2016 Presidential Horse Race

[Shamrock Theories]

I thought you opposed registries of citizens? You must not, if you aren't "opting out" of those two?

Or a Passport.

Another thing that doesn't categorize me by religion. I have a Driver's license too guys!

And a credit card!

Guess what, NONE of those things categorize people by their religious beliefs.

 

[NorthDakota]

Yeah, my draft paperwork and my SSN include my religion.

That is a registry to force young men to go fight and possibly die. I find that infinitely more invasive.

They put religion on soldiers dogtags. We better get rid of that.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Here are a few

-Strategical: Furthers the notion that Muslims are under attack by the West, furthering the cause of ISIS etc, making it easier to recruit.

-Constitutional: Violates the 1st, and arguably 14th amendment.

-Unethical: Every citizen deserves equal treatment. Punishing the many due to the actions of a few. Before you say "no punishment", registration is flat-out an invasion of privacy. That is a punishment.

-Starts down a slippery slope. Registry -> Monitoring? -> Segregation? -> Internment? Who knows.

Thanks for the reply. I respectfully disagree with you, but understand your points. I believe that no right is absolute, but instead must be balanced out with how much it impacts the rights of others to exercise their rights. e.g., you have the right to listen to whatever music you like in your own home, but that right doesn't extend to listening to it at full volume at 3 a.m. so that you unduly impact your neighbor's right to enjoy his home and get some sleep.

I'm not necessarily for or against a registry, but the citizens of our country have the right to expect a reasonable degree of safety. Providing that is one of the government's basic tasks. Keeping track of sexual predators, violent criminals, and those associated with or likely to be associated with terrorism is an essential part of doing so. I would probably be against a national registry of all Muslims in this country. I'd probably be for a registry of non-citizen Muslims, those who've participated in certain activities that tend to produce radicals or terrorists, or those fitting a particular profile (country of origin, travel habits, associations, age, etc.).

 

[Wild Bill]

Here are a few

-Strategical: Furthers the notion that Muslims are under attack by the West, furthering the cause of ISIS etc, making it easier to recruit.

-Constitutional: Violates the 1st, and arguably 14th amendment.

-Unethical: Every citizen deserves equal treatment. Punishing the many due to the actions of a few. Before you say "no punishment", registration is flat-out an invasion of privacy. That is a punishment.

-Starts down a slippery slope. Registry -> Monitoring? -> Segregation? -> Internment? Who knows.

There's nothing you quoted that suggests it applies to citizens.

Assuming it's a database of immigrants or visitors of ALL citizens from muslim majority countries, is there an issue?

 

[kmoose]

Another thing that doesn't categorize me by religion. I have a Driver's license too guys!

And a credit card!

Guess what, NONE of those things categorize people by their religious beliefs.

So what? You didn't say that you were opposed to religious registries of citizens, you said you were opposed to registries of citizens. Now you want to move the goal posts?

 

[Shamrock Theories]

Thanks for the reply. I respectfully disagree with you, but understand your points. I believe that no right is absolute, but instead must be balanced out with how much it impacts the rights of others to exercise their rights. e.g., you have the right to listen to whatever music you like in your own home, but that right doesn't extend to listening to it at full volume at 3 a.m. so that you unduly impact your neighbor's right to enjoy his home and get some sleep.

I'm not necessarily for or against a registry, but the citizens of our country have the right to expect a reasonable degree of safety. Providing that is one of the government's basic tasks. Keeping track of sexual predators, violent criminals, and those associated with or likely to be associated with terrorism is an essential part of doing so. I would probably be against a national registry of all Muslims in this country. I'd probably be for a registry of non-citizen Muslims, those who've participated in certain activities that tend to produce radicals or terrorists, or those fitting a particular profile (country of origin, travel habits, associations, age, etc.).

Fair points all around.

The question boils down to, what is the tradeoff?

 

[IrishinSyria]

So what? You didn't say that you were opposed to religious registries of citizens, you said you were opposed to registries of citizens. Now you want to move the goal posts?

Given the context of the Korematsu discussion that seemed obvious?

 

[Shamrock Theories]

There's nothing you quoted that suggests it applies to citizens.

Assuming it's a database of immigrants or visitors of ALL citizens from muslim majority countries, is there an issue?

Uhh..."the Muslims here in this country"

What else could he have meant? I guess, legal Muslim immigrants? Obviously illegals can't be tracked regardless.

In addition, if this registry is non-citizens only, what happens when the next San Bernadino happens? Or the next Pulse nightclub?

Not following? The attackers in those cases were all U.S. citizens.

 

[kmoose]

Uhh..."the Muslims here in this country"

What else could he have meant? I guess, legal Muslim immigrants? Obviously illegals can't be tracked regardless.

Uhhh............. from your own link:


What Trump Has Said About a Muslim Registry - ABC News

"The national registry of foreign visitors from countries with high terrorism activity that was in place during the Bush and Obama Administrations gave intelligence and law enforcement communities additional tools to keep our country safe the President-elect will release his own vetting policies after he is sworn in."

Of course illegals can be tracked. They aren't living in the shadows. California will give them a driver's license, for fucks sake!

 

[Shamrock Theories]

Uhhh............. from your own link:


What Trump Has Said About a Muslim Registry - ABC News



Of course illegals can be tracked. They aren't living in the shadows. California will give them a driver's license, for fucks sake!

So your position is that there should be a registry of illegal Muslim immigrants, I'm assuming to keep us safe.

Keep us safe from what? The two highest-profile attacks (San Bernadino and Pulse nightclub) were committed by U.S. citizens.

Between 9/11 and 2014, there were a grand total of 37 terrorist killings in the U.S.
https://sites.duke.edu/tcths/files/2013/06/Kurzman_Muslim-American_Terrorism_in_2013.pdf

That's about 3 per year in a country of 300 million people

We ARE safe.

 

[kmoose]

So your position is that there should be a registry of illegal Muslim immigrants, I'm assuming to keep us safe.

Keep us safe from what? The two highest-profile attacks (San Bernadino and Pulse nightclub) were committed by U.S. citizens.

Between 9/11 and 2014, there were a grand total of 37 terrorist killings in the U.S.
https://sites.duke.edu/tcths/files/2013/06/Kurzman_Muslim-American_Terrorism_in_2013.pdf

That's about 3 per year in a country of 300 million people

We ARE safe.

My position is that I don't mind if we keep a registry of the people that enter this country, or are found to be in this country, from areas of the world where the predominant view of America is as "The Great Satan". As long as that registry (those registries) don't get abused, then I don't have any problem with being able to track a guy's history of his time here in the States. I'm not saying that we should surveil the people, but I don't mind the government keeping track of where they are when they have interactions with the government over the years.

 

[Wild Bill]

Uhh..."the Muslims here in this country"

What else could he have meant? I guess, legal Muslim immigrants? Obviously illegals can't be tracked regardless.

In addition, if this registry is non-citizens only, what happens when the next San Bernadino happens? Or the next Pulse nightclub?

Not following? The attackers in those cases were all U.S. citizens.

Non citizens or those who travel here.

 

[ulukinatme]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I haven't seen the Democrats this mad since we freed the slaves!</p>— Rob Schneider (@RobSchneider) <a href="https://twitter.com/RobSchneider/status/799625987210166272">November 18, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Irish YJ]

Here are a few

-Strategical: Furthers the notion that Muslims are under attack by the West, furthering the cause of ISIS etc, making it easier to recruit.

-Constitutional: Violates the 1st, and arguably 14th amendment.

-Unethical: Every citizen deserves equal treatment. Punishing the many due to the actions of a few. Before you say "no punishment", registration is flat-out an invasion of privacy. That is a punishment.

-Starts down a slippery slope. Registry -> Monitoring? -> Segregation? -> Internment? Who knows.

We (citizens) are already being monitored.... to think we are not is naive.

So your position is that there should be a registry of illegal Muslim immigrants, I'm assuming to keep us safe.

Keep us safe from what? The two highest-profile attacks (San Bernadino and Pulse nightclub) were committed by U.S. citizens.

Between 9/11 and 2014, there were a grand total of 37 terrorist killings in the U.S.
https://sites.duke.edu/tcths/files/2013/06/Kurzman_Muslim-American_Terrorism_in_2013.pdf

That's about 3 per year in a country of 300 million people

We ARE safe.

We are safe"r" because of the stepped up efforts, which include the lists and monitoring of individuals.

Look I hate that any of us are monitored. I hate big government. I don't want a registry, but I'm certainly OK with any non-citizen, or someone with limited degrees of separation from questionable characters, being tracked in some form or fashion.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I haven't seen the Democrats this mad since we freed the slaves!</p>— Rob Schneider (@RobSchneider) <a href="https://twitter.com/RobSchneider/status/799625987210166272">November 18, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

OMG, is that the real Rob Schneider?

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Trump calling for safe spaces for Mike Pence.

 

[Irish YJ]

Trump calling for safe spaces for Mike Pence.

If crying college students deserve a safe space, why not Pence? Hell, he didn't even get coloring books or play doh...

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Given the context of the Korematsu discussion that seemed obvious?

Friendly reminder that Korematsu was never explicitly overturned, so it remains as "settled" as Roe and Obergefell.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Friendly reminder that Korematsu was never explicitly overturned, so it remains as "settled" as Roe and Obergefell.

True, but the language of Korematsu suggests an exception for extreme circumstances that just doesn't exist right now. Like you can argue that Islamic terror is a comparable threat to WWII but you tip your hand as full of shit pretty quickly if you do.

Also "passage of time" is a justification to bypass stare decisis and it doesn't exist for Obergefell. Maybe for Roe, but I don't think there's strong empirical evidence that Roe was wrongly decided.

o cast this case into outlines of racial prejudice, without reference to the real military dangers which were presented, merely confuses the issue.* Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire, because the properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our West Coast and felt constrained to take proper security measures, because they decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast temporarily, and finally, because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military leaders—as inevitably it must—determined that they should have the power to do just this. There was evidence of disloyalty on the part of some, the military authorities considered that the need for *224 action was great, and time was short. We cannot—by availing ourselves of the calm perspective of hindsight—now say that at that time these actions were unjustified.

Toyosaburo Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 223–24, 65 S. Ct. 193, 197, 89 L. Ed. 194 (1944)

 

[NorthDakota]

True, but the language of Korematsu suggests an exception for extreme circumstances that just doesn't exist right now. Like you can argue that Islamic terror is a comparable threat to WWII but you tip your hand as full of shit pretty quickly if you do.

Also "passage of time" is a justification to bypass stare decisis and it doesn't exist for Obergefell. Maybe for Roe, but I don't think there's strong empirical evidence that Roe was wrongly decided.

I'd say Islamic Terror is equal or greater than any threat the US faced in the 1940's. Prove otherwise. Neither ISIS nor the Axis Powers are/were capable of occupying the United States.

 

[connor_in]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/the-democrats-2016-mistake-100053074.html

Interesting analysis

 

[Shamrock Theories]

I'd say Islamic Terror is equal or greater than any threat the US faced in the 1940's. Prove otherwise. Neither ISIS nor the Axis Powers are/were capable of occupying the United States.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[IrishinSyria]

I'd say Islamic Terror is equal or greater than any threat the US faced in the 1940's. Prove otherwise. Neither ISIS nor the Axis Powers are/were capable of occupying the United States.

Well we were on the brink of potential civilization-ending nuclear war more than once during the Cold War so I think this has to be wrong. I don't know what it would take for me to prove the negative- terror of all stripes is responsible for a tiny fraction of US violent deaths every year. I'd argue the most dangerous aspect of terrorism is its ability to trigger disproportionate responses by inflating the public perception of the risk.

Which is not to say I don't take the threat seriously. Whether living in Syria learning Arabic or deploying with the Army to Afghanistan, I spent a large portion of my 20s actively trying to understand and fight the problem. And obviously you always have to be vigilant for the black swan events. But terrorism is not anything close to an existential threat.

Now whether Germany or Japan could have ever invaded the mainland US is an entirely separate question. What I think is crystal clear is that they both possessed the power to radically reshape the world around the US and at the time (and in retrospect) it was deemed like an appropriate response to send hundreds of thousands of young men to die fighting the threat.


e. also, you have to look at the perceived threat from when the case was decided. Also, just because Korematsu has never been challenged doesn't mean it wouldn't be overturned given the same fact pattern today.

 

[Irish YJ]

The question is not if terror groups can occupy the US. The threat is a few crazies getting their hands on nukes abroad or bringing in the same (or even a dirty bomb) into the US. If you think they aren't trying or planning, I don't know what to tell you.

To add, some of the Islamic terror groups have admitted they want to get as many Muslims in the US and change the religious and cultural landscape. Is that going to happen in the next 20 years, no... but they are attempting to influence the US in pockets of America.

 

[IrishinSyria]

The question is not if terror groups can occupy the US. The threat is a few crazies getting their hands on nukes abroad or bringing in the same (or even a dirty bomb) into the US. If you think they aren't trying or planning, I don't know what to tell you.

To add, some of the Islamic terror groups have admitted they want to get as many Muslims in the US and change the religious and cultural landscape. Is that going to happen in the next 20 years, no... but they are attempting to influence the US in pockets of America.

Para 1 is the "black swan event" I referenced. So you probably don't have to tell me anything?

Regarding point 2, I'm confident that our culture is appealing enough to win this sort of multi-generational battle of ideas. It's part of the reason why I value openness and inclusion and just generally being good so much. you can infiltrate us as much as you want but we're going to ultimately win your people over. Obviously there's more nuance to it than that but I don't think fears of Muslim infiltration are really anymore valid than fears of catholic infiltration were a century ago.

 

[kmoose]

Well we were on the brink of potential civilization-ending nuclear war more than once during the Cold War so I think this has to be wrong.

He did say "IN the 40s", not "since the 40s".

Now whether Germany or Japan could have ever invaded the mainland US is an entirely separate question. What I think is crystal clear is that they both possessed the power to radically reshape the world around the US and at the time (and in retrospect) it was deemed like an appropriate response to send hundreds of thousands of young men to die fighting the threat.

And there is a strong argument to be made, that ISIS has the power to radically reshape the world INSIDE of the US. So I'd say his contention that ISIS is as big a threat as anything we faced in the 40s is probably reasonable.

 

[IrishinSyria]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/the-democrats-2016-mistake-100053074.html

Interesting analysis

That is interesting, but I think it doesn't give enough credence to the turnout focused strategy (which both parties ran).

The big question is how possible is it to persuade voters. If you think that Clinton could have secured votes just by pitching her infrastructure plan to blue collar white voters, then yeah- she made a huge mistake. But if you think that she wasn't going to be able to sell them no matter what, then her strategy makes more sense. It's not good for the future of politics, but there's a certain logic to it.

I'd argue that Trump's camp did the same thing. Play to the core and ignore everyone else. Build up excitement in your base and try to damper it in your opponent's.

 

[IrishinSyria]

He did say "IN the 40s", not "since the 40s".



And there is a strong argument to be made, that ISIS has the power to radically reshape the world INSIDE of the US. So I'd say his contention that ISIS is as big a threat as anything we faced in the 40s is probably reasonable.

Good point on number one. I misread that.


I flat out disagree with number 2. ISIS certainly is a threat and can motivate lone wolf attackers and maybe even orchestrate something larger, but they simply cannot reshape the world inside the US unless we let fear do it for them.

They're dangerous for sure- but in no way do they pose an existential threat to us.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Don’t Overstate the Terrorist Threat | The American Conservative

This was written after the Nice attack and gets at the point I'm making. The threat of terrorism is real. It is also- by design- greatly exaggerated.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Melania and Barron Trump won't move to White House: report | TheHill

On a different note, apparently Melania and her kid will be staying in New York. Wonder how much that will cost the taxpayer.

 

[Bluto]

I'd say Islamic Terror is equal or greater than any threat the US faced in the 1940's. Prove otherwise. Neither ISIS nor the Axis Powers are/were capable of occupying the United States.

Oh my. From a pure strategy stand point Japan's big mistake at Pearl Harbor was the fact that they chose not to invade the Hawaiian Islands immediately after their initial bombimg campaign. Something they could have easily done. If Adolf wouldn't have kicked the bear, Germany could have easily bombed England into non existence all the while being the first country to develop nukes and the rocket technology to deliver them over long distances. I'd take a relative handful of crazies over that all day, everyday.