2016 Presidential Horse Race

[NorthDakota]

And all I ever said was that an argument could be made that ISIS is as big a threat, INSIDE of the US, as the Axis forces were. There's no doubt that the Axis powers presented a MUCH larger threat to Europe, North Africa, and Asia, but their ability to cause damage inside of the United States was not much bigger than ISIS' is, if even that.

This. Some folks have been trying to move the goalposts.

 

[IrishBroker]

This. Some folks have been trying to move the goalposts.

What's new? LOL.

I also agree. War has changed. ISIS is absolutely as dangerous, if not more, than the Axis powers of old.

 

[Shamrock Theories]

And all I ever said was that an argument could be made that ISIS is as big a threat, INSIDE of the US, as the Axis forces were. There's no doubt that the Axis powers presented a MUCH larger threat to Europe, North Africa, and Asia, but their ability to cause damage inside of the United States was not much bigger than ISIS' is, if even that.

This. Some folks have been trying to move the goalposts.

That right?

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.

I don't think there's any question that an argument can be made that ISIS poses MORE of a threat to the US, than Japan, Germany, and Italy, in the 40s..........

Okey doke!

 

[NorthDakota]

That right?






Okey doke!

It seems like you assume we are saying ISIS or any nation is capable of conquering the US. No one has said that. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit though.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Either way Korematsu is pretty widely considered to be wrongly decided and would almost certainly be overturned given the same set of facts today.

Also, the logic of the case was pretty clear that it was focused on the overall threat to the war effort and not just the risk of an internal attack.

Really I just don't understand the thought process of the dude citing it. Team Trump's not proposing to build concentration camps (yet)- why play into fears that they are by citing to what is pretty universally seen as a shameful chapter of American history.

 

[NorthDakota]

Either way Korematsu is pretty widely considered to be wrongly decided and would almost certainly be overturned given the same set of facts today.

Also, the logic of the case was pretty clear that it was focused on the overall threat to the war effort and not just the risk of an internal attack.

Really I just don't understand the thought process of the dude citing it. Team Trump's not proposing to build concentration camps (yet)- why play into fears that they are by citing to what is pretty universally seen as a shameful chapter of American history.

I hear liberals cite Roe vs. Wade all the time...speaking of shame.

 

[Shamrock Theories]

It seems like you assume we are saying ISIS or any nation is capable of conquering the US. No one has said that. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit though.

What??? Of course nobody said that. Here I'll spell it out:

First, you said:

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.

I argued that was a ridiculous statement.

Then, kmoose said:

I don't think there's any question that an argument can be made that ISIS poses MORE of a threat to the US, than Japan, Germany, and Italy, in the 40s..........

After some various posts, kmoose "moved the goalposts", saying:

And all I ever said was that an argument could be made that ISIS is as big a threat, INSIDE of the US, as the Axis forces were. There's no doubt that the Axis powers presented a MUCH larger threat to Europe, North Africa, and Asia, but their ability to cause damage inside of the United States was not much bigger than ISIS' is, if even that.

Then, you jumped along with him:

This. Some folks have been trying to move the goalposts.

The only person "moving the goalposts" was kmoose, after he realized that his/your original statements were silly.

 

[NorthDakota]

What??? Of course nobody said that. Here I'll spell it out:

First, you said:


I argued that was a ridiculous statement.

Then, kmoose said:


After some various posts, kmoose "moved the goalposts", saying:


Then, you jumped along with him:


The only person "moving the goalposts" was kmoose, after he realized that his/your original statements were silly.

I don't see it that way at all. You, and others, took the "threat" to mean in the wrong context. He understood the point, and explained it further.

 

[IrishinSyria]

In other news (disclaimer: NOT ALL TRUMP SUPPORTERS)

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This weekend, Neo-Nazi Richard Spencer (who coined the term "alt-right") led the crowd at his conference in DC in a "Heil Trump" chant. <a href="https://t.co/X1qX0l3uKI">pic.twitter.com/X1qX0l3uKI</a></p>— Yashar (@yashar) <a href="https://twitter.com/yashar/status/800837035992948737">November 21, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Shamrock Theories]

I don't see it that way at all. You, and others, took the "threat" to mean in the wrong context. He understood the point, and explained it further.

What?

 

[IrishinSyria]

Trump’s toughest transition test: the Trump Organization | New York Post

More on Trump Inc.

Maybe the president-elect was on the right track when he promised to put his interests in a “blind trust” — but one run by his children won’t pass the sniff test.

After all, if the election had gone the other way, we’d right now be furiously denouncing the idea of letting Chelsea run the Clinton Foundation.

Even a blind trust not run by his children would be questionable- it's not like he can erase his knowledge of the business from his mind- but I think it would probably give him just enough cover to dodge any Emoluments Clause challenges. Anything less than that though and you've got a day 1 Constitutional crisis.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Trump’s toughest transition test: the Trump Organization | New York Post

More on Trump Inc.



Even a blind trust not run by his children would be questionable- it's not like he can erase his knowledge of the business from his mind- but I think it would probably give him just enough cover to dodge any Emoluments Clause challenges. Anything less than that though and you've got a day 1 Constitutional crisis.

I was just getting on here to comment on this topic.

I'm surprised more wasn't made of it during the primary and general elections, but does anyone feel a huge sense of uneasement regarding Trump "the businessman" and Trump "the President?" I mean, that seems like a massive conflict of interest. How does the Press vet this? 538 talked about it briefly yesterday. How do we know what's going on in these meetings in terms of dealings and to whom they'll benefit? Having Trump's kids take over doesn't do much to calm the nerves, especially when Ivanka is sitting in on meetings and phone calls.

Curious of others' thoughts on the matter?

*For the record, yes, I'd be questioning the potential conflict of interest if Clinton won the election in regards to their Foundation/Chelsea running the operation.

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

What??? Of course nobody said that. Here I'll spell it out:

First, you said:


I argued that was a ridiculous statement.

Then, kmoose said:


After some various posts, kmoose "moved the goalposts", saying:


Then, you jumped along with him:


The only person "moving the goalposts" was kmoose, after he realized that his/your original statements were silly.

I think the argument can be made that self radicalization is just as dangerous of a threat to anything that we faced in the 40s.
The Axis powers were a bigger threat militarily, but for a sleeper cell or a lone wolf type guy ISIS is a bigger threat due to their belief structure.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I was just getting on here to comment on this topic.

I'm surprised more wasn't made of it during the primary and general elections, but does anyone feel a huge sense of uneasement regarding Trump "the businessman" and Trump "the President?" I mean, that seems like a massive conflict of interest. How does the Press vet this? 538 talked about it briefly yesterday. How do we know what's going on in these meetings in terms of dealings and to whom they'll benefit? Having Trump's kids take over doesn't do much to calm the nerves, especially when Ivanka is sitting in on meetings and phone calls.

Curious of others' thoughts on the matter?

*For the record, yes, I'd be questioning the potential conflict of interest if Clinton won the election in regards to their Foundation/Chelsea running the operation.

Yes. And his "blind trust" isn't actually blind.

 

[kmoose]

What??? Of course nobody said that. Here I'll spell it out:

First, you said:


I argued that was a ridiculous statement.

Then, kmoose said:


After some various posts, kmoose "moved the goalposts", saying:


Then, you jumped along with him:


The only person "moving the goalposts" was kmoose, after he realized that his/your original statements were silly.

So are you all worked up because of the distinction between "more of" and "equal to"? Because, honestly; if we are limiting the conversation to the threat INSIDE of the US, which has been my contention all along, you could make an argument for either. I'm not saying it's a fact, but simply that you could make an argument. Japan could not have invaded the Hawaiian Islands without us knowing that something was happening before they got there. Moving 3 aircraft carriers and their escorts across the ocean in 1941 was a feat. But that would absolutely pale in comparison to the size of the flotilla one would need to mount an invasion. So I think people are drastically overstating their ability to successfully invade the Hawaiian Islands. Islamic terrorists have already practically equaled the Japanese feat at Pearl Harbor:

2,403 Killed
1,178 Wounded

9/11:

2,996 Killed
6,000+ wounded

I would venture to guess that the financial cost of real property lost at Pearl Harbor was probably much greater (when adjusted to today's dollars) than on 9/11, simply because we are talking about entire warships vs. entire buildings. But I did not look too hard to find financial costs of each for comparison.

 

[RDU Irish]

I just can't wait for "The Apprentice - Cabinet" season. Or will you prudes kibosh that since he would profit?

 

[IrishBroker]

In other news (disclaimer: NOT ALL TRUMP SUPPORTERS)

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This weekend, Neo-Nazi Richard Spencer (who coined the term "alt-right") led the crowd at his conference in DC in a "Heil Trump" chant. <a href="https://t.co/X1qX0l3uKI">pic.twitter.com/X1qX0l3uKI</a></p>— Yashar (@yashar) <a href="https://twitter.com/yashar/status/800837035992948737">November 21, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

So what

 

[Bluto]

I just can't wait for "The Apprentice - Cabinet" season. Or will you prudes kibosh that since he would profit?

This week, Arsenio Hall and Gene Simmons lead their respective teams into the Middle East to defeat Isis and raise money for Donald's "charity"...

 

[Whiskeyjack]

In other news (disclaimer: NOT ALL TRUMP SUPPORTERS)

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This weekend, Neo-Nazi Richard Spencer (who coined the term "alt-right") led the crowd at his conference in DC in a "Heil Trump" chant. <a href="https://t.co/X1qX0l3uKI">pic.twitter.com/X1qX0l3uKI</a></p>— Yashar (@yashar) <a href="https://twitter.com/yashar/status/800837035992948737">November 21, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

The media coverage Spencer is currently receiving is really counter-productive for reasons outlined by Ross Douthat in this series of Tweets:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">1. So, about Richard Spencer.</p>— Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) <a href="https://twitter.com/DouthatNYT/status/800880467218231297">November 22, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Bluto]

So what

This response is interesting considering all the hubbub and hand wringing on this site over Black Lives Matter and to a lesser extent the National Council of La Raza.

 

[kmoose]

This response is interesting considering all the hubbub and hand wringing on this site over Black Lives Matter.....

Yeah, because this group was proudly chanting, right in front of the cameras, "What do we want?" "Dead ni**ers!" "When do we want them?" "Right Now!"

What's interesting is this idea that some liberals have, that we should not judge Islam to be a religion of violence based on the actions of a relatively small number of it's adherents. But we should ABSOLUTELY consider Donald Trump to be a racist, based on the actions of a relative small number of his supporters.

Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

 

[Emcee77]

The media coverage Spencer is currently receiving is really counter-productive for reasons outlined by Ross Douthat in this series of Tweets:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">1. So, about Richard Spencer.</p>— Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) <a href="https://twitter.com/DouthatNYT/status/800880467218231297">November 22, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

That's really interesting. I tend to agree with that analysis. And it should go for both sides, as Bluto suggested:

This response is interesting considering all the hubbub and hand wringing on this site over Black Lives Matter and to a lesser extent the National Council of La Raza.

Just as we shouldn't define the movement that brought Trump to power by pointing to Richard Spencer, we shouldn't broadly define the more populist sector of the left wing by pointing to the most extreme BLM activist, either.

 

[greyhammer90]

Just as we shouldn't define the movement that brought Trump to power by pointing to Richard Spencer, we shouldn't broadly define the more populist sector of the left wing by pointing to the most extreme BLM activist, either.

Bingo. And that's been my real issue with threads like the "Political Correctness Thread." The vast majority of things posted are the radical minority (i.e. insane people) or are spun in such a way to make them appear more ridiculous then they were originally supposed to be (i.e. clickbait). Mix all this up with a big scoop of confirmation bias and you have the makings of a "What's happening to this country?!" overreaction similar to those we've seen after Trump's election (and Obama's election before that).

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Bingo. And that's been my real issue with threads like the "Political Correctness Thread." The vast majority of things posted are the radical minority (i.e. insane people) or are spun in such a way to make them appear more ridiculous then they were originally supposed to be (i.e. clickbait). Mix all this up with a big scoop of confirmation bias and you have the makings of a "What's happening to this country?!" overreaction similar to those we've seen after Trump's election (and Obama's election before that).

Oh my gosh...yes. All of this. Yes.

 

[IrishinSyria]

The media coverage Spencer is currently receiving is really counter-productive for reasons outlined by Ross Douthat in this series of Tweets:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">1. So, about Richard Spencer.</p>— Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) <a href="https://twitter.com/DouthatNYT/status/800880467218231297">November 22, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Don't disagree, but I don't think the media is really up to point 16.

I also think it's almost impossible to talk about without seeming biased. Easy to report on Spencer. Harder to point out that Trump's final tv ad basically was Protocol 2 of the Elders of Zion. Like Douthat says, Trumpism is so new it's tough to define it. Clearly defined in the negative during the election: against the DC institution, against the ACA, against multilateral trade deals, against immigration, against "globalism." In building those things up as threats, Trump (directly and through proxies) leaned heavily on the rhetoric of international conspiracy that dovetails very nicely with the alt-right.

Certainly the fact that white supremacists across this country feel vindicated and energized by this election is a disturbing development in its own right.

 

[MJ12666]

It reminds me of my fun "discussion" with a poster a few weeks ago about economists overwhelmingly condemning Trump's tax proposals.

Started with him talking shit about the Fed, then devolved into him blaming soybeans for GDP growth.

Sigh.

Yea it was rather humorous. I was thinking about you while reading a newsletter this morning from Steve Blumenthal of CMG. He was discussing the bond market and he stated with the following:


"Recall in late 2014 that 25 out of 25 Wall Street economists predicted that interest rates would rise from a then 2.75% 10-year Treasury yield to 3.25%. They were all wrong. Rates finished 2015 at 2.25%. One of the best return years for bonds – ever."

On My Radar: The Secular Low in Yields is IN - CMG

 

[IrishinSyria]

Trump's tax, infrastructure promises face pushback from GOP lawmakers | Fox News

If he makes it past day one emoluments issues it looks like a showdown between Trump/Bannon and the GOP establishment is looming on infrastructure spending. This is an area I hope Dems will work with Trump on.

 

[IrishLax]

Trump's tax, infrastructure promises face pushback from GOP lawmakers | Fox News

If he makes it past day one emoluments issues it looks like a showdown between Trump/Bannon and the GOP establishment is looming on infrastructure spending. This is an area I hope Dems will work with Trump on.

Yup, because straight talk it's a really good idea and should happen.

 

[Wild Bill]

Bingo. And that's been my real issue with threads like the "Political Correctness Thread." The vast majority of things posted are the radical minority (i.e. insane people) or are spun in such a way to make them appear more ridiculous then they were originally supposed to be (i.e. clickbait). Mix all this up with a big scoop of confirmation bias and you have the makings of a "What's happening to this country?!" overreaction similar to thocse we've seen after Trump's election (and Obama's election before that).

Despite being the minority, the bigots and radicals of the left influence education, media and the DNC. My concern is that the Spencer-types on the right, who are equally bigoted but choose different targets, will be able to influence culture, politics and policy in the same manner.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I have to break my IE sabbatical to inform all of you that I met Richard Spencer a decade or so ago. This is so weird haha my family had a good laugh about this today as a family friend called my sister asking "why are you friends with Richard Spencer on Facebook?!"

Get this, my sister sublet from him in North Carolina as she did an internship in Raleigh. We just thought he was a rich prick. I went down from Ohio to help her pack and move home after the internship.

Small world. Holy shit.

He did have a super nice golden retriever though.