2016 Presidential Horse Race

[Cackalacky]

It is a fact that you have no idea what you are talking about. Fact.

errrrr. Fact... you have no idea who you are talking to.

 

[Buster Bluth]

It is a fact that you have no idea what you are talking about. Fact.

I lol'd.

 

[philipm31]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/r3WNAiR1AHc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Donald Trump proposes banning Muslims from coming to the U.S. But that's not what Jimmy Carter did | PolitiFact Georgia


When we interviewed an ideologically diverse group of specialists on Iran, immigration, and constitutional law, most saw significant differences between the two examples.



• Carter acted against Iranian nationals, not an entire religion.

"The difference is that Iranians were citizens of, and owed allegiance to, a country that was acting against the United States," said Kermit Roosevelt, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. "The class of ‘all Muslims’ has no similar connection to ISIS or terrorists. That makes the analogy seriously flawed."

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Donald Trump proposes banning Muslims from coming to the U.S. But that's not what Jimmy Carter did | PolitiFact Georgia


When we interviewed an ideologically diverse group of specialists on Iran, immigration, and constitutional law, most saw significant differences between the two examples.



• Carter acted against Iranian nationals, not an entire religion.

"The difference is that Iranians were citizens of, and owed allegiance to, a country that was acting against the United States," said Kermit Roosevelt, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. "The class of ‘all Muslims’ has no similar connection to ISIS or terrorists. That makes the analogy seriously flawed."

Those two are in fact different, but you're still wrong in saying what Trump proposed is unconstitutional. Kmoose already pointed that out to you with a link.

 

[Cackalacky]

Donald Trump proposes banning Muslims from coming to the U.S. But that's not what Jimmy Carter did | PolitiFact Georgia


When we interviewed an ideologically diverse group of specialists on Iran, immigration, and constitutional law, most saw significant differences between the two examples.



• Carter acted against Iranian nationals, not an entire religion.

"The difference is that Iranians were citizens of, and owed allegiance to, a country that was acting against the United States," said Kermit Roosevelt, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. "The class of ‘all Muslims’ has no similar connection to ISIS or terrorists. That makes the analogy seriously flawed."

Details schmetails

 

[Grahambo]

It is a fact that you have no idea what you are talking about. Fact.

.

 

[Grahambo]

NVM.

Not worth it.

 

[Cackalacky]

We Asked a Fascism Expert if Donald Trump Is a Fascist | VICE | United States

THE VICE CHANNELS

We Asked a Fascism Expert if Donald Trump Is a Fascist

Sometime just before Thanksgiving, some Establishment Republican flaks began voicing the opinion that immigrant-bashing presidential candidate Donald Trump is a fascist. Libertarian-leaning pundits had begun levying that accusation over the summer, but something about the attack from members of his own party helped the label stick this time.

Now bear in mind: Fascism is not the same thing as Nazism. Contrary to much of the internet chatter around use of the term to describe Trump, this is not a debate about whether or not Trump is a racist or an anti-Semite. The question is whether the policies that Trump is sort of proposing could lead to a marriage of business and government in which ideals become uniform, dissent is swiftly punished, with the whole thing centered around a personality cult similar to that of the National Fascist Party headed by Italian dictator Benito Mussolini.

Op-ed writers have explored the question extensively over the past week or so, but because I'm definitely no expert in European political movements of the 20th century, I thought it might be wise to run the question past someone who is. So I reached out to Cornell University professor Isabel Hull, a historian whose work focuses on Europe's fascist movements, and is one of America's leading scholars on the role of fascism in history.

In an email exchange, Hull and I discussed where Trump fits on the sliding scale between "Fascist" and "Republican," and what that might mean for the future of the American conservative movement in 2016 and beyond. Below is the lightly edited text of our conversation.

-VICE: People are beginning to use the word "fascist" to describe Donald Trump. You seem like an expert in this area, so I thought you might be a good person to ask whether that label is correct.

Isabel Hull: My first reaction is that he is not principled enough to be a Fascist. He strikes me more as a nativist-populist. That is, some one from the right wing, angry about various aspects of the present, longing for a golden past, and focused primarily against his own government, but not equipped with a set of adamantine principles to be put into practice, no matter what, and no matter the cost. Perhaps a more interesting question for you would be to ask if there is a genuine conservative running amongst the Republican candidates, as opposed to what in European history would be known as "revolutionary conservatives."

-Commentators have used Umberto Eco's definition of fascism as a kind of litmus test for Trump's fascism. Is that a good approach?

Eco's seven signposts of fascism are an OK start, but Eco wasn't an historian, and most historians would be more specific than that. [Political scientist and fascism historian] Robert Paxton once made the excellent point that fascism in the US would doubtless come from the Christian fundamentalist right—and I think he's correct about that. But the interesting thing about Trump, as [conservativeNew York Times columnist Ross] Douthat pointed out, is that he does not have anything to do with the normal right wing Republican base, especially on such matters as religion and economics.


-If Trump doesn't fit the classic definition of "conservative," why is he so popular with people who identify as conservatives?

The problem is that surveillance of presumed domestic enemies, xenophobia, anti-immigrant sentiment, and fear-mongering all have an unfortunately long history in this country. I would say that Trump is interesting more for his methods: the Big Lie—which he refuses to retract, the violent uncouth language that passes for "truth"in some circles, apparently, and the encouragement or at least acceptance of minor violence—pushing and shoving—against dissenters, whether they're journalists or just vocal critics. These things do tiptoe into the extreme right-wing. They all were characteristic of fascist movements before they assumed power, though the violence in that case was much, much more extreme.

-Would you say his stated policy positions are fascist?

There are only really two interesting issues: mass deportation of illegal immigrants, which [conservative Washington Post columnist] George Will recently described as "ethnic cleansing," and changing the 14th Amendment on birthright citizenship. Both of these are peculiar and worrisome as indicators of what Trump thinks is apposite for a democracy.

-You mentioned a "genuine conservative." What does that mean right now?

Surely it would mean cleaving to the constitution and the Bill of Rights for everybody, rather than wild, interpretive interventionism à la [Supreme Court] Justice [Antonin] Scalia. [It would mean] retaining a strong government, if only for purposes of law and order, trade policy, and foreign policy—that is, not undercutting it by forcing it into huge deficits via uneven tax cutting, and certainly not by running it down as bad in principle. [It would mean] protecting the middle class's economic security, and encouraging conservation. Above all, it would do these things moderately, not by veering sharply this way or that.

 

[GoIrish41]

Those two are in fact different, but you're still wrong in saying what Trump proposed is unconstitutional. Kmoose already pointed that out to you with a link.

What Trump proposed is that no Muslim -- not just no new Muslim -- can come into the country. Even Muslim American citizens who traveled abroad would not be allowed to return. Is anyone seriously doubting that is unconstitutional?

 

[philipm31]

What Trump proposed is that no Muslim -- not just no new Muslim -- can come into the country. Even Muslim American citizens who traveled abroad would not be allowed to return. Is anyone seriously doubting that is unconstitutional?

No.

Nobody can deny that automatically stripping American citizens of their citizenship based on religion--which is a Constitutionally-protected right that will NEVER be amended--is not the definition of unconstitutional.

Hell, we have members of the KKK and the Nazi Brotherhood populating our nation and never once were we up in arms about deporting or outright destroying them as a group. I wonder if that is because they were Christian terrorists?

Muslim terrorists who do not live in our country=go we must go to their country and attempt to kill them all and must ban ANY Muslim, terrorist or not, American-born citizen or not

BUT

Christian terrorists who do live in our country=leave them alone and they will go away quietly and peacefully, after all they are American-born citizens so we could NEVER take away their rights just based on religion

 

[philipm31]

Again, over 784K refugees have come to this country and not a single one has ever, EVER engaged in terrorist activities against the USA.

If you have ever seen, listened to or met a refugee, you would see why. I have seen them first-hand, and worked side-by-side with them. They are not coming to infiltrate and destroy this country from within. Think about WHY they are refugees. People who are ISIS members or sympathizers are not going to want to be screened for two full years, nor would they need to flee, as they are in agreement with ISIS. There is literally no way they would WANT TO infiltrate refugees because they would be under much tougher scrutiny than any other group of people attempting to enter the USA.

BTW, our country was FOUNDED by religious refugees who were fleeing persecution, which is WHY the FIRST Constitutional Amendment among the Bill of RIGHTS is Freedom of Religion.

Anyone who thinks that barring entry to AMERICAN CITIZENS who happen to follow Islam is NOT a direct violation of the First Amendment and unconstitutional, is not being rational at all.

 

[philipm31]

Those two are in fact different, but you're still wrong in saying what Trump proposed is unconstitutional. Kmoose already pointed that out to you with a link.

Considering what Trump said is in DIRECT VIOLATION of the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to boot, nothing I said is off base; and in fact, I did not say it, experts on the Iran conflict during Carter's administration did.

Note, not members of his Cabinet, but experts on Iran and the hostage crisis.

There is no way you can view it as anything other than a violation of the US Constitution, because he clearly is basing his entire rhetoric on singling out and discriminating against an entire group based entirely on their religious beliefs--something the Puritans knew about since they were fleeing religious persecution and banishment from England because of their faith.

 

[kmoose]

What Trump proposed is that no Muslim -- not just no new Muslim -- can come into the country. Even Muslim American citizens who traveled abroad would not be allowed to return. Is anyone seriously doubting that is unconstitutional?

That's not true. He has already clarified that he will have to make exceptions for American citizens returning from outside the country. He has also expressed that there would be exceptions for people like scientists, artists, athletes, etc.

"If a person is a Muslim and goes overseas and come back, they can come back. They are a citizen, that is different," Trump said

 

[philipm31]

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.

Trump was INCLUDING Muslim-American citizens, so yes, what he proposed was entirely unconstitutional. He only added "exceptions" afterwards. He was very clear about barring American citizens re-entry based solely on their religious faith, which is in direction violation of 2 constitutional amendments, that Establishment Clause, among others.

Barring further entry based entirely and solely on religious grounds, whether they be aliens or not, is obviously stretching the powers of the POTUS a little far and would probably be why no POTUS has ever done this and never will, seeing as how religious freedom and tolerance is a fundamental bedrock of the foundation of this nation.

 

[kmoose]

Considering what Trump said is in DIRECT VIOLATION of the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to boot, nothing I said is off base; and in fact, I did not say it, experts on the Iran conflict during Carter's administration did.

Note, not members of his Cabinet, but experts on Iran and the hostage crisis.

There is no way you can view it as anything other than a violation of the US Constitution, because he clearly is basing his entire rhetoric on singling out and discriminating against an entire group based entirely on their religious beliefs--something the Puritans knew about since they were fleeing religious persecution and banishment from England because of their faith.

I don't think you understand the Constitution. Constitutional provisions only apply to US Citizens. People who live in Syria and want to escape the violence there are NOT US Citizens. And, even if it did apply to them............. the 1st amendment guarantees A CITIZEN the right to practice the religion of their choice. It doesn't have anything to do with immigration, and to try to stretch it that far is nothing more than desperation.

 

[kmoose]

Barring further entry based entirely and solely on religious grounds, whether they be aliens or not, is obviously stretching the powers of the POTUS a little far and would probably be why no POTUS has ever done this and never will, seeing as how religious freedom and tolerance is a fundamental bedrock of the foundation of this nation.

POTUS is clearly empowered by US Code, to which I already posted a link, to exclude ANY class of alien immigrants that he determines to be a threat to the country. Whether or not any other President has ever done it has the square root of fvck-all to do with the legality of it.

You don't like the idea. And I don't think its a great idea, myself. But if you want to win people over to your viewpoint, then quit arguing sh!t that just isn't true. You might have an argument on Humanitarian grounds, but trying to argue that it is unconstitutional or illegal is just not true.

 

[pkt77242]

Why aren't people talking about the impracticality of Trump's idea? How do you stop Muslims from coming over? I have never seen religion listed on a passport (though I have only seen about 25-30 different countries so it could be on some). Are you going to ask them? If so why wouldn't they just lie?

The idea reminds me of many of Trumps ideas, where he thinks that the first thought that popped into his head is brilliant even when it isn't. It pretty much sums up Trump's whole Presidential campaign so far.

 

[woolybug25]

POTUS is clearly empowered by US Code, to which I already posted a link, to exclude ANY class of alien immigrants that he determines to be a threat to the country. Whether or not any other President has ever done it has the square root of fvck-all to do with the legality of it.

You don't like the idea. And I don't think its a great idea, myself. But if you want to win people over to your viewpoint, then quit arguing sh!t that just isn't true. You might have an argument on Humanitarian grounds, but trying to argue that it is unconstitutional or illegal is just not true.

I'm not entirely sure you're correct, you may be, but it's certainly a gray area. The Prez certainly is empowered to keep foreigners out under that provision, but denying current citizens re entry is an entirely different subject an not directly addressed by that code. That piece in particular, on face value, certainly seems unconstitutional. It would be, in essence, taking away rights of current citizens based entirely on their race & religion.

 

[kmoose]

The Prez certainly is empowered to keep foreigners out under that provision, but denying current citizens re entry is an entirely different subject an not directly addressed by that code. That piece in particular, on face value, certainly seems unconstitutional. It would be, in essence, taking away rights of current citizens based entirely on their race & religion.

But "that piece" is no longer a piece. He has modified his original proposal to allow for US Citizens, as well as other exceptions.

 

[woolybug25]

But "that piece" is no longer a piece. He has modified his original proposal to allow for US Citizens, as well as other exceptions.

Where has he said that? Also, is this even a "proposal"? Is it a written and detailed plan, or just campaign rant at this point?

 

[kmoose]

Where has he said that? Also, is this even a "proposal"? Is it a written and detailed plan, or just campaign rant at this point?

Asked by The Hill whether that would include American Muslims currently abroad, Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks replied over email: “Mr. Trump says, ‘everyone.’ ”

During a Tuesday morning interview with ABC's "Good Morning America," however, Trump clarified that American Muslims would still be able to travel freely under his plan.

"If a person is a Muslim and goes overseas and come back, they can come back. They are a citizen, that is different," Trump said.

I'm not sure that it is a serious proposal by Trump.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Considering what Trump said is in DIRECT VIOLATION of the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to boot, nothing I said is off base; and in fact, I did not say it, experts on the Iran conflict during Carter's administration did.

Note, not members of his Cabinet, but experts on Iran and the hostage crisis.

There is no way you can view it as anything other than a violation of the US Constitution, because he clearly is basing his entire rhetoric on singling out and discriminating against an entire group based entirely on their religious beliefs--something the Puritans knew about since they were fleeing religious persecution and banishment from England because of their faith.

Dude, get a grip. The rights granted to US citizens do not apply to every person on the globe who wants to immigrate to the US.

 

[pkt77242]

Because like the last five times I've been like "OMG THAT'S HORRIBLE!" 24-48 hours later the thing I reacted to turned out to be a hoax.

The black tape on black professor photos at Harvard people lost their shit over... people realized it was the same tape that a black protest group had used on a sign right before.

The poop swastika and other stuff at Missouri... turned out there's actually no concrete record of any of it happening, and certainly no certifiable link to anti-black racism.

The person at that Ohio university that made a twitter talking all kinds of racist stuff and about killing black people... was investigated because it was a threat, turned out to be a black person that made the twitter.

Rachel Dolezal -- the white woman pretending to be black that was head of that local NAACP chapter in Washington -- sent herself hate mail and committed all other kinds of "anti-black" hate crimes against herself so she had things to point to as racism.

And on and on. I'm just done taking this stuff at face value for the time being. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me a half dozen times, well I'm just a gullible idiot I guess. To me, it seems more probable than not that if someone wanted to send a message or vandalize a mosque or whatever they wouldn't have done some obscure thing like leave a pig's head there. Just my opinion, no info.

Then again, if I'm not being a skeptic this kind of thing HAS happened before: Four jailed for throwing pig's head into Blackpool mosque in Lee Rigby aftermath | Daily Mail Online

And the incident was caught on surveillance camera (of course without any kind of identifiable plates, but they can probably get the make of the vehicle). So yeah, I'm probably wrong. Probably.

At fire-damaged mosque, man's arrest comforts

I have a feeling that things like this are going to become a lot more common, sadly.

 

[pkt77242]

I saw this today and I remember when I read it when it came out. We may not agree with Obama but this is a good read.

The President's Devotional: What Obama 'Did In Secret' In Newtown (EXCERPT)

The White House is not supposed to be a place for brokenness. Sheer, shattered, brokenness. But that’s what we experienced on the weekend of December 14, 2012.

I was sitting at my desk around midday on Friday the 14th when I saw the images flash on CNN: A school. A gunman. Children fleeing, crying.

It’s sad that we’ve grown so accustomed to these types of scenes that my first thought was I hope there are no deaths, just injuries. I thought, Maybe it’s your run-of-the-mill scare.

And then the news from Sandy Hook Elementary School, a small school in the tiny hamlet of Newtown, Connecticut, began pouring in. The public details were horrific enough: Twenty children murdered. Six staff. Parents searching a gymnasium for signs of their kids.

But the private facts we received in the White House from the FBI were even worse.
How the gunman treated the children like criminals, lining them up to shoot them down. How so many bullets penetrated them that many were left unrecognizable. How the killer went from one classroom to another and would have gone farther if his rifle would’ve let him.

That news began a weekend of prayer and numbness, which I awoke from on Saturday only to receive the word that the president would like me to accompany him to Newtown. He wanted to meet with the families of the victims and then offer words of comfort to the country at an interfaith memorial service.

I left early to help the advance team—the hardworking folks who handle logistics for every event—set things up, and I arrived at the local high school where the meetings and memorial service would take place. We prepared seven or eight classrooms for the families of the slain children and teachers, two or three families to a classroom, placing water and tissues and snacks in each one. Honestly, we didn’t know how to prepare; it was the best we could think of.

The families came in and gathered together, room by room. Many struggled to offer a weak smile when we whispered, “The president will be here soon.” A few were visibly angry—so understandable that it barely needs to be said—and were looking for someone, anyone, to blame. Mostly they sat in silence.

I went downstairs to greet President Obama when he arrived, and I provided an overview of the situation. “Two families per classroom . . . The first is . . . and their child was . . . The second is . . . and their child was . . . We’ll tell you the rest as you go.”

The president took a deep breath and steeled himself, and went into the first classroom. And what happened next I’ll never forget.

Person after person received an engulfing hug from our commander in chief. He’d say, “Tell me about your son. . . . Tell me about your daughter,” and then hold pictures of the lost beloved as their parents described favorite foods, television shows, and the sound of their laughter. For the younger siblings of those who had passed away—many of them two, three, or four years old, too young to understand it all—the president would grab them and toss them, laughing, up into the air, and then hand them a box of White House M&M’s, which were always kept close at hand. In each room, I saw his eyes water, but he did not break.

And then the entire scene would repeat—for hours. Over and over and over again, through well over a hundred relatives of the fallen, each one equally broken, wrecked by the loss. After each classroom, we would go back into those fluorescent hallways and walk through the names of the coming families, and then the president would dive back in, like a soldier returning to a tour of duty in a worthy but wearing war. We spent what felt like a lifetime in those classrooms, and every single person received the same tender treatment. The same hugs. The same looks, directly in their eyes. The same sincere offer of support and prayer.

The staff did the preparation work, but the comfort and healing were all on President Obama. I remember worrying about the toll it was taking on him. And of course, even a president’s comfort was woefully inadequate for these families in the face of this particularly unspeakable loss. But it became some small measure of love, on a weekend when evil reigned.

And the funny thing is—President Obama has never spoken about these meetings. Yes, he addressed the shooting in Newtown and gun violence in general in a subsequent speech, but he did not speak of those private gatherings. In fact, he was nearly silent on Air Force One as we rode back to Washington, and has said very little about his time with these families since. It must have been one of the defining moments of his presidency, quiet hours in solemn classrooms, extending as much healing as was in his power to extend. But he kept it to himself—never seeking to teach a lesson based on those mournful conversations, or opening them up to public view.

Jesus teaches us that some things—the holiest things, the most painful and important and cherished things—we are to do in secret. Not for public consumption and display, but as acts of service to others, and worship to God. For then, “your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you,” perhaps not now, but certainly in eternity. We learned many lessons in Newtown that day; this is one I’ve kept closely at heart.

 

[phgreek]

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.

War Hawk

 

[RDU Irish]

Interesting take by an investment manager in Barrons this week. Believes Russians and Saudis are going to cozy up to stabilize oil prices. Thinks they can and will collude to cut production and raise prices next year under the premise that they cannot afford NOT to. Saudis subsidizing 20% of GDP from reserves. They would be motivated to start a war to cut other nation's production in order to raise global prices.

One man's opinion but it sounded plausible enough the way he laid it out. All I could think was that I sure hope we don't get drug into it.

 

[ND NYC]

ill always remember the saying that what ultimately "tore down the wall" of the former soviet union was that the price of oil went from $40 a barrel down to $10 over a period of 18 months or so...and they simply ran out of money and keep up with our defense spending.
had it remained at near $40...or went higher...could have been an entirely different outcome.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Interesting take by an investment manager in Barrons this week. Believes Russians and Saudis are going to cozy up to stabilize oil prices. Thinks they can and will collude to cut production and raise prices next year under the premise that they cannot afford NOT to. Saudis subsidizing 20% of GDP from reserves. They would be motivated to start a war to cut other nation's production in order to raise global prices.

One man's opinion but it sounded plausible enough the way he laid it out. All I could think was that I sure hope we don't get drug into it.

But the Saudi's cutting production is a double edged sword. That plays to the US shale companies advantage. The higher price for oil means more profits for US companies who have struggled the last half of 2015 to maintain profits and are only doing so since they are reaping the benefits of derivative contracts paying them more than market value right now. Saudi knows this and will try to "survive" with overproduction in the short term. It hasn't put shale companies out of business but it has slowed down new drilling. If technologies can advance and keep the costs down for shale producers, Saudi will have to make some tough choices in the next 3-5 years. Their economy can't sustain $45 a barrel for oil. Furthermore, any cut in production by Saudi or Russia - who is effectively broke now - doesn't mean other countries will follow suit, particularly Iran and the current OPEC countries who are fed up with Saudi trying to break them.

 

[pkt77242]

Montini: One word will make you ashamed for wanting to ban Muslims

Jewish groups decry Trump pitch to ban Muslim immigration | The Times of Israel

Trump cancels Israel trip after Netanyahu criticism - CNNPolitics.com

 

[wizards8507]

Rush Limbaugh* has finally turned on Trump now that Trump has started attacking Cruz. Limbaugh's callers are idiots. Comparing Ted Cruz to Mitt Romney and saying that Trump is the true conservative.

*Yes, I know you all hate Limbaugh, but you can't deny that he has influence on the right.