinton holds strong leads month and after month, and in to September or October? Will they still be willing to hold their nose and vote Trump, or will they start looking at maybe throwing their vote to Johnson, who afterall is the only guy in the field who's held office as a Republican. Add in the Republican concern about down ticket effects if Trump can't win, and they might start encouraging people to get to the ballot and vote Johnson, but stay to vote Republican for the rest of the ballot.

Not saying that will happen, or that it's more likely than anything else. But it is a possible outcome, especially if we consider that right now Clinton is possibly at her weakest, with the Democrats still split over Obama and Sanders, and she's still leading in polls.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 04:53:31


Post by: Asterios


Prestor Jon wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 sebster wrote:
Asterios wrote:
I don't think Jeb even wanted to run, or at least that is what it seemed like to me.


Bush certainly wanted to be president. He just didn't want to have to run in that Republican primary, where the audience seemed to crave crazier and nastier lies by the day. Trump in part created that environment, and then reveled in it. Bush never really figured out how bad things had gotten.


well, can't blame Trump really he is the result of this generation which has been brought up on reality TV, in reality TV people don't root for the stable person, they root for the insane maniac, which is why so many cause its good sense for networks, Trump is not an idiot he knows this and he uses it, HRC and Sanders are so disconnected from todays reality they have no clue still what is going on, and the way things stand Trump will win the election, he can say that disability should be cut to better regulate and fix it, and people will eat it up, they want the zany, they want the crazy, they want the loony tunes to win the show and that is all it is too them thanks to the networks.


I don't think reality tv show loving millennials were anywhere close to being a significant portion of Republican primary voters. I think the Republican Party's continued use of disjointed counter productive rhetoric and pandering over the last several years finally caught up with them. When party members put forth narratives and campaign platforms that actively hurt their base's opinion of the party establishment and senior representatives they end up encouraging voters to embrace an outsider candidate because they've destroyed the perception of their own party by their party members.


millenials have nothing to do with it, they are not the only ones who watch reality shows, in fact wouldn't be surprised if the bulk of the reality TV watchers are in their 30's and 40's

 sebster wrote:
 whembly wrote:
RNC had their chance...

They could've listed to the more "bourgeoisie" Tea Party movement.


Listen to the Tea Party how? Those guys were worried made lots of noise about the deficit, and about socialist takeover of health. Trying to run on that would have got you dead and buried in the 2016 Republican primary. Trump came along and talked about all kinds of nonsense that'd sink the budget, and he differentiated himself from the rest of the field by promising to protect medicare and all the other 'socialist' health stuff.

The Republican party has a basic problem that 'low taxes and growth' just doesn't cut it as a primary message anymore. They're fishing around for something different. Despite every effort to avoid they've got stuck with Trump in this election, so they'll have to run with his nationalistic stuff, but going forward who knows? Probably depends on how Trump does in November.

I have a pet theory that support for Trump might collapse about September or October, and Johnson might benefit massively from that. Right now Trump is holding the GOP vote together with two elements. The first are the 40% or so of Republican voters who really think Trump is good - the crazies basically. Then there's the rest who are basically holding their noise and agreeing to support Trump, because they're team red, and because the other side is blue and horrible and also because they really hate Clinton.

But how will that 60% continue to think if it becomes clear Trump is not going to win? If Clinton holds strong leads month and after month, and in to September or October? Will they still be willing to hold their nose and vote Trump, or will they start looking at maybe throwing their vote to Johnson, who afterall is the only guy in the field who's held office as a Republican. Add in the Republican concern about down ticket effects if Trump can't win, and they might start encouraging people to get to the ballot and vote Johnson, but stay to vote Republican for the rest of the ballot.

Not saying that will happen, or that it's more likely than anything else. But it is a possible outcome, especially if we consider that right now Clinton is possibly at her weakest, with the Democrats still split over Obama and Sanders, and she's still leading in polls.


problem is you keep missing the Easter egg, an option that has probably not been considered, what if Sanders runs as an independent? its very possible, especially the way hes still sticking in the race, instead of bowing out, hes like 800 points behind Clinton and she only needs like 71 points, he has no chance but hes sticking in, which means if he fails to get the Democrat ticket, he will go rogue.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 04:56:37


Post by: sebster


Asterios wrote:
well, can't blame Trump really he is the result of this generation which has been brought up on reality TV


None of your argument there really works at all. For starters it isn't only the most recent generation voting. And any president who was banking on the youth vote is walking in to a disaster, their participation rate is woeful. And on top of that reality tv viewing correlates with poverty... and poverty also correlates with crappy participation in elections.

And lastly, of course, the reason people support awful but entertaining people on reality tv is because none of it matters, it's just stupid tv. But running a country actually matters. There are a lot of stupid people who don't understand this, and that's probably enough to get you 40% of the vote in a congested primary... but as a general election campaign... well its not a strategy I'd like to rely on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asterios wrote:
and none of that is new, that is the same line politicians have been using for years now, so no he is still disconnected from reality, which is also why hes losing the race.


First up, if your argument is that Sanders losing is proof that his message is disconnected, then Clinton winning must mean her message is connecting. Given you're also arguing that Clinton's message isn't connection you might want to check your lazy conclusions.

Anyhow, Sanders is losing because he hasn't been able to appeal outside of white voters. It's meant Sanders has been able to perform well in states with really high white populations, but has struggled elsewhere.

It's a problem Trump shares with Sanders, of course.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 05:00:10


Post by: Asterios


 sebster wrote:
Asterios wrote:
well, can't blame Trump really he is the result of this generation which has been brought up on reality TV


None of your argument there really works at all. For starters it isn't only the most recent generation voting. And any president who was banking on the youth vote is walking in to a disaster, their participation rate is woeful. And on top of that reality tv viewing correlates with poverty... and poverty also correlates with crappy participation in elections.

And lastly, of course, the reason people support awful but entertaining people on reality tv is because none of it matters, it's just stupid tv. But running a country actually matters. There are a lot of stupid people who don't understand this, and that's probably enough to get you 40% of the vote in a congested primary... but as a general election campaign... well its not a strategy I'd like to rely on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asterios wrote:
and none of that is new, that is the same line politicians have been using for years now, so no he is still disconnected from reality, which is also why hes losing the race.


First up, if your argument is that Sanders losing is proof that his message is disconnected, then Clinton winning must mean her message is connecting. Given you're also arguing that Clinton's message isn't connection you might want to check your lazy conclusions.

Anyhow, Sanders is losing because he hasn't been able to appeal outside of white voters. It's meant Sanders has been able to perform well in states with really high white populations, but has struggled elsewhere.

It's a problem Trump shares with Sanders, of course.


and you still look at the picture thru your eyes, look outside of the box, it will be a 3 way race in the big election between Trump, Clinton and Sanders.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 05:00:43


Post by: Gordon Shumway


Yeah, I highly doubt the millennials are streaming a whole lot of reality tv. I think your claim about "this generation that has been brought up by reality tv" is implies millennials though, and Trump isn't exactly setting fire to them. His base is poorly educated white voters who are disenfranchised and its that disenfranchisement he is feeding and tapping into. And Sanders won't run. He is positioning for more power and a greater voice, not an independent presidential run. You can see this just by looking at the way he is running through his campaign money. Plus, I think he just likes the attention and is having fun on the trail. The three way race will be Clinton, Trump, and Johnson.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 05:05:43


Post by: Ouze


 sebster wrote:
 Ouze wrote:
As a moderate who leans liberal, I am totally OK with that.


As someone who thinks democracy works best when everyone is contributing substantial and intelligent discourse, as that leads to beneficial public policy, I really am not okay with this. The Republican party as it is today is not okay. It wasn't okay before Trump, and it's been shown to be even worse as its fallen in behind him.


Touche. I'm sure on some level I will regret the Republican party cratering if somehow the Democrats win the Senate, and - mindful of the ACA - start ramming through reconciliation-from-the-beginning legislature that bans barrel shrouds and pistol grips on firearms, adds a 30 cent surtax to plastic shopping bags, and a ban on styrofoam coffee cups.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 05:09:05


Post by: Gordon Shumway


 Ouze wrote:
 sebster wrote:
 Ouze wrote:
As a moderate who leans liberal, I am totally OK with that.


As someone who thinks democracy works best when everyone is contributing substantial and intelligent discourse, as that leads to beneficial public policy, I really am not okay with this. The Republican party as it is today is not okay. It wasn't okay before Trump, and it's been shown to be even worse as its fallen in behind him.


Touche. I'm sure on some level I will regret the Republican party cratering if somehow the Democrats win the Senate, and - mindful of the ACA - start ramming through reconciliation-from-the-beginning legislature that bans barrel shrouds and pistol grips on firearms, adds a 30 cent surtax to plastic shopping bags, and a ban on styrofoam coffee cups.


Why in the world do you use a styrofoam coffe cup? Buy an insulated mug. Hot coffee all day long (nene if you are like me and drink it in twenty minutes)


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 05:10:33


Post by: Ouze


because I'm too lazy to wash it out.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 05:10:34


Post by: Asterios


 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Yeah, I highly doubt the millennials are streaming a whole lot of reality tv. I think your claim about "this generation that has been brought up by reality tv" is implies millennials though, and Trump isn't exactly setting fire to them. His base is poorly educated white voters who are disenfranchised and its that disenfranchisement he is feeding and tapping into. And Sanders won't run. He is positioning for more power and a greater voice, not an independent presidential run. You can see this just by looking at the way he is running through his campaign money. Plus, I think he just likes the attention and is having fun on the trail. The three way race will be Clinton, Trump, and Johnson.


Johnson? he won't be anything, like I said Sanders will go Rogue, he has nothing to gain right now by still running but hurting his party more, thats why Trumps contenders dropped out when they were even closer then Sanders, Trump has an advantage now to campaign for his candidacy, meanwhile Sanders is holding back Clinton from doing the same, she has to split herself between Trump and Sanders.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 05:13:40


Post by: sebster


 whembly wrote:
That's pretty harsh...

He's the Speaker of the House AND the main man at the RNC Convention. So he's expected to try to work with whomever's the President.

Ben Sasse or Ted Cruz can afford to be #NeverTrump, while Ryan needed to "flex" his p90 muscle to remind Trump that he has to work with Congressional Leadership (McConnagal tacticly endorsed Trump a few days ago).


It isn't harsh, because there was no muscle flex. He announced he had problems with Trump, they had some meetings for show, Trump conceded nothing because he knew the game, and then Ryan said it's all good. He didn't leverage Trump on anything, he just gave a political performance pretending to make a deal with Trump over something, because that's what voters who like to believe in Ryan's pretend place in the politics wanted to see.

End of the day, remember that you're #neverTrump because you know what the guy is like. Ryan and the rest know what Trump is like and would be #neverTrump, except there's personal consequences for them, so forget about values and the country.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 05:13:45


Post by: Gordon Shumway


 Ouze wrote:
because I'm too lazy to wash it out.


So am I, but if your new coffee is hot enough, it should kill most of the bacteria. Don't tell me it doesn't, I don't want to know.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 05:15:26


Post by: sebster


Asterios wrote:
and you still look at the picture thru your eyes, look outside of the box, it will be a 3 way race in the big election between Trump, Clinton and Sanders.


What? Now you're just declaring that Sanders is running third party, and also that Johnson is no longer running?

feth it, just make up whatever reality you want to believe. It doesn't matter.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 05:17:35


Post by: Gordon Shumway


Asterios wrote:
 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Yeah, I highly doubt the millennials are streaming a whole lot of reality tv. I think your claim about "this generation that has been brought up by reality tv" is implies millennials though, and Trump isn't exactly setting fire to them. His base is poorly educated white voters who are disenfranchised and its that disenfranchisement he is feeding and tapping into. And Sanders won't run. He is positioning for more power and a greater voice, not an independent presidential run. You can see this just by looking at the way he is running through his campaign money. Plus, I think he just likes the attention and is having fun on the trail. The three way race will be Clinton, Trump, and Johnson.


Johnson? he won't be anything, like I said Sanders will go Rogue, he has nothing to gain right now by still running but hurting his party more, thats why Trumps contenders dropped out when they were even closer then Sanders, Trump has an advantage now to campaign for his candidacy, meanwhile Sanders is holding back Clinton from doing the same, she has to split herself between Trump and Sanders.


No way it is going to happen. Clinton is too shrewd to let that happen. If it looks like he might, she will offer him a cabinet position or the VP slot, even if she is loathe to do it. More likely, she would offer Warren the VP slot, cutting off Sanders' support and rationale for running.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 05:21:35


Post by: Asterios


 sebster wrote:
Asterios wrote:
and you still look at the picture thru your eyes, look outside of the box, it will be a 3 way race in the big election between Trump, Clinton and Sanders.


What? Now you're just declaring that Sanders is running third party, and also that Johnson is no longer running?

feth it, just make up whatever reality you want to believe. It doesn't matter.


no i'm saying Johnson will not get enough votes to be a problem, and yes Sanders is ramping up to run third party, he doesn't want the VP spot, he wants the whole enchilada.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 05:24:10


Post by: sebster


 Ouze wrote:
Touche. I'm sure on some level I will regret the Republican party cratering if somehow the Democrats win the Senate, and - mindful of the ACA - start ramming through reconciliation-from-the-beginning legislature that bans barrel shrouds and pistol grips on firearms, adds a 30 cent surtax to plastic shopping bags, and a ban on styrofoam coffee cups.


Okay, to take the ACA as an example - there were genuine problems with that legislation, administrative and technical stuff, much of which might have been resolved if there'd been sensible debate and discussion over the actual content of the bill. But by making all that stupid socialist and death panel nonsense, Republicans basically removed themselves from that debate. And they also made it much harder for democrats to discuss the bill in a sensible manner - its hard to review and discuss a potential medicare loophole at the state level... when there's people on the other side shouting about how this will be the death of freedom in America.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gordon Shumway wrote:
No way it is going to happen. Clinton is too shrewd to let that happen. If it looks like he might, she will offer him a cabinet position or the VP slot, even if she is loathe to do it. More likely, she would offer Warren the VP slot, cutting off Sanders' support and rationale for running.


I don't think Sanders wants any cabinet position. He's more powerful in the senate.

What Sanders wants is to direct the DNC party platform. Make sure his issues are given priority. Much of the real blow out between Sanders and the rest of the party came after Sanders' people were shut out of the platform delegations. That was the real DNC shut out that he was pissed about (he shrewdly framed it as issues with the primary system even though he wasn't treated unfairly there... because he knew his voters would neither understand nor care about inter-party delegations for rules and policy committees).

He's probably pushed hard enough, and scared the DNC enough, that he'll get what he wants.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asterios wrote:
no i'm saying Johnson will not get enough votes to be a problem, and yes Sanders is ramping up to run third party, he doesn't want the VP spot, he wants the whole enchilada.


You're banking on two different things happening, both of which are extremely unlikely. You don't realise this, because you're describing both as things that will happen.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 05:29:07


Post by: Dreadwinter


xraytango wrote:
 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Asterios wrote:
[HRC and Sanders are so disconnected from todays reality they have no clue still what is going on,



You must not have seen/heard any of Sanders' speeches... Sure, some on these boards think his ideas are "pie in the sky," but the majority of his statements are certainly grounded in reality.

Wage stagnation is a real thing. College tuition has sky rocketed, outstripping the potential earnings/salary once people leave school, etc. etc. etc.



Wage stagnation is a real thing and now all the hamburger flippers and grocery baggers want $15 an hour?
Those jobs aren't worth that, nor are they intended to be used to support oneself. Why is a hamburger flipper worth being paid just a little less than a skilled tradesman?

You want more money? Get skills. Simple as that.


Actually, they are intended to support oneself. That is literally what "minimum wage" means. It is kind of ridiculous thinking to say that you can work 40 hours a week flipping burgers in a hot high stress environment and it is not meant to support you. But people working in a factory, some of the easiest jobs I have ever had in my life, should be able to support themselves with it. Factories are not skilled labor, but we absolutely need factory workers to make things. Since it is not skilled, should they not be able to support themselves?

I assume since you did not know what "minimum wage" meant, you also do not know how inflation works. Inflation is why we need to raise minimum wage.

Now your issue with skilled tradesmen. They should be paid more than they are right now. They are being grossly underpaid for what they do. Just because people want the minimum wage to be raised, does not mean they do not think people making over the minimum wage are also being underpaid for their work. That is just a goofy argument.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 05:31:27


Post by: Gordon Shumway


@sebster: You are probably right. Hell, I don't even think he really wanted to be president when it comes down to it, just get his message out. Turns out his message was more popular than the messenger thought.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 05:41:30


Post by: Asterios


 Dreadwinter wrote:
xraytango wrote:
 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Asterios wrote:
[HRC and Sanders are so disconnected from todays reality they have no clue still what is going on,



You must not have seen/heard any of Sanders' speeches... Sure, some on these boards think his ideas are "pie in the sky," but the majority of his statements are certainly grounded in reality.

Wage stagnation is a real thing. College tuition has sky rocketed, outstripping the potential earnings/salary once people leave school, etc. etc. etc.



Wage stagnation is a real thing and now all the hamburger flippers and grocery baggers want $15 an hour?
Those jobs aren't worth that, nor are they intended to be used to support oneself. Why is a hamburger flipper worth being paid just a little less than a skilled tradesman?

You want more money? Get skills. Simple as that.


Actually, they are intended to support oneself. That is literally what "minimum wage" means. It is kind of ridiculous thinking to say that you can work 40 hours a week flipping burgers in a hot high stress environment and it is not meant to support you. But people working in a factory, some of the easiest jobs I have ever had in my life, should be able to support themselves with it. Factories are not skilled labor, but we absolutely need factory workers to make things. Since it is not skilled, should they not be able to support themselves?

I assume since you did not know what "minimum wage" meant, you also do not know how inflation works. Inflation is why we need to raise minimum wage.

Now your issue with skilled tradesmen. They should be paid more than they are right now. They are being grossly underpaid for what they do. Just because people want the minimum wage to be raised, does not mean they do not think people making over the minimum wage are also being underpaid for their work. That is just a goofy argument.


fast food was never meant to be a living wage job, it was meant as an entry level job for kids and teens to learn work habits, problem is with many businesses leaving the country real jobs are becoming scarce, as to Manufacturing jobs being easier then Fast food, no they are not with Manufacturing jobs you have to meet certain quotas and such, fast food you don't.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 05:45:55


Post by: sebster


 Gordon Shumway wrote:
@sebster: You are probably right. Hell, I don't even think he really wanted to be president when it comes down to it, just get his message out. Turns out his message was more popular than the messenger thought.


Yeah, I think everyone has been surprised by Sanders appeal. I guess part of it is because Clinton's message is basically just 'more like what we've just had'. Nothing wrong with that message, but it was never going to shut everyone else out like people had expected.

Then the other part is that it turns out the electorate just isn't scared by 'socialism' as people generally thought. That's probably the part that will have lasting consequences going forward.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asterios wrote:
fast food was never meant to be a living wage job, it was meant as an entry level job for kids and teens to learn work habits


You don't set policy according to the economy you're 'meant' to have, you set it according the economy you actually have. And here in the real world the majority of people working in fast good are adults.

problem is with many businesses leaving the country real jobs are becoming scarce


Actually the number and scale of businesses in the US is bigger than ever. The issue is that companies employ less people, because automation now dominates.

with Manufacturing jobs you have to meet certain quotas and such, fast food you don't.


sbuh?


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 05:52:44


Post by: Dreadwinter


Asterios wrote:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
xraytango wrote:
 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Asterios wrote:
[HRC and Sanders are so disconnected from todays reality they have no clue still what is going on,



You must not have seen/heard any of Sanders' speeches... Sure, some on these boards think his ideas are "pie in the sky," but the majority of his statements are certainly grounded in reality.

Wage stagnation is a real thing. College tuition has sky rocketed, outstripping the potential earnings/salary once people leave school, etc. etc. etc.



Wage stagnation is a real thing and now all the hamburger flippers and grocery baggers want $15 an hour?
Those jobs aren't worth that, nor are they intended to be used to support oneself. Why is a hamburger flipper worth being paid just a little less than a skilled tradesman?

You want more money? Get skills. Simple as that.


Actually, they are intended to support oneself. That is literally what "minimum wage" means. It is kind of ridiculous thinking to say that you can work 40 hours a week flipping burgers in a hot high stress environment and it is not meant to support you. But people working in a factory, some of the easiest jobs I have ever had in my life, should be able to support themselves with it. Factories are not skilled labor, but we absolutely need factory workers to make things. Since it is not skilled, should they not be able to support themselves?

I assume since you did not know what "minimum wage" meant, you also do not know how inflation works. Inflation is why we need to raise minimum wage.

Now your issue with skilled tradesmen. They should be paid more than they are right now. They are being grossly underpaid for what they do. Just because people want the minimum wage to be raised, does not mean they do not think people making over the minimum wage are also being underpaid for their work. That is just a goofy argument.


fast food was never meant to be a living wage job, it was meant as an entry level job for kids and teens to learn work habits, problem is with many businesses leaving the country real jobs are becoming scarce, as to Manufacturing jobs being easier then Fast food, no they are not with Manufacturing jobs you have to meet certain quotas and such, fast food you don't.


No, you are wrong. ANY job that pays minimum wage is supposed to provide a living wage.

So, you are not telling me that fast food restaurants are not held to a certain speed "quota" in order to get orders out fast and accurate? Seriously, what kind of restaurant did you work at? You guys have like a 5% order accuracy?


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 06:04:01


Post by: Asterios


 Dreadwinter wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
xraytango wrote:
 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Asterios wrote:
[HRC and Sanders are so disconnected from todays reality they have no clue still what is going on,



You must not have seen/heard any of Sanders' speeches... Sure, some on these boards think his ideas are "pie in the sky," but the majority of his statements are certainly grounded in reality.

Wage stagnation is a real thing. College tuition has sky rocketed, outstripping the potential earnings/salary once people leave school, etc. etc. etc.



Wage stagnation is a real thing and now all the hamburger flippers and grocery baggers want $15 an hour?
Those jobs aren't worth that, nor are they intended to be used to support oneself. Why is a hamburger flipper worth being paid just a little less than a skilled tradesman?

You want more money? Get skills. Simple as that.


Actually, they are intended to support oneself. That is literally what "minimum wage" means. It is kind of ridiculous thinking to say that you can work 40 hours a week flipping burgers in a hot high stress environment and it is not meant to support you. But people working in a factory, some of the easiest jobs I have ever had in my life, should be able to support themselves with it. Factories are not skilled labor, but we absolutely need factory workers to make things. Since it is not skilled, should they not be able to support themselves?

I assume since you did not know what "minimum wage" meant, you also do not know how inflation works. Inflation is why we need to raise minimum wage.

Now your issue with skilled tradesmen. They should be paid more than they are right now. They are being grossly underpaid for what they do. Just because people want the minimum wage to be raised, does not mean they do not think people making over the minimum wage are also being underpaid for their work. That is just a goofy argument.


fast food was never meant to be a living wage job, it was meant as an entry level job for kids and teens to learn work habits, problem is with many businesses leaving the country real jobs are becoming scarce, as to Manufacturing jobs being easier then Fast food, no they are not with Manufacturing jobs you have to meet certain quotas and such, fast food you don't.


No, you are wrong. ANY job that pays minimum wage is supposed to provide a living wage.

So, you are not telling me that fast food restaurants are not held to a certain speed "quota" in order to get orders out fast and accurate? Seriously, what kind of restaurant did you work at? You guys have like a 5% order accuracy?


my local McDonald's has like 20 workers working at any time, each employee has basically one job, and one job only, if they are working the register, they work the register and the register only, if they are working expediting then they expedite (usually the shift leader is expediting on the drive thru and is not the drive thru cashier since that is in another window before you drive up to get your food. they have a worker on the fryer, they have a worker who puts the burgers together and so on and so on.

now the real problem with jobs like fast food is employees maybe work like 18-20 hours a week if lucky, as to fast food needing to get food out in a timely manner, seriously have you been to any fast food places? speed is not their forte.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 06:20:27


Post by: Dreadwinter


I have, unless I go in at an odd time I get my food in a timely manner and I leave. I generally get it even faster when I go through at a rush hour because they are trying to meet a demand, some would say, they are trying to make rate.

So are you saying that you worked at an oddly slow McDonalds?


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 06:28:46


Post by: sebster


Asterios wrote:
now the real problem with jobs like fast food is employees maybe work like 18-20 hours a week if lucky, as to fast food needing to get food out in a timely manner, seriously have you been to any fast food places? speed is not their forte.


We're now seeing an argument that fast food isn't supposed to be fast. Is this a new low? Probably not, and that's saying something.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 06:46:29


Post by: Ouze


 sebster wrote:
Okay, to take the ACA as an example - there were genuine problems with that legislation, administrative and technical stuff, much of which might have been resolved if there'd been sensible debate and discussion over the actual content of the bill. But by making all that stupid socialist and death panel nonsense, Republicans basically removed themselves from that debate. And they also made it much harder for democrats to discuss the bill in a sensible manner - its hard to review and discuss a potential medicare loophole at the state level... when there's people on the other side shouting about how this will be the death of freedom in America..


I understand that - I'm referencing the ACA as an example of indicating that a hypothetical Democratically controlled Senate and President would now recognize that as well. To use an analogy, there is no more killing the (proverbial) public option to try and salvage some GOP votes in the name of bipartisanship - they're going to know now that all they would be doing is throwing away parts of what they want in return for nothing. If the Democrats retake the Senate, there wouldn't be any more even pretenses of trying to work with the other side now - I think you're going to see an immediate usage of parliamentary maneuvers like reconciliation almost immediately, without any concessions to the other side at all; because they're going to know now that Lucy is never going to hold the ball. The Democrats are going to assume the GOP is never going to negotiate in good faith.

Which doesn't lend itself to good governance.


 sebster wrote:
Asterios wrote:
now the real problem with jobs like fast food is employees maybe work like 18-20 hours a week if lucky, as to fast food needing to get food out in a timely manner, seriously have you been to any fast food places? speed is not their forte.


We're now seeing an argument that fast food isn't supposed to be fast. Is this a new low? Probably not, and that's saying something.


It's functionally just noise at this point.




Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 07:12:22


Post by: sebster


 Ouze wrote:
If the Democrats retake the Senate, there wouldn't be any more even pretenses of trying to work with the other side now - I think you're going to see an immediate usage of parliamentary maneuvers like reconciliation almost immediately, without any concessions to the other side at all; because they're going to know now that Lucy is never going to hold the ball. The Democrats are going to assume the GOP is never going to negotiate in good faith.

Which doesn't lend itself to good governance.


Yep. It isn't good governance in the short term because good legislation should come through robust and sensible national debate. And long term it is likely to lead Democrats further left, as dealing amongst yourselves alone is likely to produce an echo chamber effect.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 08:47:46


Post by: Steve steveson


One of the biggest problems with employers right now in the UK and the US is the belief that some jobs are not "worth" enough for someone to live. The company is saying that this persons time must be subsidized by someone else, either living with another person with a higher wage or by some form of government payment. That is just stupid and greedy, but then these are the same people that argue that their time and effort is worth thousands of times more than people who work for them and make dumb arguments about how people should "get skills" (as if it was that easy) or that the people doing minimum wage jobs, that are some of the hardest, dirtiest jobs going are doing easy jobs.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 09:26:54


Post by: sebster


 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Please don't let cultural marxism cloud YOUR judgment.


I remember when the people shouting about cultural marxism were sure it was an evil conspiracy to put gay people on television. It's funny how the target changes, but the same terms are used to attack whoever happens to be in the firing line.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Sebster, that RCP trend poll that Whembly posted a link to that shows Clinton pulling away from Sanders recently is an aggregate of many polls and it is interesting because it shows that CA is the outlier (the race seems to be tightening there) States that have already voted must have seen the writing on the wall. To me it implies that Clinton is already consolidating the democratic vote.

538's own national trend poll shows a similar Clinton bump, though much less drastic than RCP's (perhaps 538 vets the pollsters' more stringently). http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/national-primary-polls/democratic/


Sorry mate, missed this post earlier. Interesting, I was in the habit of checking the state forecasts on 538, I didn't click on the national polls. That's interesting that numbers have moved away from Sanders, consolidation has begun as you suggested I guess.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 11:00:57


Post by: Frazzled


Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:

Maybe you just made it up.


nope not made up was an exciting afternoon with a bunch of assorted agencies showing up there. (local PD, sheriff's, ICE and a couple others I couldn't make out.), and like you said maybe Frazzled made up his?


Yes clearly I am making it up. Look up Austin Syrian refugees and you'll se they are just the latest. We are part fo the hub network for refugee services, bringing refugees from all over the world and introducing them to quality Texmex. The wife took a Burundi couple around Austin a few months back, showing them how to use the bus and stuff like that.

Believe me or don't. Its amazing how little of a gak I give.
http://www.rstx.org/austin.html

http://www.episcopalmigrationministries.org/


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Jihadin wrote:
They can tighten the vetting process.


Yes but they cannot exclude persons because of their religous faith only. Thats what Trump has said he supports. I take him at his word, and the word of many of his mouth breathing brethren.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote:
Is there any real point to this give and take that has been going on this past few days? It feels like seeing people whose opinions and intelligence I have a high respect for, even though we often disagree, are being drawn into a conversation that is going nowhere but huge circles.
My thoughts are that this has to be some type of social experiment and wonder how many sites this is happening in.


Fair point Moving back to general politics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asterios wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Hillary Clinton's speech today was good:
http://time.com/4355797/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-foreign-policy-speech-transcript/

If this were "a generic Democrat", the speech would be a very effective contrast to Trump.

The trouble for Clinton is that... every criticism levied against Trump rebounds back to her...


problem is with that speech Benghazi will come back to haunt her.


Everytime I see Benghazi I think tigers.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 11:40:17


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Frazzled wrote:


Everytime I see Benghazi I think tigers.


Nazi Tigers?


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 11:55:32


Post by: Frazzled


Texaco Tigers!


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 11:56:22


Post by: kronk


Asterios wrote:


didn't ask you too and to be honest I just don't care what you think, just like I don't believe Frazzled, each to our own and our own opinions and beliefs.


Then stop posting. You don't care about others, and we (seemingly) don't give a gak about your opinion.

Mumford and Sons is releasing a mini-album with 5 new songs. Go listen to that and chill the feth out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 d-usa wrote:


"When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."


I made a sock puppet account so that I could exalt this twice.

(Not really. I don't need my 57th "vacation")


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 12:16:52


Post by: Frazzled


Mumford and Sons? Thats just mean...


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 13:42:22


Post by: Asterios


 Dreadwinter wrote:
I have, unless I go in at an odd time I get my food in a timely manner and I leave. I generally get it even faster when I go through at a rush hour because they are trying to meet a demand, some would say, they are trying to make rate.

So are you saying that you worked at an oddly slow McDonalds?


no i'm saying when I worked at a fast food place back in the 80's we had 3 people working and got our food out twice as fast as fast food places these days it seems, especially if you are a walk-in, they set precedence for drive thru over walk-ins, one day I was waiting for my food, saw they made it were putting it on a tray and the drive thru just snags some of my food off the tray to send thru drive thru and i ended up waiting 5 more minutes (yes 5 minutes timed it) for my food. and this isn't even the busiest they get.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 13:50:00


Post by: Kilkrazy


What's this got to do with the presidential election?

Let's get back on topic.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 13:50:30


Post by: Ahtman


 Frazzled wrote:
Mumford and Sons? Thats just mean...


Maybe he meant Sanford and Son.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 13:57:03


Post by: whembly




Anti-Trump protesters are doing it wrong in San Jose, CA:



Watch: The moment a Trump supporter, surrounded by protesters, is egged in the face, hit by other food. pic.twitter.com/qYFdwJWvrS

— Jacob Rascon (@Jacobnbc) June 3, 2016


Chasing Trump supporters, kicking their cars, burning American flags

And San Jose Mayor @sliccardo blames Trump pic.twitter.com/HGYtH0lxy8

— Cameron Gray (@Cameron_Gray) June 3, 2016


Protest is moving pretty quickly. The guy in stripes just punched out, knocked a pregnant lady to the ground pic.twitter.com/kPFKtmJ5Oh

— Nicky Woolf (@NickyWoolf) June 3, 2016



On a day where Clinton finally found some traction against Trump with her "he's unfit for President" speech, the anti-Trumpers weakened it.

If this is indicative of any protest in the RNC/DNC convention, remember this when Trump is sworn in as President January 20th.



Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 13:57:22


Post by: d-usa


Weird that they care about drive thru times if they don't have to worry about meeting any kind of metrics...


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 14:01:57


Post by: Kilkrazy


 whembly wrote:


Anti-Trump protesters are doing it wrong in San Jose, CA:



Watch: The moment a Trump supporter, surrounded by protesters, is egged in the face, hit by other food. pic.twitter.com/qYFdwJWvrS

— Jacob Rascon (@Jacobnbc) June 3, 2016


Chasing Trump supporters, kicking their cars, burning American flags

And San Jose Mayor @sliccardo blames Trump pic.twitter.com/HGYtH0lxy8

— Cameron Gray (@Cameron_Gray) June 3, 2016


Protest is moving pretty quickly. The guy in stripes just punched out, knocked a pregnant lady to the ground pic.twitter.com/kPFKtmJ5Oh

— Nicky Woolf (@NickyWoolf) June 3, 2016



On a day where Clinton finally found some traction against Trump with her "he's unfit for President" speech, the anti-Trumpers weakened it.

If this is indicative of any protest in the RNC/DNC convention, remember this when Trump is sworn in as President January 20th.



I think you're engaging in some kind of psychological transference mechanism.

Someone bops Trump's supporters at a rally.

Therefore Clinton is to blame.

Therefore Trump will get elected.

It doesn't logically follow at all.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 14:10:59


Post by: whembly


 Kilkrazy wrote:
Spoiler:
 whembly wrote:


Anti-Trump protesters are doing it wrong in San Jose, CA:



Watch: The moment a Trump supporter, surrounded by protesters, is egged in the face, hit by other food. pic.twitter.com/qYFdwJWvrS

— Jacob Rascon (@Jacobnbc) June 3, 2016


Chasing Trump supporters, kicking their cars, burning American flags

And San Jose Mayor @sliccardo blames Trump pic.twitter.com/HGYtH0lxy8

— Cameron Gray (@Cameron_Gray) June 3, 2016


Protest is moving pretty quickly. The guy in stripes just punched out, knocked a pregnant lady to the ground pic.twitter.com/kPFKtmJ5Oh

— Nicky Woolf (@NickyWoolf) June 3, 2016



On a day where Clinton finally found some traction against Trump with her "he's unfit for President" speech, the anti-Trumpers weakened it.

If this is indicative of any protest in the RNC/DNC convention, remember this when Trump is sworn in as President January 20th.



I think you're engaging in some kind of psychological transference mechanism.

Someone bops Trump's supporters at a rally.

Therefore Clinton is to blame.

Therefore Trump will get elected.

It doesn't logically follow at all.

When has anything to do with Trump follows logic here?

The thing is, it’s about as effective an ad for voting Trump as I can imagine. It’s an emotional punch straight to the gut.

/tinfoil hat on: to what degree is Trump playing a game where he deliberately baits people into responding emotionally in ways that hurt them and help him? It’s an donkey-cave negotiation tactic, but it’s often a successful one.(what chapter is that in The Art of the Deal??) I mean... he's got the nomination locked up, so what the feth is he doing in San Jose, CA? In a state that he has no chance in the General Election?


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 14:13:18


Post by: Frazzled


 Ahtman wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Mumford and Sons? Thats just mean...


Maybe he meant Sanford and Son.


I'm coming to join you Elizabeth!

Interesting item on Sanders funding:
http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-pol-sanders-donors/#nt=oft12aH-1gp2


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 14:14:48


Post by: Asterios


 whembly wrote:


Anti-Trump protesters are doing it wrong in San Jose, CA:



On a day where Clinton finally found some traction against Trump with her "he's unfit for President" speech, the anti-Trumpers weakened it.

If this is indicative of any protest in the RNC/DNC convention, remember this when Trump is sworn in as President January 20th.



thats what I've been saying, people keep blaming trump supporters for starting things yet the evidence on that is very small, while evidence of the Anti-Trumpers doing things is growing day by day. and it doesn't help they are waving a foreign nations flag either. too me that means vote Trump, since the other party has a foreign nation voting for them.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 14:17:11


Post by: Kilkrazy


 whembly wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Spoiler:
 whembly wrote:


Anti-Trump protesters are doing it wrong in San Jose, CA:



Watch: The moment a Trump supporter, surrounded by protesters, is egged in the face, hit by other food. pic.twitter.com/qYFdwJWvrS

— Jacob Rascon (@Jacobnbc) June 3, 2016


Chasing Trump supporters, kicking their cars, burning American flags

And San Jose Mayor @sliccardo blames Trump pic.twitter.com/HGYtH0lxy8

— Cameron Gray (@Cameron_Gray) June 3, 2016


Protest is moving pretty quickly. The guy in stripes just punched out, knocked a pregnant lady to the ground pic.twitter.com/kPFKtmJ5Oh

— Nicky Woolf (@NickyWoolf) June 3, 2016



On a day where Clinton finally found some traction against Trump with her "he's unfit for President" speech, the anti-Trumpers weakened it.

If this is indicative of any protest in the RNC/DNC convention, remember this when Trump is sworn in as President January 20th.



I think you're engaging in some kind of psychological transference mechanism.

Someone bops Trump's supporters at a rally.

Therefore Clinton is to blame.

Therefore Trump will get elected.

It doesn't logically follow at all.

When has anything to do with Trump follows logic here?

The thing is, it’s about as effective an ad for voting Trump as I can imagine. It’s an emotional punch straight to the gut.

/tinfoil hat on: to what degree is Trump playing a game where he deliberately baits people into responding emotionally in ways that hurt them and help him? It’s an donkey-cave negotiation tactic, but it’s often a successful one.(what chapter is that in The Art of the Deal??) I mean... he's got the nomination locked up, so what the feth is he doing in San Jose, CA? In a state that he has no chance in the General Election?


I think you've got a pretty active imagination on this topic.

Why wouldn't people switch their vote away from Trump when they see what horror and loathing he inspires?


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 14:17:47


Post by: whembly



Very cool and surprised that FL isn't very green...

What does this map look like for Clinton and Trump?


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 14:18:47


Post by: Asterios


 Kilkrazy wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Spoiler:
 whembly wrote:


Anti-Trump protesters are doing it wrong in San Jose, CA:



Watch: The moment a Trump supporter, surrounded by protesters, is egged in the face, hit by other food. pic.twitter.com/qYFdwJWvrS

— Jacob Rascon (@Jacobnbc) June 3, 2016


Chasing Trump supporters, kicking their cars, burning American flags

And San Jose Mayor @sliccardo blames Trump pic.twitter.com/HGYtH0lxy8

— Cameron Gray (@Cameron_Gray) June 3, 2016


Protest is moving pretty quickly. The guy in stripes just punched out, knocked a pregnant lady to the ground pic.twitter.com/kPFKtmJ5Oh

— Nicky Woolf (@NickyWoolf) June 3, 2016



On a day where Clinton finally found some traction against Trump with her "he's unfit for President" speech, the anti-Trumpers weakened it.

If this is indicative of any protest in the RNC/DNC convention, remember this when Trump is sworn in as President January 20th.



I think you're engaging in some kind of psychological transference mechanism.

Someone bops Trump's supporters at a rally.

Therefore Clinton is to blame.

Therefore Trump will get elected.

It doesn't logically follow at all.

When has anything to do with Trump follows logic here?

The thing is, it’s about as effective an ad for voting Trump as I can imagine. It’s an emotional punch straight to the gut.

/tinfoil hat on: to what degree is Trump playing a game where he deliberately baits people into responding emotionally in ways that hurt them and help him? It’s an donkey-cave negotiation tactic, but it’s often a successful one.(what chapter is that in The Art of the Deal??) I mean... he's got the nomination locked up, so what the feth is he doing in San Jose, CA? In a state that he has no chance in the General Election?


I think you've got a pretty active imagination on this topic.

Why wouldn't people switch their vote away from Trump when they see what horror and loathing he inspires?


because it is the other side creating the horrors, not Trumps side, but the Anti-Trumpers, I would rather vote for an egomaniac then thugs any day of the week.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 14:21:58


Post by: whembly


 Kilkrazy wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Spoiler:
 whembly wrote:


Anti-Trump protesters are doing it wrong in San Jose, CA:



Watch: The moment a Trump supporter, surrounded by protesters, is egged in the face, hit by other food. pic.twitter.com/qYFdwJWvrS

— Jacob Rascon (@Jacobnbc) June 3, 2016


Chasing Trump supporters, kicking their cars, burning American flags

And San Jose Mayor @sliccardo blames Trump pic.twitter.com/HGYtH0lxy8

— Cameron Gray (@Cameron_Gray) June 3, 2016


Protest is moving pretty quickly. The guy in stripes just punched out, knocked a pregnant lady to the ground pic.twitter.com/kPFKtmJ5Oh

— Nicky Woolf (@NickyWoolf) June 3, 2016



On a day where Clinton finally found some traction against Trump with her "he's unfit for President" speech, the anti-Trumpers weakened it.

If this is indicative of any protest in the RNC/DNC convention, remember this when Trump is sworn in as President January 20th.



I think you're engaging in some kind of psychological transference mechanism.

Someone bops Trump's supporters at a rally.

Therefore Clinton is to blame.

Therefore Trump will get elected.

It doesn't logically follow at all.

When has anything to do with Trump follows logic here?

The thing is, it’s about as effective an ad for voting Trump as I can imagine. It’s an emotional punch straight to the gut.

/tinfoil hat on: to what degree is Trump playing a game where he deliberately baits people into responding emotionally in ways that hurt them and help him? It’s an donkey-cave negotiation tactic, but it’s often a successful one.(what chapter is that in The Art of the Deal??) I mean... he's got the nomination locked up, so what the feth is he doing in San Jose, CA? In a state that he has no chance in the General Election?


I think you've got a pretty active imagination on this topic.

Why wouldn't people switch their vote away from Trump when they see what horror and loathing he inspires?

That'll inspire the opposite KK. As much as Trump causes disgust, actions like this would only Reinvigorate Trump supporters.

In an election where I believe we'd have record low turnout due to abject apathy, any external means that encourages support to spite actions like these is going to be "a thing".


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 14:23:08


Post by: Jihadin


Still voting for Trump. Though I can see stupidity of individuals that are quite physical in their protest can run counter with any message put out by either side candidates. I can see it ramping up as we get closer to elections.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 14:29:08


Post by: Spinner


Asterios wrote:


thats what I've been saying, people keep blaming trump supporters for starting things yet the evidence on that is very small, while evidence of the Anti-Trumpers doing things is growing day by day. and it doesn't help they are waving a foreign nations flag either. too me that means vote Trump, since the other party has a foreign nation voting for them.


I know it won't matter to you, but, uh.

Here's an actual foreign nation actually supporting a presidential candidate, instead of a protestor waving a flag.

Not that I've got a problem with people in other nations saying 'hey, I'd like THAT person to be in charge of the US'. If I paid more attention to other countries' elections, I'd be doing the same thing.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 14:33:48


Post by: ScootyPuffJunior


 Spinner wrote:
Asterios wrote:


thats what I've been saying, people keep blaming trump supporters for starting things yet the evidence on that is very small, while evidence of the Anti-Trumpers doing things is growing day by day. and it doesn't help they are waving a foreign nations flag either. too me that means vote Trump, since the other party has a foreign nation voting for them.


I know it won't matter to you, but, uh.

Here's an actual foreign nation actually supporting a presidential candidate, instead of a protestor waving a flag.

Not that I've got a problem with people in other nations saying 'hey, I'd like THAT person to be in charge of the US'. If I paid more attention to other countries' elections, I'd be doing the same thing.
Hey, if getting praise from North Korea is wrong, I don't wanna be right!


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 14:35:26


Post by: Jihadin


Wait. We're taking North Korea Little Kim seriously now?


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 14:44:20


Post by: Spinner


I'd say political support from North Korea is a bit like a relationship being praised by Chris Brown. Maybe the recipient doesn't want it and we should do our best not to let it dictate policy, but it's going to make everybody cringe and it's probably a fairly decent warning sign.

I look forward to finding out if it takes as much teeth-pulling for Trump to decline the support of a murderous, child-like dictator as it did for him to decline the support of a KKK member. I also look forward to finding out if he's going to pretend like he doesn't know who Kim is.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 14:44:52


Post by: Asterios


 Spinner wrote:
Asterios wrote:


thats what I've been saying, people keep blaming trump supporters for starting things yet the evidence on that is very small, while evidence of the Anti-Trumpers doing things is growing day by day. and it doesn't help they are waving a foreign nations flag either. too me that means vote Trump, since the other party has a foreign nation voting for them.


I know it won't matter to you, but, uh.

Here's an actual foreign nation actually supporting a presidential candidate, instead of a protestor waving a flag.

Not that I've got a problem with people in other nations saying 'hey, I'd like THAT person to be in charge of the US'. If I paid more attention to other countries' elections, I'd be doing the same thing.


yeah don't think wack job N. Korea is saying California belongs to N. Korea while waving N. Korea Flags in California. very big difference there, but hey you are a troll so what does reality mean to you, i'm already looking at Democrats I know thinking of voting for Trump because they are getting nervous about thousands upon thousands of protesters waving a Mexican flag saying California belongs to California, also i'm not a Republican myself. I've voted both democrat and republican and everything in between.

all wacko said is he is willing to talk to Trump, which is more then can be said about other candidates. and with N. Korea would rather talk then have that idiot go off and start a war and nuke every country around them, which i believe they are capable of doing.


 Jihadin wrote:
Wait. We're taking North Korea Little Kim seriously now?


North Korea scares the living daylights out of me because their leader is psychotic and is willing to start a war and use nukes.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 14:52:14


Post by: Frazzled




Someone bops Trump's supporters at a rally.

Therefore Clinton is to blame.

Therefore Trump will get elected.

It doesn't logically follow at all.


It does actually. If the news gets filled with Mexican flag waving violent protesters, it lends sympathy and creedance to Trump.

Now normally this would be a big deal, however, Trump's constant negative press overcompensates for it in a big way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:

Very cool and surprised that FL isn't very green...

What does this map look like for Clinton and Trump?

Don't know.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 15:03:15


Post by: jreilly89


Asterios wrote:
 whembly wrote:


Anti-Trump protesters are doing it wrong in San Jose, CA:



On a day where Clinton finally found some traction against Trump with her "he's unfit for President" speech, the anti-Trumpers weakened it.

If this is indicative of any protest in the RNC/DNC convention, remember this when Trump is sworn in as President January 20th.



thats what I've been saying, people keep blaming trump supporters for starting things yet the evidence on that is very small, while evidence of the Anti-Trumpers doing things is growing day by day. and it doesn't help they are waving a foreign nations flag either. too me that means vote Trump, since the other party has a foreign nation voting for them.


...right, minus the part where about 3 pages back I linked you all those news stories of Trump supporters starting it? But sure, cherry pick this one example.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 15:11:13


Post by: Asterios


 jreilly89 wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 whembly wrote:


Anti-Trump protesters are doing it wrong in San Jose, CA:



On a day where Clinton finally found some traction against Trump with her "he's unfit for President" speech, the anti-Trumpers weakened it.

If this is indicative of any protest in the RNC/DNC convention, remember this when Trump is sworn in as President January 20th.



thats what I've been saying, people keep blaming trump supporters for starting things yet the evidence on that is very small, while evidence of the Anti-Trumpers doing things is growing day by day. and it doesn't help they are waving a foreign nations flag either. too me that means vote Trump, since the other party has a foreign nation voting for them.


...right, minus the part where about 3 pages back I linked you all those news stories of Trump supporters starting it? But sure, cherry pick this one example.


its not one example, also the video is not just of one example, its of several examples in just 1 town, as far as i'm concerned Bern can Burn and Clinton can fall of a cliff Trump for the win and he will win, especially when you consider he is gaining traction in California of all places.

your examples were of just lone people here and there, the Anti-Trumpers are of whole gangs and groups of people, big difference.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 15:26:28


Post by: jreilly89


Asterios wrote:
 jreilly89 wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 whembly wrote:


Anti-Trump protesters are doing it wrong in San Jose, CA:



On a day where Clinton finally found some traction against Trump with her "he's unfit for President" speech, the anti-Trumpers weakened it.

If this is indicative of any protest in the RNC/DNC convention, remember this when Trump is sworn in as President January 20th.



thats what I've been saying, people keep blaming trump supporters for starting things yet the evidence on that is very small, while evidence of the Anti-Trumpers doing things is growing day by day. and it doesn't help they are waving a foreign nations flag either. too me that means vote Trump, since the other party has a foreign nation voting for them.


...right, minus the part where about 3 pages back I linked you all those news stories of Trump supporters starting it? But sure, cherry pick this one example.


its not one example, also the video is not just of one example, its of several examples in just 1 town, as far as i'm concerned Bern can Burn and Clinton can fall of a cliff Trump for the win and he will win, especially when you consider he is gaining traction in California of all places.

your examples were of just lone people here and there, the Anti-Trumpers are of whole gangs and groups of people, big difference.


Right, Trump is completely innocent second, Trump can fall off the face of the earth for all I care. He's an egomaniac, racist, power hungry worm. I think it says a lot about anyone who would vote for him. But I will give it to him that he had some good ideas about taxes, he would just have a hell of a time passing them as laws.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 15:27:56


Post by: Easy E


I love this time of year in the US. it brings out the crazy people!

It reminds me of the chapter in {b]Around the World in 80 Days[/b] when Phineas Fogg gets caught up in an election riot in California for town mayor/judge or something.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 15:37:42


Post by: Asterios


 jreilly89 wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 jreilly89 wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 whembly wrote:


Anti-Trump protesters are doing it wrong in San Jose, CA:



On a day where Clinton finally found some traction against Trump with her "he's unfit for President" speech, the anti-Trumpers weakened it.

If this is indicative of any protest in the RNC/DNC convention, remember this when Trump is sworn in as President January 20th.



thats what I've been saying, people keep blaming trump supporters for starting things yet the evidence on that is very small, while evidence of the Anti-Trumpers doing things is growing day by day. and it doesn't help they are waving a foreign nations flag either. too me that means vote Trump, since the other party has a foreign nation voting for them.


...right, minus the part where about 3 pages back I linked you all those news stories of Trump supporters starting it? But sure, cherry pick this one example.


its not one example, also the video is not just of one example, its of several examples in just 1 town, as far as i'm concerned Bern can Burn and Clinton can fall of a cliff Trump for the win and he will win, especially when you consider he is gaining traction in California of all places.

your examples were of just lone people here and there, the Anti-Trumpers are of whole gangs and groups of people, big difference.


Right, Trump is completely innocent second, Trump can fall off the face of the earth for all I care. He's an egomaniac, racist, power hungry worm. I think it says a lot about anyone who would vote for him. But I will give it to him that he had some good ideas about taxes, he would just have a hell of a time passing them as laws.


typical behavior of someone who promotes anarchy, blame Trump, even though he is not the one forcing the protesters to attack people or wave Mexican flags saying California belongs to Mexico, and you wonder why hes winning? I have seen KKK rally's that didn't have this much destruction and if anything Blacks would have more of a right too, yet they show more civility then those protesting at Trump Rallys, yeah its Trumps fault, right.

How many Trump supporters showing up at Sanders or HRC's rallys causing destruction and such ?


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 16:00:19


Post by: jreilly89


Asterios wrote:
 jreilly89 wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 jreilly89 wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 whembly wrote:


Anti-Trump protesters are doing it wrong in San Jose, CA:



On a day where Clinton finally found some traction against Trump with her "he's unfit for President" speech, the anti-Trumpers weakened it.

If this is indicative of any protest in the RNC/DNC convention, remember this when Trump is sworn in as President January 20th.



thats what I've been saying, people keep blaming trump supporters for starting things yet the evidence on that is very small, while evidence of the Anti-Trumpers doing things is growing day by day. and it doesn't help they are waving a foreign nations flag either. too me that means vote Trump, since the other party has a foreign nation voting for them.


...right, minus the part where about 3 pages back I linked you all those news stories of Trump supporters starting it? But sure, cherry pick this one example.


its not one example, also the video is not just of one example, its of several examples in just 1 town, as far as i'm concerned Bern can Burn and Clinton can fall of a cliff Trump for the win and he will win, especially when you consider he is gaining traction in California of all places.

your examples were of just lone people here and there, the Anti-Trumpers are of whole gangs and groups of people, big difference.


Right, Trump is completely innocent second, Trump can fall off the face of the earth for all I care. He's an egomaniac, racist, power hungry worm. I think it says a lot about anyone who would vote for him. But I will give it to him that he had some good ideas about taxes, he would just have a hell of a time passing them as laws.


typical behavior of someone who promotes anarchy, blame Trump, even though he is not the one forcing the protesters to attack people or wave Mexican flags saying California belongs to Mexico, and you wonder why hes winning? I have seen KKK rally's that didn't have this much destruction and if anything Blacks would have more of a right too, yet they show more civility then those protesting at Trump Rallys, yeah its Trumps fault, right.

How many Trump supporters showing up at Sanders or HRC's rallys causing destruction and such ?


I promote anarchy because I blame Trump? Innocent Trump, the guy who wants to build a wall to fence off Mexico, make Muslims sign a registry, and could fly off the handle at the drop of a hat? Has flown off the handle at the drop of a hat, accusing women who criticize him of being on their period? Yeah, then call me an anarchist.

Second, I'm sorry people are protesting and causing a gakstorm at a Trump rally but guess what? The brought it on himself. You can't piss in the wind and be surprised when it hits you in the face.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 16:06:08


Post by: whembly


 jreilly89 wrote:

Second, I'm sorry people are protesting and causing a gakstorm at a Trump rally but guess what? The brought it on himself. You can't piss in the wind and be surprised when it hits you in the face.

That argument is no different than a rapist blaming the victim for wearing that hot dress.


Protest all you want... but, resorting to violence should be called out no matter which sides does it.

The irony of all of this is that it helps Trump, as it clarifies this election as a BINARY choice. While minimizes the #neverTrump... like me.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 16:08:24


Post by: Frazzled


Second, I'm sorry people are protesting and causing a gakstorm at a Trump rally but guess what? The brought it on himself. You can't piss in the wind and be surprised when it hits you in the face.


BLAME THE VICTIM!

I miss that guy...


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 16:10:37


Post by: Asterios


 jreilly89 wrote:

I promote anarchy because I blame Trump? Innocent Trump, the guy who wants to build a wall to fence off Mexico, make Muslims sign a registry, and could fly off the handle at the drop of a hat? Has flown off the handle at the drop of a hat, accusing women who criticize him of being on their period? Yeah, then call me an anarchist.

Second, I'm sorry people are protesting and causing a gakstorm at a Trump rally but guess what? The brought it on himself. You can't piss in the wind and be surprised when it hits you in the face.


fly off the handle at the drop of a hat? you mean like the protesters are? criticizing people? you mean like the protesters are, causing a gakstorm? you mean like the protesters are? you say Trump is promoting this and yet you didn't ask my question, how many riots and injuries and attacks caused by Trump supporters at HRC's or Sanders rallys? and yet you claim those attack Trump supporters are innocents? that its all trumps fault? so you are saying they are mindless idiots who have no control over their actions? seriously do you listen to yourself? all I see in the Protesters are a bunch of thugs and threats to the security of this nation. and that is why people are being swayed to Trump.

so by your own standard a rape victim would be responsible for being raped because they dressed sexy?


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 16:10:55


Post by: MrDwhitey


He still exists Frazzled... I know where he is...

Also whilst you could understand why people would be violent towards Trump supporters, it's still unacceptable.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 16:10:55


Post by: Kilkrazy


 whembly wrote:
 jreilly89 wrote:

Second, I'm sorry people are protesting and causing a gakstorm at a Trump rally but guess what? The brought it on himself. You can't piss in the wind and be surprised when it hits you in the face.

That argument is no different than a rapist blaming the victim for wearing that hot dress.


Protest all you want... but, resorting to violence should be called out no matter which sides does it.

The irony of all of this is that it helps Trump, as it clarifies this election as a BINARY choice. While minimizes the #neverTrump... like me.


The difference is that Trumpo is actively working to threaten the interests of Mexicans and Muslims, so they've got some kind of moral right to actively work back. A rapist doesn't have any moral right to assault a woman for wearing a skimpy dress.

I agree that violence is not the best way, though.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 16:14:01


Post by: whembly


 Kilkrazy wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 jreilly89 wrote:

Second, I'm sorry people are protesting and causing a gakstorm at a Trump rally but guess what? The brought it on himself. You can't piss in the wind and be surprised when it hits you in the face.

That argument is no different than a rapist blaming the victim for wearing that hot dress.


Protest all you want... but, resorting to violence should be called out no matter which sides does it.

The irony of all of this is that it helps Trump, as it clarifies this election as a BINARY choice. While minimizes the #neverTrump... like me.


The difference is that Trumpo is actively working to threaten the interests of Mexicans and Muslims, so they've got some kind of moral right to actively work back. A rapist doesn't have any moral right to assault a woman for wearing a skimpy dress.

I agree that violence is not the best way, though.

No. Stop.

The moral right is to PEACEFULLY PROTEST and PEACEFULLY ENGAGE the system... the best defense against bad speech is GOOD SPEECH.

The only moral right for violence is to eject an actual-honest-to-god Tyrant/Dictator.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 16:14:30


Post by: sebster


 whembly wrote:
/tinfoil hat on: to what degree is Trump playing a game where he deliberately baits people into responding emotionally in ways that hurt them and help him? It’s an donkey-cave negotiation tactic, but it’s often a successful one.(what chapter is that in The Art of the Deal??) I mean... he's got the nomination locked up, so what the feth is he doing in San Jose, CA? In a state that he has no chance in the General Election?


It isn't up for grabs for Trump, but there are other Republican races in the seat. And more importantly it's home to a lot of whales, the state might not vote Republican on the whole but there's some serious money in California. I just looked it up and Romney was going there as late as September in 2012.

Trump is doing what every campaigner does, building a warchest. He's totally different, though, and not a politician, because people say so.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 16:15:58


Post by: whembly


 sebster wrote:
 whembly wrote:
/tinfoil hat on: to what degree is Trump playing a game where he deliberately baits people into responding emotionally in ways that hurt them and help him? It’s an donkey-cave negotiation tactic, but it’s often a successful one.(what chapter is that in The Art of the Deal??) I mean... he's got the nomination locked up, so what the feth is he doing in San Jose, CA? In a state that he has no chance in the General Election?


It isn't up for grabs for Trump, but there are other Republican races in the seat. And more importantly it's home to a lot of whales, the state might not vote Republican on the whole but there's some serious money in California. I just looked it up and Romney was going there as late as September in 2012.

Trump is doing what every campaigner does, building a warchest. He's totally different, though, and not a politician, because people say so.

Okay... I guess that makes more sense why he's there.

<takes off my tinfoil hat>



Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 16:18:24


Post by: sebster


 Jihadin wrote:
Wait. We're taking North Korea Little Kim seriously now?


No, but if someone is going to pretend that because a random protestor held the flag of another country then he has to vote for the other side, then it only makes sense to ask what that person will do when his preferred candidate is supported by an actual tyrant.

Well, it doesn't really make sense to ask, because no-one involved thinks we're going to get an interesting answer, but still, it had to be done.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 16:20:33


Post by: Prestor Jon


 Kilkrazy wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 jreilly89 wrote:

Second, I'm sorry people are protesting and causing a gakstorm at a Trump rally but guess what? The brought it on himself. You can't piss in the wind and be surprised when it hits you in the face.

That argument is no different than a rapist blaming the victim for wearing that hot dress.


Protest all you want... but, resorting to violence should be called out no matter which sides does it.

The irony of all of this is that it helps Trump, as it clarifies this election as a BINARY choice. While minimizes the #neverTrump... like me.


The difference is that Trumpo is actively working to threaten the interests of Mexicans and Muslims, so they've got some kind of moral right to actively work back. A rapist doesn't have any moral right to assault a woman for wearing a skimpy dress.

I agree that violence is not the best way, though.


Violently attacking people for their political beliefs is wholly unacceptable, it's not merely not the best way. There is no moral justification for burning the American flag to protest Trump. Anyone who doesn't like Trump and/or his politics can vote for an opposing candidate on Election Day. That would be acceptable behavior. There is no reason for people to create dangerous violent confrontations of empty political rhetoric from a candidate that hasn't even won an election yet.

Society would be much better off if people stopped making excuses for despicable behavior when it's directed at people they don't like based upon mostly meaningless and fake political distinctions. There is no need to pick a team and start dehumanizing the perceived other side nothing good will come of it.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 16:21:17


Post by: Frazzled



The difference is that Trumpo is actively working to threaten the interests of Mexicans and Muslims, so they've got some kind of moral right to actively work back.





As Trump supporters believe illegal immigrants are actively attempting to destroy their livelihoods and bringing murderers and rapists into the country, I guess following that standard Trump supporters should just pre-emptively machine gun them in self defense of their families and way of life. After all they've got some kind of moral right to actively work back.

No, thats not how Western democracies work (ok maybe Chicago and NYC). Thats how Latin American strongman "republics" work.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 16:22:12


Post by: Asterios


 sebster wrote:
 Jihadin wrote:
Wait. We're taking North Korea Little Kim seriously now?


No, but if someone is going to pretend that because a random protestor held the flag of another country then he has to vote for the other side, then it only makes sense to ask what that person will do when his preferred candidate is supported by an actual tyrant.

Well, it doesn't really make sense to ask, because no-one involved thinks we're going to get an interesting answer, but still, it had to be done.


And I answered you, N. Korea or any of its people are not in California claiming California belongs to Mexico, those protesting are. and that wack job in N. Korea said he would talk with Trump and i'd rather see that then have that wack job lob nukes at his neighbors and start a war., there is a big difference between willing to talk to a presidential candidate and claiming a US state is part of another country while waving that countries flag. and its not a few of the protesters doing that it is thousands of them.

 Frazzled wrote:

The difference is that Trumpo is actively working to threaten the interests of Mexicans and Muslims, so they've got some kind of moral right to actively work back.





As Trump supporters believe illegal immigrants are actuively attempting to destroy their livelihoods and bringing murderers and rapists into the country, I guess following that stadard they should just pre-emptively machine gun them in self defense of their families and way of life. After all they've got some kind of moral right to actively work back.

No, thats not how Western democracies work (ok maybe Chicago and NYC). Thats how Latin American strongman "republics" work.


I agree(disturbing isn't it ), heck we have people waving Mexican Flags and saying California belongs to Mexico, and yet don't see the Trump supporters attacking them, do you? does anyone?


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 16:27:06


Post by: Kovnik Obama


Asterios wrote:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
xraytango wrote:
 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Asterios wrote:
[HRC and Sanders are so disconnected from todays reality they have no clue still what is going on,



You must not have seen/heard any of Sanders' speeches... Sure, some on these boards think his ideas are "pie in the sky," but the majority of his statements are certainly grounded in reality.

Wage stagnation is a real thing. College tuition has sky rocketed, outstripping the potential earnings/salary once people leave school, etc. etc. etc.



Wage stagnation is a real thing and now all the hamburger flippers and grocery baggers want $15 an hour?
Those jobs aren't worth that, nor are they intended to be used to support oneself. Why is a hamburger flipper worth being paid just a little less than a skilled tradesman?

You want more money? Get skills. Simple as that.


Actually, they are intended to support oneself. That is literally what "minimum wage" means. It is kind of ridiculous thinking to say that you can work 40 hours a week flipping burgers in a hot high stress environment and it is not meant to support you. But people working in a factory, some of the easiest jobs I have ever had in my life, should be able to support themselves with it. Factories are not skilled labor, but we absolutely need factory workers to make things. Since it is not skilled, should they not be able to support themselves?

I assume since you did not know what "minimum wage" meant, you also do not know how inflation works. Inflation is why we need to raise minimum wage.

Now your issue with skilled tradesmen. They should be paid more than they are right now. They are being grossly underpaid for what they do. Just because people want the minimum wage to be raised, does not mean they do not think people making over the minimum wage are also being underpaid for their work. That is just a goofy argument.


fast food was never meant to be a living wage job, it was meant as an entry level job for kids and teens to learn work habits, problem is with many businesses leaving the country real jobs are becoming scarce, as to Manufacturing jobs being easier then Fast food, no they are not with Manufacturing jobs you have to meet certain quotas and such, fast food you don't.


Jobs aren't generally (or almost ever) designed with the intent of filling a needed role on the part of the jobber. It's either something worth paying a wage over, or it's something else trivial, like a chore you recompense a family member for doing. If you are a productive member of a modern capitalist society, you should receive a living wage, if for no other reason than that modern capitalist societies can and do afford your production.

If it's part of an industry, than it's entry level job should allow someone to support themselves with a full-time wage. If it can't, that's because the industry is financially unviable in a modern context. And fast-food is a profitable venture in the Western world.
They have no excuse to maintain such low wages.

And finally, fast-food restaurants can't leave your country without opening a business opportunity for others, so it does have that over factory work.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 16:31:12


Post by: Asterios


 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
xraytango wrote:
 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Asterios wrote:
[HRC and Sanders are so disconnected from todays reality they have no clue still what is going on,



You must not have seen/heard any of Sanders' speeches... Sure, some on these boards think his ideas are "pie in the sky," but the majority of his statements are certainly grounded in reality.

Wage stagnation is a real thing. College tuition has sky rocketed, outstripping the potential earnings/salary once people leave school, etc. etc. etc.



Wage stagnation is a real thing and now all the hamburger flippers and grocery baggers want $15 an hour?
Those jobs aren't worth that, nor are they intended to be used to support oneself. Why is a hamburger flipper worth being paid just a little less than a skilled tradesman?

You want more money? Get skills. Simple as that.


Actually, they are intended to support oneself. That is literally what "minimum wage" means. It is kind of ridiculous thinking to say that you can work 40 hours a week flipping burgers in a hot high stress environment and it is not meant to support you. But people working in a factory, some of the easiest jobs I have ever had in my life, should be able to support themselves with it. Factories are not skilled labor, but we absolutely need factory workers to make things. Since it is not skilled, should they not be able to support themselves?

I assume since you did not know what "minimum wage" meant, you also do not know how inflation works. Inflation is why we need to raise minimum wage.

Now your issue with skilled tradesmen. They should be paid more than they are right now. They are being grossly underpaid for what they do. Just because people want the minimum wage to be raised, does not mean they do not think people making over the minimum wage are also being underpaid for their work. That is just a goofy argument.


fast food was never meant to be a living wage job, it was meant as an entry level job for kids and teens to learn work habits, problem is with many businesses leaving the country real jobs are becoming scarce, as to Manufacturing jobs being easier then Fast food, no they are not with Manufacturing jobs you have to meet certain quotas and such, fast food you don't.


Jobs aren't generally (or almost ever) designed with the intent of filling a needed role on the part of the jobber. It's either something worth paying a wage over, or it's something else trivial, like a chore you recompense a family member for doing. If you are a productive member of a modern capitalist society, you should receive a living wage, if for no other reason than that modern capitalist societies can and do afford your production.

If it's part of an industry, than it's entry level job should allow someone to support themselves with a full-time wage. If it can't, that's because the industry is financially unviable in a modern context. And fast-food is a profitable venture in the Western world.
They have no excuse to maintain such low wages.

And finally, fast-food restaurants can't leave your country without opening a business opportunity for others, so it does have that over factory work.


actually around here I've already seen 2 fast food places close down this year by me, both of them were torn down and paved over into a parking spaces (one of them I have no clue why since they have way more parking spaces then they will ever need for the couple of small stores by them.) so you are right they don't leave the country, they just leave period, also what is a living wage, that differs whereever you go? I can live comfortably on less then $1,500 a month (I do now) and I own a home. yet people are saying they cannot.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 16:36:30


Post by: Frazzled


Asterios wrote:
I agree(disturbing isn't it ), heck we have people waving Mexican Flags and saying California belongs to Mexico, and yet don't see the Trump supporters attacking them, do you? does anyone?


Although I vehemently disagree that Trump should be elected...anything, his supporters have an absolute right to participate. The whole argument is stupid, if entertaining...

As to California, I think Spain has a prior claim, and before Spain certain native tribes...



Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 16:46:14


Post by: Asterios


 Frazzled wrote:
Asterios wrote:
I agree(disturbing isn't it ), heck we have people waving Mexican Flags and saying California belongs to Mexico, and yet don't see the Trump supporters attacking them, do you? does anyone?


Although I vehemently disagree that Trump should be elected...anything, his supporters have an absolute right to participate. The whole argument is stupid, if entertaining...

As to California, I think Spain has a prior claim, and before Spain certain native tribes...



and as been found out lately those Indian Tribes were not even the first peoples here in the America's, hell it looks like a lot of Countries could have claims on the Americas even the Aborigines of Australia.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 16:51:42


Post by: Kovnik Obama


Asterios wrote:
actually around here I've already seen 2 fast food places close down this year by me, both of them were torn down and paved over into a parking spaces (one of them I have no clue why since they have way more parking spaces then they will ever need for the couple of small stores by them.) so you are right they don't leave the country, they just leave period


Is there less population in your area? Is the economy that much worst than it was before? Because otherwise people still need to be fed, and even people with low-ncome tend to go to fast-food places. Possibly even more than high income individuals. Perhaps there was oversaturation. Perhaps the franchise terms were prohibitive.


Asterios wrote:
also what is a living wage, that differs whereever you go? I can live comfortably on less then $1,500 a month (I do now) and I own a home. yet people are saying they cannot.


Depends on your country's public policy, but it's either the minimum salary needed for an adult to meet a series of needs (housing, feeding, clothing, utilities, health care, transport) and have some leftover for personal expenses or education, or the minimum salary needed for a adult member of a family to meet the same needs for his household.

Since we are moving away from nuclear families being the quintessential driver of society, I think we should separate completely the idea of a living wage and that of a family living wage, but alas my government doesn't agree with me.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 16:52:14


Post by: Frazzled


As a Texan my only concern would be whether even more Californians would want to move here.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 16:54:28


Post by: Asterios


 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Asterios wrote:
actually around here I've already seen 2 fast food places close down this year by me, both of them were torn down and paved over into a parking spaces (one of them I have no clue why since they have way more parking spaces then they will ever need for the couple of small stores by them.) so you are right they don't leave the country, they just leave period


Is there less population in your area? Is the economy that much worst than it was before? Because otherwise people still need to be fed, and even people with low-ncome tend to go to fast-food places. Possibly even more than high income individuals. Perhaps there was oversaturation. Perhaps the franchise terms were prohibitive.


Asterios wrote:
also what is a living wage, that differs whereever you go? I can live comfortably on less then $1,500 a month (I do now) and I own a home. yet people are saying they cannot.


Depends on your country's public policy, but it's either the minimum salary needed for an adult to meet a series of needs (housing, feeding, clothing, utilities, health care, transport) and have some leftover for personal expenses or education, or the minimum salary needed for a adult member of a family to meet the same needs for his household.

Since we are moving away from nuclear families being the quintessential driver of society, I think we should separate completely the idea of a living wage and that of a family living wage, but alas my government doesn't agree with me.


I'm in Stockton, Ca. google it nuff said.


 Frazzled wrote:
As a Texan my only concern would be whether even more Californians would want to move here.


you guys keep taking our businesses, Texas and Nevada.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 17:03:49


Post by: Frazzled


Hey those businesses aren't going to take themselves!


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 17:07:37


Post by: A Town Called Malus


Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Spoiler:
 whembly wrote:


Anti-Trump protesters are doing it wrong in San Jose, CA:



Watch: The moment a Trump supporter, surrounded by protesters, is egged in the face, hit by other food. pic.twitter.com/qYFdwJWvrS

— Jacob Rascon (@Jacobnbc) June 3, 2016


Chasing Trump supporters, kicking their cars, burning American flags

And San Jose Mayor @sliccardo blames Trump pic.twitter.com/HGYtH0lxy8

— Cameron Gray (@Cameron_Gray) June 3, 2016


Protest is moving pretty quickly. The guy in stripes just punched out, knocked a pregnant lady to the ground pic.twitter.com/kPFKtmJ5Oh

— Nicky Woolf (@NickyWoolf) June 3, 2016



On a day where Clinton finally found some traction against Trump with her "he's unfit for President" speech, the anti-Trumpers weakened it.

If this is indicative of any protest in the RNC/DNC convention, remember this when Trump is sworn in as President January 20th.



I think you're engaging in some kind of psychological transference mechanism.

Someone bops Trump's supporters at a rally.

Therefore Clinton is to blame.

Therefore Trump will get elected.

It doesn't logically follow at all.

When has anything to do with Trump follows logic here?

The thing is, it’s about as effective an ad for voting Trump as I can imagine. It’s an emotional punch straight to the gut.

/tinfoil hat on: to what degree is Trump playing a game where he deliberately baits people into responding emotionally in ways that hurt them and help him? It’s an donkey-cave negotiation tactic, but it’s often a successful one.(what chapter is that in The Art of the Deal??) I mean... he's got the nomination locked up, so what the feth is he doing in San Jose, CA? In a state that he has no chance in the General Election?


I think you've got a pretty active imagination on this topic.

Why wouldn't people switch their vote away from Trump when they see what horror and loathing he inspires?


because it is the other side creating the horrors, not Trumps side, but the Anti-Trumpers, I would rather vote for an egomaniac then thugs any day of the week.


I didn't realise Clinton and/or Sanders were in there throwing punches.

I also didn't realise that they had actively called for their supporters to engage in violence as Trump did.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 17:15:34


Post by: Asterios


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Spoiler:
 whembly wrote:


Anti-Trump protesters are doing it wrong in San Jose, CA:



Watch: The moment a Trump supporter, surrounded by protesters, is egged in the face, hit by other food. pic.twitter.com/qYFdwJWvrS

— Jacob Rascon (@Jacobnbc) June 3, 2016


Chasing Trump supporters, kicking their cars, burning American flags

And San Jose Mayor @sliccardo blames Trump pic.twitter.com/HGYtH0lxy8

— Cameron Gray (@Cameron_Gray) June 3, 2016


Protest is moving pretty quickly. The guy in stripes just punched out, knocked a pregnant lady to the ground pic.twitter.com/kPFKtmJ5Oh

— Nicky Woolf (@NickyWoolf) June 3, 2016



On a day where Clinton finally found some traction against Trump with her "he's unfit for President" speech, the anti-Trumpers weakened it.

If this is indicative of any protest in the RNC/DNC convention, remember this when Trump is sworn in as President January 20th.



I think you're engaging in some kind of psychological transference mechanism.

Someone bops Trump's supporters at a rally.

Therefore Clinton is to blame.

Therefore Trump will get elected.

It doesn't logically follow at all.

When has anything to do with Trump follows logic here?

The thing is, it’s about as effective an ad for voting Trump as I can imagine. It’s an emotional punch straight to the gut.

/tinfoil hat on: to what degree is Trump playing a game where he deliberately baits people into responding emotionally in ways that hurt them and help him? It’s an donkey-cave negotiation tactic, but it’s often a successful one.(what chapter is that in The Art of the Deal??) I mean... he's got the nomination locked up, so what the feth is he doing in San Jose, CA? In a state that he has no chance in the General Election?


I think you've got a pretty active imagination on this topic.

Why wouldn't people switch their vote away from Trump when they see what horror and loathing he inspires?


because it is the other side creating the horrors, not Trumps side, but the Anti-Trumpers, I would rather vote for an egomaniac then thugs any day of the week.


I didn't realise Clinton and/or Sanders were in there throwing punches.

I also didn't realise that they had actively called for their supporters to engage in violence as Trump did.


and yet it is Trumps supporters not engaging in violence, and judging by the Feel the Bern signs it is Sanders supporters engaging in violence. (oh yeah those feel the Bern signs intermingled with them Mexican flags keep showing up on the telly.)


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 17:31:32


Post by: dogma


 whembly wrote:

Ben Sasse or Ted Cruz can afford to be #NeverTrump, while Ryan needed to "flex" his p90 muscle to remind Trump that he has to work with Congressional Leadership (McConnagal tacticly endorsed Trump a few days ago).


Neither Ryan nor Cruz worked with Congressional leadership, in fact they deliberately chose to do the opposite because they wanted to sell the "outsider" narrative.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 17:33:47


Post by: whembly


 dogma wrote:
 whembly wrote:

Ben Sasse or Ted Cruz can afford to be #NeverTrump, while Ryan needed to "flex" his p90 muscle to remind Trump that he has to work with Congressional Leadership (McConnagal tacticly endorsed Trump a few days ago).


Neither Ryan nor Cruz worked with Congressional leadership, in fact they deliberately chose to do the opposite because they wanted to sell the "outsider" narrative.

Cruz... no.

Ryan? He leads it in the House side.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 17:34:33


Post by: Asterios


 whembly wrote:
 dogma wrote:
 whembly wrote:

Ben Sasse or Ted Cruz can afford to be #NeverTrump, while Ryan needed to "flex" his p90 muscle to remind Trump that he has to work with Congressional Leadership (McConnagal tacticly endorsed Trump a few days ago).


Neither Ryan nor Cruz worked with Congressional leadership, in fact they deliberately chose to do the opposite because they wanted to sell the "outsider" narrative.

Cruz... no.

Ryan? He leads it in the House side.


wonders if Ryan will be a running mate for Trump ?

right now i'm looking at no good candidate is running for election so it makes me wonder what do they know? since no one wants to lead when th Don't bypass the language filter like this. Reds8n is going to hit the fan.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 17:34:41


Post by: A Town Called Malus


Asterios wrote:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Spoiler:
 whembly wrote:


Anti-Trump protesters are doing it wrong in San Jose, CA:



Watch: The moment a Trump supporter, surrounded by protesters, is egged in the face, hit by other food. pic.twitter.com/qYFdwJWvrS

— Jacob Rascon (@Jacobnbc) June 3, 2016


Chasing Trump supporters, kicking their cars, burning American flags

And San Jose Mayor @sliccardo blames Trump pic.twitter.com/HGYtH0lxy8

— Cameron Gray (@Cameron_Gray) June 3, 2016


Protest is moving pretty quickly. The guy in stripes just punched out, knocked a pregnant lady to the ground pic.twitter.com/kPFKtmJ5Oh

— Nicky Woolf (@NickyWoolf) June 3, 2016



On a day where Clinton finally found some traction against Trump with her "he's unfit for President" speech, the anti-Trumpers weakened it.

If this is indicative of any protest in the RNC/DNC convention, remember this when Trump is sworn in as President January 20th.



I think you're engaging in some kind of psychological transference mechanism.

Someone bops Trump's supporters at a rally.

Therefore Clinton is to blame.

Therefore Trump will get elected.

It doesn't logically follow at all.

When has anything to do with Trump follows logic here?

The thing is, it’s about as effective an ad for voting Trump as I can imagine. It’s an emotional punch straight to the gut.

/tinfoil hat on: to what degree is Trump playing a game where he deliberately baits people into responding emotionally in ways that hurt them and help him? It’s an donkey-cave negotiation tactic, but it’s often a successful one.(what chapter is that in The Art of the Deal??) I mean... he's got the nomination locked up, so what the feth is he doing in San Jose, CA? In a state that he has no chance in the General Election?


I think you've got a pretty active imagination on this topic.

Why wouldn't people switch their vote away from Trump when they see what horror and loathing he inspires?


because it is the other side creating the horrors, not Trumps side, but the Anti-Trumpers, I would rather vote for an egomaniac then thugs any day of the week.


I didn't realise Clinton and/or Sanders were in there throwing punches.

I also didn't realise that they had actively called for their supporters to engage in violence as Trump did.


and yet it is Trumps supporters not engaging in violence, and judging by the Feel the Bern signs it is Sanders supporters engaging in violence. (oh yeah those feel the Bern signs intermingled with them Mexican flags keep showing up on the telly.)


And a Trump supporter is currently the dictator of one of the harshest totalitarian regimes on the planet.

So what was your point?


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 17:36:29


Post by: Asterios


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Spoiler:
 whembly wrote:


Anti-Trump protesters are doing it wrong in San Jose, CA:



Watch: The moment a Trump supporter, surrounded by protesters, is egged in the face, hit by other food. pic.twitter.com/qYFdwJWvrS

— Jacob Rascon (@Jacobnbc) June 3, 2016


Chasing Trump supporters, kicking their cars, burning American flags

And San Jose Mayor @sliccardo blames Trump pic.twitter.com/HGYtH0lxy8

— Cameron Gray (@Cameron_Gray) June 3, 2016


Protest is moving pretty quickly. The guy in stripes just punched out, knocked a pregnant lady to the ground pic.twitter.com/kPFKtmJ5Oh

— Nicky Woolf (@NickyWoolf) June 3, 2016



On a day where Clinton finally found some traction against Trump with her "he's unfit for President" speech, the anti-Trumpers weakened it.

If this is indicative of any protest in the RNC/DNC convention, remember this when Trump is sworn in as President January 20th.



I think you're engaging in some kind of psychological transference mechanism.

Someone bops Trump's supporters at a rally.

Therefore Clinton is to blame.

Therefore Trump will get elected.

It doesn't logically follow at all.

When has anything to do with Trump follows logic here?

The thing is, it’s about as effective an ad for voting Trump as I can imagine. It’s an emotional punch straight to the gut.

/tinfoil hat on: to what degree is Trump playing a game where he deliberately baits people into responding emotionally in ways that hurt them and help him? It’s an donkey-cave negotiation tactic, but it’s often a successful one.(what chapter is that in The Art of the Deal??) I mean... he's got the nomination locked up, so what the feth is he doing in San Jose, CA? In a state that he has no chance in the General Election?


I think you've got a pretty active imagination on this topic.

Why wouldn't people switch their vote away from Trump when they see what horror and loathing he inspires?


because it is the other side creating the horrors, not Trumps side, but the Anti-Trumpers, I would rather vote for an egomaniac then thugs any day of the week.


I didn't realise Clinton and/or Sanders were in there throwing punches.

I also didn't realise that they had actively called for their supporters to engage in violence as Trump did.


and yet it is Trumps supporters not engaging in violence, and judging by the Feel the Bern signs it is Sanders supporters engaging in violence. (oh yeah those feel the Bern signs intermingled with them Mexican flags keep showing up on the telly.)


And a Trump supporter is currently the dictator of one of the harshest totalitarian regimes on the planet.

So what was your point?


not a supporter, but someone willing to talk to Trump.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 17:36:39


Post by: Jihadin


Putin approves of Trump but Kim has more credibility? Awesome Sauce


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 17:37:40


Post by: whembly


 A Town Called Malus wrote:


And a Trump supporter is currently the dictator of one of the harshest totalitarian regimes on the planet.

So what was your point?

The point is, you don’t get to complain about violence at Trump rallies while tacitly endorsing *this riot* because *direct action* is cool when the action is directed at people you don’t like.






Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 18:22:40


Post by: jreilly89


 whembly wrote:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:


And a Trump supporter is currently the dictator of one of the harshest totalitarian regimes on the planet.

So what was your point?

The point is, you don’t get to complain about violence at Trump rallies while tacitly endorsing *this riot* because *direct action* is cool when the action is directed at people you don’t like.



Or, you could be not endorsing it, but just stating the fact that it isn't a damn surprise. Imagine if I walked into Harlem or Detroit, and started screaming the N word. Would it be that surprising if I got assaulted or shot? No. Violence begets violence, that doesn't mean I'm approving or excusing it.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 18:23:53


Post by: Jihadin


Has either side denounce the violence?


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 18:31:49


Post by: jreilly89


 Jihadin wrote:
Has either side denounce the violence?


Not that I've seen. They likely won't, as it's easier to not address it, or just say "Oh, they weren't our supporters". Otherwise, they get roped into apologizing for every riot or protest.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 18:40:40


Post by: jmurph


Such violence should be denounced.

As weak and ineffective. Next time, use ultraviolence.

Seriously, though, this election is dumb.
Day after endorsement, Ryan slams Trump


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 18:43:44


Post by: jreilly89


 jmurph wrote:
Such violence should be denounced.

As weak and ineffective. Next time, use ultraviolence.

Seriously, though, this election is dumb.
Day after endorsement, Ryan slams Trump


Well, he did side with Mitt Romney, Captain Flip Flop.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 18:44:29


Post by: d-usa


 jreilly89 wrote:
 Jihadin wrote:
Has either side denounce the violence?


Not that I've seen. They likely won't, as it's easier to not address it, or just say "Oh, they weren't our supporters". Otherwise, they get roped into apologizing for every riot or protest.


By the magic of Google I was able to do a deep and intense search, and after less than 30 seconds determine that both Hillary and Sanders have denounced the violence for months now.

Glad we got that solved.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 18:58:15


Post by: Jihadin


Same 30 sec's. None of them personally denounce the violence. I've Hillary Chairman and that's about it.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 19:02:45


Post by: Kilkrazy


 whembly wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 jreilly89 wrote:

Second, I'm sorry people are protesting and causing a gakstorm at a Trump rally but guess what? The brought it on himself. You can't piss in the wind and be surprised when it hits you in the face.

That argument is no different than a rapist blaming the victim for wearing that hot dress.


Protest all you want... but, resorting to violence should be called out no matter which sides does it.

The irony of all of this is that it helps Trump, as it clarifies this election as a BINARY choice. While minimizes the #neverTrump... like me.


The difference is that Trumpo is actively working to threaten the interests of Mexicans and Muslims, so they've got some kind of moral right to actively work back. A rapist doesn't have any moral right to assault a woman for wearing a skimpy dress.

I agree that violence is not the best way, though.

No. Stop.

The moral right is to PEACEFULLY PROTEST and PEACEFULLY ENGAGE the system... the best defense against bad speech is GOOD SPEECH.

The only moral right for violence is to eject an actual-honest-to-god Tyrant/Dictator.


Read what I typed.

Then apologise for equating rape with political protest.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 19:03:22


Post by: whembly


 jmurph wrote:
Such violence should be denounced.

As weak and ineffective. Next time, use ultraviolence.

Seriously, though, this election is dumb.
Day after endorsement, Ryan slams Trump

To whomever running this Universe Simulation... this has sufficiently gave me brain aneurysm:
Susan Sarandon: Trump Might Be Better for America Than Hillary Clinton

Please stop...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 jreilly89 wrote:

Second, I'm sorry people are protesting and causing a gakstorm at a Trump rally but guess what? The brought it on himself. You can't piss in the wind and be surprised when it hits you in the face.

That argument is no different than a rapist blaming the victim for wearing that hot dress.


Protest all you want... but, resorting to violence should be called out no matter which sides does it.

The irony of all of this is that it helps Trump, as it clarifies this election as a BINARY choice. While minimizes the #neverTrump... like me.


The difference is that Trumpo is actively working to threaten the interests of Mexicans and Muslims, so they've got some kind of moral right to actively work back. A rapist doesn't have any moral right to assault a woman for wearing a skimpy dress.

I agree that violence is not the best way, though.

No. Stop.

The moral right is to PEACEFULLY PROTEST and PEACEFULLY ENGAGE the system... the best defense against bad speech is GOOD SPEECH.

The only moral right for violence is to eject an actual-honest-to-god Tyrant/Dictator.


Read what I typed.

Then apologise for equating rape with political protest.

I did. You're still mistaken.

This wasn't a protest, this was violence. So, justifying this violence because of what Trump has said/represent is equivocation to a rapist blaming his actions because of how his victim is dressed.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 19:06:41


Post by: d-usa


 Jihadin wrote:
Same 30 sec's. None of them personally denounce the violence. I've Hillary Chairman and that's about it.


Google harder.

They both did, personally, back in March when all of this first started.

If we want to move the goalpost from "denounce violence" to "denounce it every time it happens" then we can, I guess, but that seems silly.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 19:08:27


Post by: Kilkrazy


 jreilly89 wrote:
 Jihadin wrote:
Has either side denounce the violence?


Not that I've seen. They likely won't, as it's easier to not address it, or just say "Oh, they weren't our supporters". Otherwise, they get roped into apologizing for every riot or protest.


Trump has a history of condoning violence by his supporters against protestors.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-35793103


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 19:16:20


Post by: jreilly89


 Kilkrazy wrote:
 jreilly89 wrote:
 Jihadin wrote:
Has either side denounce the violence?


Not that I've seen. They likely won't, as it's easier to not address it, or just say "Oh, they weren't our supporters". Otherwise, they get roped into apologizing for every riot or protest.


Trump has a history of condoning violence by his supporters against protestors.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-35793103


Hey, we said denounce, that is TOTALLY different!


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 19:38:31


Post by: Jihadin


We always mention inactive participants in elections, low voter turn out, under informed to misinformed voters etc etc etc......now we have some entertainment


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 19:39:07


Post by: Frazzled


ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED!


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 19:40:12


Post by: Asterios


 Jihadin wrote:
We always mention inactive participants in elections, low voter turn out, under informed to misinformed voters etc etc etc......now we have some entertainment


and still wouldn't be surprised by low voter turn out.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 19:40:22


Post by: Jihadin


Its the reason I am voting for Trump. He entertains me. Also something he mention back a couple weeks ago I agree with...


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 19:41:07


Post by: Kilkrazy


 Frazzled wrote:
ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED!


COMPULSORY ENJOY. YOU WATCH NOW.

The reality TV star comes of age in his greatest role yet.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 19:41:08


Post by: Asterios


 Jihadin wrote:
Its the reason I am voting for Trump. He entertains me. Also something he mention back a couple weeks ago I agree with...


he said a lot of things a couple of weeks ago, doesn't exactly narrow the field some


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 19:45:06


Post by: Spinner


Herman Cain quoting the Pokemon Movie was entertaining. Trump's just screwed up.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 19:46:45


Post by: Dreadwinter


That is the point of what he said, he doesn't want you to know.....


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 19:46:55


Post by: Jihadin


Asterios wrote:
 Jihadin wrote:
Its the reason I am voting for Trump. He entertains me. Also something he mention back a couple weeks ago I agree with...


he said a lot of things a couple of weeks ago, doesn't exactly narrow the field some


Why I can't claim the 110% entertainment excuse. For the life of me it most be a low priority for me

Edit

Being I can't remember what he said I agree with


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 19:48:04


Post by: Frazzled


 Kilkrazy wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED!


COMPULSORY ENJOY. YOU WATCH NOW.

The reality TV star comes of age in his greatest role yet.


The greatest film ever told, based on real events!


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 19:48:37


Post by: LordofHats


 Spinner wrote:
Herman Cain quoting the Pokemon Movie was entertaining. Trump's just screwed up.


I had to look that up. How did I not know about this?


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 19:51:51


Post by: Spinner


 LordofHats wrote:
 Spinner wrote:
Herman Cain quoting the Pokemon Movie was entertaining. Trump's just screwed up.


I had to look that up. How did I not know about this?


I'm not sure. It was the single greatest moment of the last election.

I think my favorite part about it was Jon Stewart finding a more appropriate Pokemon quote for the speech, trying desperately to get through his bit without laughing too hard.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 19:57:52


Post by: Asterios


 Jihadin wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Jihadin wrote:
Its the reason I am voting for Trump. He entertains me. Also something he mention back a couple weeks ago I agree with...


he said a lot of things a couple of weeks ago, doesn't exactly narrow the field some


Why I can't claim the 110% entertainment excuse. For the life of me it most be a low priority for me

Edit

Being I can't remember what he said I agree with


but you agree ?

looks like the Mayor of San Jose is coming under major fire from all sides over his comments and actions.

and trump has put up this meme:



also it seems these are popping up to before events like San Jose:



Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 23:13:32


Post by: Rosebuddy


 whembly wrote:

This wasn't a protest, this was violence. So, justifying this violence because of what Trump has said/represent is equivocation to a rapist blaming his actions because of how his victim is dressed.


There are some things that do deserve (and must!) be met with violence whereas how a person is dressed is irrelevant. If you want to say that in this particular case whatever happened wasn't justified for whatever reason then ok but you're throwing out big sweeping statements that don't hold up.

There is always violence in a protest, anyway, because even if nothing happens that's the implication. The whole point of a protest is to say that "we're being relatively nice for now". Otherwise it's kind of a waste of time because whatever you're protesting can simply ignore you.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/03 23:15:58


Post by: Spinner


I think we can add memes to the list of things Trump doesn't understand.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/04 00:18:14


Post by: Asterios


Rosebuddy wrote:
 whembly wrote:

This wasn't a protest, this was violence. So, justifying this violence because of what Trump has said/represent is equivocation to a rapist blaming his actions because of how his victim is dressed.


There are some things that do deserve (and must!) be met with violence whereas how a person is dressed is irrelevant. If you want to say that in this particular case whatever happened wasn't justified for whatever reason then ok but you're throwing out big sweeping statements that don't hold up.

There is always violence in a protest, anyway, because even if nothing happens that's the implication. The whole point of a protest is to say that "we're being relatively nice for now". Otherwise it's kind of a waste of time because whatever you're protesting can simply ignore you.


really? how many protests have you been too? I've seen a lot that were not violent.

by your words if I don't like how you think and want to protest I can hit you, beat you and attack you and that is ok ?

also Trumps supporters were tagged and attacked most likely by their hats or shirts or signs which said Trump on them, so do you wish to reword your post?

also on a side note if you don't like the Ghostbusters reboot, you are a trump supporter:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/03/entertainment/judd-apatow-ghostbusters-trump/index.html?sr=fbCNN060316judd-apatow-ghostbusters-trump0528PMStoryGalLink&linkId=25177479


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/04 05:18:37


Post by: whembly


Rosebuddy wrote:
 whembly wrote:

This wasn't a protest, this was violence. So, justifying this violence because of what Trump has said/represent is equivocation to a rapist blaming his actions because of how his victim is dressed.


There are some things that do deserve (and must!) be met with violence whereas how a person is dressed is irrelevant. If you want to say that in this particular case whatever happened wasn't justified for whatever reason then ok but you're throwing out big sweeping statements that don't hold up.

There is always violence in a protest, anyway, because even if nothing happens that's the implication. The whole point of a protest is to say that "we're being relatively nice for now". Otherwise it's kind of a waste of time because whatever you're protesting can simply ignore you.

Riots/violence <> Protest.

So, I reject your premise and stop making me defend the Trump voters.


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/04 05:29:16


Post by: Ouze


 whembly wrote:
stop making me defend the Trump voters.


It's step one in where we know this is going. Accept it, it is your destiny.



Politics - USA @ 2016/06/04 05:34:14


Post by: whembly


 Ouze wrote:
 whembly wrote:
stop making me defend the Trump voters.


It's step one in where we know this is going. Accept it, it is your destiny.


Food for thought...

Which candidate will be held accountable by the media?


Politics - USA @ 2016/06/04 05:39:57


Post by: Dreadwinter


 Ouze wrote:
 whembly wrote:
stop making me defend the Trump voters.


It's step one in where we know this is going. Accept it, it is your destiny.



#NeverTrump leads to #MaybeTrump. #MaybeTrump leads to #AlwaysTrump. #AlwaysTrump leads to #TheDarkSide.