2016 Presidential Horse Race

[BGIF]

Ted Cruz: Police need to 'patrol' Muslim neighborhoods - CNNPolitics.com

By Jeremy Diamond, CNN
Updated 10:51 PM ET, Tue March 22, 2016

(CNN)Ted Cruz on Tuesday called for law enforcement to step up their policing of Muslim neighborhoods in the U.S. in the wake of terrorist attacks in Brussels, comparing it to police boosting their presence in areas with known gang activity.

"If you have a neighborhood where there's a high level of gang activity, the way to prevent it is you increase the law enforcement presence there and you target the gang members to get them off the streets," the Texas senator told CNN's Anderson Cooper. "I'm talking about any area where there is a higher incidence of radical Islamic terrorism."

Cruz also pointed to what he called the "successful program" in New York implemented by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, apparently pointing to the New York Police Department's controversial surveillance efforts targeting Muslims under his administration.

J. Peter Donald, communications for the New York Police Department, described Cruz's comments as an "incendiary, foolish statement."

"Hey, @tedcruz are our nearly 1k Muslim officers a "threat" too? It's hard to imagine a more incendiary, foolish statement," he tweeted, the night before Cruz is expected to host a rally in New York City.

Earlier in the day Cruz said in a statement, "We need to empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized," adding that the U.S. can no longer afford to "political correctness."

"For years, the West has tried to deny this enemy exists out of a combination of political correctness and fear. We can no longer afford either. Our European allies are now seeing what comes of a toxic mix of migrants who have been infiltrated by terrorists and isolated, radical Muslim neighborhoods," Cruz said in the statement.

Donald Trump said later Tuesday on CNN that he agreed with Cruz's proposal to target Muslim neighborhoods, calling it "a good idea."

Cruz's comments are not the first time the Republican presidential candidate has called for policies that would single out Muslims. The Texas senator argued in November that the U.S. should shut its doors to Muslim refugees from Syria, only allowing Christian refugees to seek asylum in the U.S.

Cruz's call drew a swift rebuke from GOP presidential rival Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Anti-Defamation League, a leading anti-bigotry organization.

"We are not at war with Islam, we are at war with radical Islam," Kasich said during a news conference. "Just because you happen to be a Muslim does not mean you want to destroy someone in the West.... The last thing we need is more polarization because for those who want to preserve Islam in the west, we alienate them."

Still, Kasich argued the U.S. has been "too lax and not aggressive enough" in its response to terrorism.

Wasserman Schultz was blunter.

"Ted Cruz is a disgrace," the Florida congresswoman said, adding that the freshman senator's statement amounted to "fear-mongering."

"His comments today were worse than opportunistic and inappropriate politicking in the wake of the terrible tragedy in Brussels -- they were a shameful display of hate that only serves to foment anger and make the world less secure," Wasserman Schultz said in a statement.

Cruz campaign spokeswoman Alice Stewart said that a stepped-up police presence in Muslim neighborhoods "will both identify problem spots and partner with non-radical Americans who want to protect their homes."

And she reiterated that the U.S. cannot allow "political correctness to drive decisions about our security" and warned that a failure to act would result in problems of radicalization that authorities are dealing with in some Muslim neighborhoods in Europe.

"Innocent, peaceful Americans, no matter their faith, deserve to live in safe neighborhoods; that is what law enforcement exists to do, and that includes preventing radical Islamic terror cells from taking root in them. The police should have every tool available to follow leads and take action against those who would do us harm," she said in an email.

The Anti-Defamation League condemned Cruz's proposal in a statement Tuesday that said "demonizing all Muslims is a misguided and counterproductive response to the terrorist threat.

"Ordering special patrols of Muslim neighborhoods will almost certainly create an adversarial relationship between law enforcement and the communities they have sworn to protect, making those communities more vulnerable, more frightened, and often less willing to help. The approach is contrary to the principles of individual rights, equality, justice, and religious freedom on which this nation was founded," ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt said in the statement.

While Kasich and Cruz have both called for stops on resettling Syrian refugees in the U.S., neither have gone as far as Republican front-runner Trump who has called for banning all foreign Muslims from entering the U.S.

Cruz has said he disagrees with Trump's proposal, but also said he "understands" why the real estate mogul called for the ban.

 

[BGIF]

Club for Growth endorses Ted Cruz - CNNPolitics.com





Big Deal, Trump has had the Hair Club Locked Up For Decades.

 

[BGIF]

Idaho Dems Choses Bernie!

Idaho Dems Choses Bernie!

UUUUUUUUUUUUGE!


99% IN

Sanders 78%
Clinton 21

 

[BGIF]

UTAH Caucuses TO CRUZ

UTAH Caucuses TO CRUZ

32% IN

Cruz 44,589 70.7%
Kasich 10,985 16%
Trump 8,362 13.3%


Cruz wins 'em all

 

[Irish YJ]

Please never, ever discredit my posts that use balanced sources from the following to make an argument:

Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP)
Social Security Administration (SSA)
Cato Institute

Dude come on. Either side can take stats and create their own story. Santana uses numbers to substantiate her opinion, nothing more. Just like the other side (see below). Like her claims that immigrants are the key to saving social security. She talks about the declining US born workers paying into the system, and claims the key to balancing the impact is immigrants. COME ON MAN. Let's figure out why there is a decline in US born folks paying in.... perhaps immigration is the cause or partially the cause of US born decline??

Take a read here...
The Fiscal and Economic Impact of Immigration on the United States | Center for Immigration Studies
or this
National Review Online
which is written by this guy
Steven A. Camarota | Center for Immigration Studies

PS... I'm OK with SSA and CBO figures (not Santana's conclusions or translation of the numbers)... Cato (libertarian) and ITEP (liberal) however have an agenda. Balanced.... really?


I'd trust this guy a little more than Santana... and yes, probably a republican.

Dr. Steven Camarota serves as the Director of Research for the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), a Washington, DC-based research institute that examines the consequences of legal and illegal immigration on the United States. The Center promotes an informed debate on comprehensive immigration reform by providing policymakers, academics, media, and citizens with fact-based information on immigration.

In recent years Dr. Camarota has testified before Congress more than any other non-government expert on the economic and fiscal impact of immigration. In addition, he was the lead researcher on a contract with the Census Bureau examining the quality of immigrant data in the American Community Survey.

Dr. Camarota’s research has been featured on the front pages of The New York Times, The Washington Post, and USA Today as well as numerous other media outlets. His academic articles have been published for journals, including the Public Interest and Social Science Quarterly. He has also written general interest pieces for such publications as the Chicago Tribune and National Review. His analysis and commentary are frequently heard on radio and television news programs including CNN, MSNBC, Fox News Channel, NBC Nightly News, and ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, National Public Radio, and NewsHour on PBS.

 

[woolybug25]

So even though the left leaning source came to a similar conclusion as the sources he provided from the right, it is naturally biased, as its left leaning?

That sounds fair. Lolz

 

[kmoose]

I would provide a fairly easy path to citizenship and penalize companies who employ undocumented immigrants.

A good portion of the illegals in California(and other places) are migrant workers. They don't WANT to be US Citizens; they just want to work in the US for a few months every year and make enough to pay for their entire year back home. So you are going to make it even friendlier for illegals, while choking off the tax dollars that many liberals always talk about these people paying? Isn't that just going to put us right into the big hole that many conservatives already claim we are in?

 

[IrishJayhawk]

So this is happening now.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Lyin' Ted Cruz just used a picture of Melania from a G.Q. shoot in his ad. Be careful, Lyin' Ted, or I will spill the beans on your wife!</p>— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/712457104515317764">March 23, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Donald Trump and Ted Cruz tweet defending their wives and attacking each other’s.

 

[woolybug25]

So this is happening now.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Lyin' Ted Cruz just used a picture of Melania from a G.Q. shoot in his ad. Be careful, Lyin' Ted, or I will spill the beans on your wife!</p>— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/712457104515317764">March 23, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Donald Trump and Ted Cruz tweet defending their wives and attacking each other’s.

I heard about this on the radio. That came from a superPAC advertisement that Cruz himself didn't run. Trump is just trying to schmeer here.

But since we're on wives here... I wouldn't mind getting on Trump's. HEY-YOOOO

 

[Blaise]

So this is happening now.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Lyin' Ted Cruz just used a picture of Melania from a G.Q. shoot in his ad. Be careful, Lyin' Ted, or I will spill the beans on your wife!</p>— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/712457104515317764">March 23, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Donald Trump and Ted Cruz tweet defending their wives and attacking each other’s.

I think we have so much to rip Trump for, why are people and pacts "Slut Shaming" his wife for modeling for GQ... Seems tacky and dumb

 

[woolybug25]

I think we have so much to rip Trump for, why are people and pacts "Slut Shaming" his wife for modeling for GQ... Seems tacky and dumb

I wouldn't go that far. I think it's fair for people, especially evangelicals, to not want their first lady to be someone that has posed nude for magazine.

 

[wizards8507]

I think we have so much to rip Trump for, why are people and pacts "Slut Shaming" his wife for modeling for GQ... Seems tacky and dumb

As Wooly pointed out, it wasn't Cruz' campaign that ran the ad, it was a PAC.

 

[kmoose]

I heard about this on the radio. That came from a superPAC advertisement that Cruz himself didn't run. Trump is just trying to schmeer here.

But since we're on wives here... I wouldn't mind getting on Trump's. HEY-YOOOO

Somebody should lose their job over this decision. Going after a candidate by smearing his wife or kids is just too far over the line. If this just melts away, then I think we will have crossed a point of no return in regards to what ethics "We the People" are willing to stand up for. It might as well be a Thunderdome match at that point.

 

[GoIrish41]

Somebody should lose their job over this decision. Going after a candidate by smearing his wife or kids is just too far over the line. If this just melts away, then I think we will have crossed a point of no return in regards to what ethics "We the People" are willing to stand up for. It might as well be a Thunderdome match at that point.

Did you say that when Bill Clinton was president and the GOP was going after Hillary?

 

[kmoose]

Did you say that when Bill Clinton was president and the GOP was going after Hillary?

What did they "go after" Hillary for?

 

[wizards8507]

Did you say that when Bill Clinton was president and the GOP was going after Hillary?

There's a huge difference between a campaign spouse and a First Lady when the First Lady is out there taking public policy positions. For example, Michelle Obama is fair game when it comes to her school lunch efforts.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Sounds like Maricopa Co., among others, in Arizona really Fd up with voting yesterday.

5 Examples of Voter Suppression in the Arizona Primary

I know USUncut is biased Left, but just read through what happened. Pretty sketchy. If you believe in citizen freedoms and a citizen's right to vote, regardless of right/left allegiance, you should have a problem with what went down yesterday.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

As Wooly pointed out, it wasn't Cruz' campaign that ran the ad, it was a PAC.

That's true.

But it's always tricky to assume that they are "not coordinating" with the campaign.

Either way, I think the Trump response is in line with most of his overall rhetoric. That is, he's still in middle school.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Sounds like Maricopa Co., among others, in Arizona really Fd up with voting yesterday.

5 Examples of Voter Suppression in the Arizona Primary

I know USUncut is biased Left, but just read through what happened. Pretty sketchy. If you believe in citizen freedoms and a citizen's right to vote, regardless of right/left allegiance, you should have a problem with what went down yesterday.

I've heard similar stories from friends who live in AZ. Pretty amazing.

 

[wizards8507]

Sounds like Maricopa Co. in Arizona really Fd up with voting yesterday.

5 Examples of Voter Suppression in the Arizona Primary

I know USUncut is biased Left, but just read through what happened. Pretty sketchy.

At the same time, efforts to make voting easier have negative consequences too. Rubio got more votes than Kasich in Arizona. Ben Carson got 13,000 votes. Without intending to, those early voters helped give Trump the majority.

That's true.

But it's always tricky to assume that they are "not coordinating" with the campaign.

It wasn't even the pro-Cruz' "Keep the Promise" PAC. It was a completely separate anti-Trump Make America Awesome PAC.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

At the same time, efforts to make voting easier have negative consequences too. Rubio got more votes than Kasich in Arizona. Ben Carson got 13,000 votes. Without intending to, those early voters helped give Trump the majority.

Agreed, but I'll take that trade off. They announced the win last night while there were still people in line to vote.

 

[woolybug25]

Somebody should lose their job over this decision. Going after a candidate by smearing his wife or kids is just too far over the line. If this just melts away, then I think we will have crossed a point of no return in regards to what ethics "We the People" are willing to stand up for. It might as well be a Thunderdome match at that point.

I agree in principal, that family is off limits. That being said, I draw the line right under the wife. The reason I say that is, as Wiz pointed out, the wife of a candidate is a potential First Lady. Which is someone that will have policies like Laura Bush's initiatives on education and women's health or Michelle Obama's programs for healthy eating and school lunch programs. They aren't just arm candy for the President. First Ladies have traditionally taken a role of championing projects that the President otherwise cannot go after.

So when a candidate's first lady is a third wife that has posed nude. I think it's fair for voters to consider whether that is appropriate.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

It wasn't even the pro-Cruz' "Keep the Promise" PAC. It was a completely separate anti-Trump Make America Awesome PAC.

Fair enough.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

At the same time, efforts to make voting easier have negative consequences too. Rubio got more votes than Kasich in Arizona. Ben Carson got 13,000 votes. Without intending to, those early voters helped give Trump the majority.


It wasn't even the pro-Cruz' "Keep the Promise" PAC. It was a completely separate anti-Trump Make America Awesome PAC.

This isn't an issue with early voting though. This is entirely different.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Agreed, but I'll take that trade off. They announced the win last night while there were still people in line to vote.

Important detail: With less than 1% of the vote reporting. The polls had literally just closed. Still called it for HRC.

 

[kmoose]

I agree in principal, that family is off limits. That being said, I draw the line right under the wife. The reason I say that is, as Wiz pointed out, the wife of a candidate is a potential First Lady. Which is someone that will have policies like Laura Bush's initiatives on education and women's health or Michelle Obama's programs for healthy eating and school lunch programs. They aren't just arm candy for the President. First Ladies have traditionally taken a role of championing projects that the President otherwise cannot go after.

So when a candidate's first lady is a third wife that has posed nude. I think it's fair for voters to consider whether that is appropriate.

From the looks of her picture............ I would say she is eminently qualified to speak on health and nutrition issues.
So it's fair if Trump has some knowledge about the character of Cruz's wife that he publicizes?

 

[woolybug25]

From the looks of her picture............ I would say she is eminently qualified to speak on health and nutrition issues.
So it's fair if Trump has some knowledge about the character of Cruz's wife that he publicizes?

I know it might not be popular, but if it is relevant, then yes.

And let me elaborate... I don't think that they should endlessly bash each other's wives and insult them (like they do to each other). But if there are clear character concerns, they should be addressed professionally. I don't think the PAC addressed Trump's wife professionally, but that doesn't mean they are wrong.

 

[IrishLax]

All this border security talk...

Towards the idea of "when do we have diminishing returns" with agents, that's a tough question and too complicated to answer in this thread. I'd argue that, if anything, there isn't even close to enough manpower right now that we'd be talking about "diminishing returns" of adding new agents, especially in certain Stations on the Canadian border. The agent-per-mile ratio difference between the Mexican border and Canadian border is staggering.

Towards the "are funds inefficiently allocated to CBP" the answer is absolutely, and it has to do with the Government contracting industrial complex and the decision makers, but that's also a complex answer.

In short, the borders are not "secure" in the sense of being impenetrable... but the Mexican border is policed reasonably well. Throughout history there have always been smugglers and people who get past even the most secure borders. Even North Korea/South Korea isn't impenetrable.

Right now, border security is handled primarily through remote video surveillance which is managed by centralized command & control centers that coordinate agents in the field. The reason why the drone program isn't super "effective" is that the vast majority of terrain is already effectively canvassed by the remote video surveillance network. Drones are OK as a supplement to survey difficult terrain or blind spots (there really aren't any true "blind spots" though). But generally speaking anything that is going to be noticed by a drone operator is usually going to be picked up first by the RVSS network. The RVSS network primarily consists of permanent surveillance towers but there are also mobile units (that don't really work well at all).

The best investment of money is in personnel, the next best investment of money is continuing to overhaul and add to the current surveillance network with increasingly modern technology. Physical barriers already exist in many locations and do nothing... anyone who wants to go through them or over them can, and anyone who doesn't just goes around them. Air surveillance isn't great bang for your buck as described above. But in general, we're nowhere close to the point of it being "wasteful" to put money into CBP if it is done correctly.

 

[kmoose]

I know it might not be popular, but if it is relevant, then yes.

I guess the big issue I have with that is......... the way politics works, they can make an argument that just about anything is relevant. So it seems like it would be open season.

 

[woolybug25]

I guess the big issue I have with that is......... the way politics works, they can make an argument that just about anything is relevant. So it seems like it would be open season.

I don't see it that way. Kids, cousins, moms, etc aren't involving themselves in policy.