2016 Presidential Horse Race

[wizards8507]

Until we don't need oil anymore.

We have more than enough of our own if we were allowed to go get it.

 

[Cackalacky]

what do you guys think the reaction would have been had Trump used "Middle Eastern Countries" rather than "Mulsims" for his ban?

about the same?
"better"?
"worse"?

That would ban Jews Christians, Zoastrians, and many other religions while not including majority Muslim countries elsewhere like Indonesia, Sri Lanka and a healthy population of India. And many African nations..... it's dumb no matter how you frame it. He is a child.

 

[Cackalacky]

It would have been better in reality. The reaction would have been the same. Think about his illegal immigration position. He talks about "Mexico," not "Hispanic people," and he's still called a racist.

I honestly am completely surprised at how much and how often I completely disagree with you on everything you post.

He used Mexicans to describe or lump all the illegal aliens/ Hispanics in the country together. I think many Hispanics particularly those from other Hispanic countries find that very offensive.

Also I don't know how you can say it would be better if he said ME countries. It would worse considering that would include other religions including Christians and Jews while not including many muslim countries in Africa and Asia. The Christian right here would lose.their collective shit.

You realize that based on his statements recently it can.be argued very easily that he holds a facist political view point at this point right?

 

[GoIrish41]

We have more than enough of our own if we were allowed to go get it.

Renewable energy is the future. Why fight over something or ravage our own country for something that will slowly kill us all anyway?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Sorry, I missed this the other day when you posted it.

A good start would be ...

Forces of Fortune and The Shia Revival, both by Vali Nasr

and

No god but God and Beyond Fundamentalism, both by Reza Aslan

But there are many books on the Middle East from various perspectives. Exploring the subject from a Western/Christian viewpoint is limiting, IMO. Anyway, I hope you take some time to see it from other perspectives.

"See No Evil" by Robert Baer

"Through Our Enemies' Eyes" by Michael Scheuer *** this one you'll enjoy the most. very critical of GW. He headed the CIA Bin Laden Unit from 1996-1999.

"My FBI" by Louis Freeh

"The Art of Intelligence" by Henry Crumpton

Hope you do the same.

 

[kmoose]

Until we don't need oil anymore.

There's an awful lot of trade going through the Suez, and it ain't all oil. There are other routes they could take, but then shipping costs go up, so the price in the store goes up, so inflation goes up, so minimum wage goes up, so spending on assistance programs goes up.....

Oil might be the biggest concern about the Middle East, but its not the only big one.

 

[RDU Irish]

I honestly am completely surprised at how much and how often I completely disagree with you on everything you post.

He used Mexicans to describe or lump all the illegal aliens/ Hispanics in the country together. I think many Hispanics particularly those from other Hispanic countries find that very offensive.

Also I don't know how you can say it would be better if he said ME countries. It would worse considering that would include other religions including Christians and Jews while not including many muslim countries in Africa and Asia. The Christian right here would lose.their collective shit.

You realize that based on his statements recently it can.be argued very easily that he holds a facist political view point at this point right?

It makes more sense to me to restrict countries because that is a policy you can actually enforce. I mean, how hard is it to lie and say you are not Muslim? I don't understand the "right" of non-citizens to enter our country? Seems the ME outrage is ridiculous too - If my kid wants to leave my home do I get upset if any particular person doesn't take them in? F-U dad - I want to go live with Johnny. Well Johnny's folks don't want you and we should lobby the world to guilt them in to taking you in? Ludicrous. You have no right.

There is a reason Trump rose 8% in the polls after this "gaffe" - the current refusal to face the actual problem out of PC, grab ass mentality is accurately called to the floor as not even trying to address the core problem.

 

[GoIrish41]

It makes more sense to me to restrict countries because that is a policy you can actually enforce. I mean, how hard is it to lie and say you are not Muslim? I don't understand the "right" of non-citizens to enter our country? Seems the ME outrage is ridiculous too - If my kid wants to leave my home do I get upset if any particular person doesn't take them in? F-U dad - I want to go live with Johnny. Well Johnny's folks don't want you and we should lobby the world to guilt them in to taking you in? Ludicrous. You have no right.

There is a reason Trump rose 8% in the polls after this "gaffe" - the current refusal to face the actual problem out of PC, grab ass mentality is accurately called to the floor as not even trying to address the core problem.

It's not about "their rights". It's about who we are as a country. It's about the founding principles. It's about acceptance and empathy and our responsibility as the greatest nation on the planet to demonstate strength through acceptance and compassion. These things, above all, are what makes America great.

It is not about walls and greed and bigotry and playing the politics of fear. It's not about hate. What Trump is advocating is uncivilized, unconstitutional and unAmerican!

 

[BGIF]

Fairly certain those are old maps. At the very least, Manas is no longer a US air base (Russians out bid us).

I believe Manas Air Base was closed down. Russia already had a base near Manas. The Russians and Chinese lobbied for the US base to be closed. Our CINC willingly accomodated them to build his legacy rather than in the interest of foreign policy/national security.

 

[pkt77242]

I believe Manas Air Base was closed down. Russia already had a base near Manas. The Russians and Chinese lobbied for the US base to be closed. Our CINC willingly accomodated them to build his legacy rather than in the interest of foreign policy/national security.

You are so great at hiding your contempt for Obama.

Maybe we closed the base because we have one in Ganci already and it was a cost cutting move.

 

[GoIrish41]

You are so great at hiding your contempt for Obama.

Maybe we closed the base because we have one in Ganci already and it was a cost cutting move.

Or that the military overarching primary focus transitioned to the Pacific over the past year or so.

 

[BGIF]

You are so great at hiding your contempt for Obama.

Maybe we closed the base because we have one in Ganci already and it was a cost cutting move.

Forgive him Lord he know not what he speaks. Manas Air Base was closed in 2014, its unofficial name was Ganci Air Base. ONE AND THE SAME.

 

[pkt77242]

Forgive him Lord he know not what he speaks. Manas Air Base was closed in 2014, its unofficial name was Ganci Air Base. ONE AND THE SAME.

Ok (though to be fair they are listed separately on that map). Again we had to cut military costs, doesn't it make sense to close some of our overseas bases?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

It's not about "their rights". It's about who we are as a country. It's about the founding principles. It's about acceptance and empathy and our responsibility as the greatest nation on the planet to demonstate strength through acceptance and compassion. These things, above all, are what makes America great.

It is not about walls and greed and bigotry and playing the politics of fear. It's not about hate. What Trump is advocating is uncivilized, unconstitutional and unAmerican!

Not here to defend every word of Trump, but the president's first duty is to protect the American people and no one has a right to enter the United States. We don't owe anyone anything. We're a nation of immigrants, but that doesn't mean the flood gates should be open for everyone and anyone.

 

[GoIrish41]

Not here to defend every word of Trump, but the president's first duty is to protect the American people and no one has a right to enter the United States. We don't owe anyone anything. We're a nation of immigrants, but that doesn't mean the flood gates should be open for everyone and anyone.

Protecting the American people, in this case, begins with not provoking people of other religions to join radicals that would seek to do us harm. It's why Obama won't utter those words so many on the right want him to. Saying or demonstrating that this is some sort of clash between Christianity and Islam puts us in far more danger that letting people fleeing the very violence that we are talking about find a safe haven in the United States.

 

[wizards8507]

Protecting the American people, in this case, begins with not provoking people of other religions to join radicals that would seek to do us harm. It's why Obama won't utter those words so many on the right want him to. Saying or demonstrating that this is some sort of clash between Christianity and Islam puts us in far more danger that letting people fleeing the very violence that we are talking about find a safe haven in the United States.

The ignorance on this issue is absolutely infuriating. How backwards does your brain have to function in order to blame America for the existence of a centuries-old ideology that holds, as a fundamental tenet of the faith, that infidels are to be slaughtered? That has nothing to do with provocation and everything to do with THEIR PROPHET TOLD THEM TO DO IT.

 

[Buster Bluth]

The ignorance on this issue is absolutely infuriating. How backwards does your brain have to function in order to blame America for the existence of a centuries-old ideology that holds, as a fundamental tenet of the faith, that infidels are to be slaughtered? That has nothing to do with provocation and everything to do withe THEIR PROPHET TOLD THEM TO DO IT.

Oh please this is pretty ignorant too. Muhammad very clearly spoke of a tax Christians had to pay, not be slaughtered. Christians have been able to live in the Middle East for centuries whether it's Egypt, Syria, Iran. Hell today in Iran they have Christianity, Judiasm, etc as protected minority religions...and that's with a theocratic Shia government.

There's a difference between how many currently interpret Islam and those people actually putting forth the time, money, and effort to act on it. In World War I the Germans tried to talk the Ottomans into calling for some caliphate against the Allies who were fighting said Muslim empire and they were unable to get that ball rolling. The Muslims had bigger fish to fry. Just saying, it's a fucking complicated reality and it isn't just "welp they're Muslims so they want to kill us all because Muhammad said so." That's not really a historically accurate portrayal.

I agree with people like Sam Harris saying Islam is the motherload of bad ideas and that the cultures over there are often incompatible with the West. But there is a very real conversation on getting fewer radicals. How do we get more countries resembling Tunisia, Morocco, or Jordan instead of failed states like the current war in Syria/Iraq that fertilize radicalization.

 

[GoIrish41]

The ignorance on this issue is absolutely infuriating. How backwards does your brain have to function in order to blame America for the existence of a centuries-old ideology that holds, as a fundamental tenet of the faith, that infidels are to be slaughtered? That has nothing to do with provocation and everything to do with THEIR PROPHET TOLD THEM TO DO IT.

Look man, if you want to have a conversation try not leading with an insult. It's immature and makes you sound like a douche. You are not nearly as smart and informed as you think you are. Nobody said that America is to blame for the existence of Islam or any ideology. I often wonder if you even read posts before you so adamantly lash out against them.

I have said in multiple posts that theirs are ancient conflicts. Furthermore, I have stated that we should not be involved in them but our lust for oil compels us to insert ourselves in their affairs. That is what infuriates them. How can you not understand that? The more we meddle, the more we play tit for tat, the more angry they become and the more fear mongerig politicians exploit it to feed the beast. It is a never ending cycle of escalating violence.

If we change who we are as a country -- shuddering our borders, provoking the violence that we claim we are trying to avoid, and treating people of the Middle East as if they are some backward culture with a false religion -- we are no longer a great nation with high ideals. This is what these radicals want. It is proof that we are just what they say we are and helps them to recruit more to their cause. And the beat goes on ...

 

[kmoose]

Saying or demonstrating that this is some sort of clash between Christianity and Islam puts us in far more danger that letting people fleeing the very violence that we are talking about find a safe haven in the United States.

What is the plan for keeping terrorists from mingling with those refugees and entering our country?

 

[IrishinSyria]

The ignorance on this issue is absolutely infuriating. How backwards does your brain have to function in order to blame America for the existence of a centuries-old ideology that holds, as a fundamental tenet of the faith, that infidels are to be slaughtered? That has nothing to do with provocation and everything to do with THEIR PROPHET TOLD THEM TO DO IT.

ya know I spent a full year living in Syria and have spent a significant amount of time in other Islamic countries and not once did anyone try to behead, suicide bomb, shoot, or stab me. Nobody even tried to convert me.

It's almost like Al-Baqara 256 contains a clear, non-abrogated command on the subject.

THAT being said, say you're right- should we also consider kicking all the Muslims who live in our country out? Do you think that your interpretation of Islam: it commands Jihad and god's law>man's law means that 99.9999999999% of American Muslims are just bad Muslims? Or are they just waiting to be activated?

OR

Maybe we should trust the vast majority of Muslims who apparently don't believe Islam commands what you think it does, and not do anything to legitimize the beliefs of the tiny minority who does (while, of course, continuing to take appropriate precautions against threats)?

 

[Grahambo]

Oh please this is pretty ignorant too. Muhammad very clearly spoke of a tax Christians had to pay, not be slaughtered. Christians have been able to live in the Middle East for centuries whether it's Egypt, Syria, Iran. Hell today in Iran they have Christianity, Judiasm, etc as protected minority religions...and that's with a theocratic Shia government.

There's a difference between how many currently interpret Islam and those people actually putting forth the time, money, and effort to act on it. In World War I the Germans tried to talk the Ottomans into calling for some caliphate against the Allies who were fighting said Muslim empire and they were unable to get that ball rolling. The Muslims had bigger fish to fry. Just saying, it's a fucking complicated reality and it isn't just "welp they're Muslims so they want to kill us all because Muhammad said so." That's not really a historically accurate portrayal.

I agree with people like Sam Harris saying Islam is the motherload of bad ideas and that the cultures over there are often incompatible with the West. But there is a very real conversation on getting fewer radicals. How do we get more countries resembling Tunisia, Morocco, or Jordan instead of failed states like the current war in Syria/Iraq that fertilize radicalization.

For starters, close the money pipeline from countries like Saudi Arabia.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Protecting the American people, in this case, begins with not provoking people of other religions to join radicals that would seek to do us harm. It's why Obama won't utter those words so many on the right want him to. Saying or demonstrating that this is some sort of clash between Christianity and Islam puts us in far more danger that letting people fleeing the very violence that we are talking about find a safe haven in the United States.

No, you're flat out wrong. It begins with protecting our borders and heavily vetting every person that wants to come into our country so we know who the hell we're taking in, what kind of background they have, who they may or may not have ties to, and what their intentions are.

 

[Buster Bluth]

No, you're flat out wrong. It begins with protecting our borders and heavily vetting every person that wants to come into our country so we know who the hell we're taking in, what kind of background they have, who they may or may not have ties to, and what their intentions are.

It's almost like there's a two-year process in place to sorta figure that out with these refugees.

"Protecting out borders" is a weird phrase up there with "end poverty." Sounds nice, but can never happen regardless of how much money you throw at it.

 

[philipm31]

That would ban Jews Christians, Zoastrians, and many other religions while not including majority Muslim countries elsewhere like Indonesia, Sri Lanka and a healthy population of India. And many African nations..... it's dumb no matter how you frame it. He is a child.

Absolutely.

Well said.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

It's almost like there's a two-year process in place to sorta figure that out with these refugees.

"Protecting out borders" is a weird phrase up there with "end poverty." Sounds nice, but can never happen regardless of how much money you throw at it.

I get what you're saying, but think about this: we have technology to track individuals' emails and we have satellites in the sky snapping pictures of bad dudes for our drones to take out. I believe we have the capability to keep track of who we're taking in and what kind of background they have. That's all.

 

[philipm31]

I honestly am completely surprised at how much and how often I completely disagree with you on everything you post.

He used Mexicans to describe or lump all the illegal aliens/ Hispanics in the country together. I think many Hispanics particularly those from other Hispanic countries find that very offensive.

Also I don't know how you can say it would be better if he said ME countries. It would worse considering that would include other religions including Christians and Jews while not including many muslim countries in Africa and Asia. The Christian right here would lose.their collective shit.

You realize that based on his statements recently it can.be argued very easily that he holds a facist political view point at this point right?

He's held on for the entire time, honestly.

 

[philipm31]

It's not about "their rights". It's about who we are as a country. It's about the founding principles. It's about acceptance and empathy and our responsibility as the greatest nation on the planet to demonstate strength through acceptance and compassion. These things, above all, are what makes America great.

It is not about walls and greed and bigotry and playing the politics of fear. It's not about hate. What Trump is advocating is uncivilized, unconstitutional and unAmerican!

Spot-on analysis. If you are the POTUS, then you are required BY LAW to protect the Constitution. What Trump is advocating is entirely unconstitutional and it is as if he has never even HEARD of the Constitution, much less read any of it.

He is a complete racist, fascist ideologue and I am terrified what will happen if America lets idiots like him dictate any type of foreign policy, considering the fact that he has literally no foreign policy experience. How anyone can defend what he is saying is just beyond comprehension.

He wants to "Make America Great Again" by totally disregarding the Constitution, among the innumerable atrocities he would enact in that seat of power.

You really want the man with the most power in the free world to be Donald Trump????

 

[kmoose]

What Trump is advocating is entirely unconstitutional

Yeah................. except that it's not. I don't support the ban. A ban would only work to buy us time to develop better intelligence on the people leaving the country. And I think that would take way too long to be feasible. But it is NOT unconstitutional. Whether you, I, or anyone else likes it the Constitution only protects CITIZENS of the United States. Trump has already clarified that his policy would have to make exceptions for certain individuals. Also, it is a POTUS' privilege to do exactly what Trump is proposing.

From The US Code, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 :

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Yeah................. except that it's not. I don't support the ban. A ban would only work to buy us time to develop better intelligence on the people leaving the country. And I think that would take way too long to be feasible. But it is NOT unconstitutional. Whether you, I, or anyone else likes it the Constitution only protects CITIZENS of the United States. Trump has already clarified that his policy would have to make exceptions for certain individuals. Also, it is a POTUS' privilege to do exactly what Trump is proposing.

From The US Code, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 :

People say that it's constitutional, but I don't think exclusion on the basis of religion (as opposed to nationality) has ever been tested in the Court before. I think there's a pretty good argument to be made that even if the Chinese Exclusion Cases were correctly decided, a bar on admissions based on religion still violates the establishment clause. I don't know if the Court would buy that or not, but it's more fair to say that what Trump's suggesting might be unconstitutional.

 

[kmoose]

People say that it's constitutional, but I don't think exclusion on the basis of religion (as opposed to nationality) has ever been tested in the Court before. I think there's a pretty good argument to be made that even if the Chinese Exclusion Cases were correctly decided, a bar on admissions based on religion still violates the establishment clause. I don't know if the Court would buy that or not, but it's more fair to say that what Trump's suggesting might be unconstitutional.

Perhaps........... but only if it applies to citizens of the United States. If it only applies to aliens, then they are not entitled to constitutional protections, so therefore they have no constitutional rights to be violated.