2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

alaimacerc

Amerika wrote: »

I’ve seen estimates that approximately 325,000 Muslims are at risk of becoming radicalized and dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization.

And have you "seen" any definitions of this terminology you're so insistent everyone use? Or just statistics that you're not even going to source?

The absolute worst way to conduct "counter-radicalisation" is broad-brush vilification. If you're going to throw vague descriptors around in an manner designed to blame as many Muslims as possible for the actions of a few, you're quite literally doing the enemy's recruitment for it.

alaimacerc

Manach wrote: »

So that was why he was endorsed by the Vatican and all the main stream Churches in that area. :rolleyes:

So your point is that we should only blame a religion at large for the actions of ultra-fundamentalist terrorists where and to the extent that they're endorsed by the generally accepted leaders of that religion, then?

Go forth and do likewise in the case of Islam, methinks.

ancapailldorcha

Back on topic please folks. Please take the discussion of Islam to an appropriate forum.

Black Swan

The "outsider" Republicans Trump and Carson continue to lead in recent polls mostly in the 20 percentiles, while the established GOP candidates fall way behind, with only Rubio and Cruz in the low teens, and all the others in single digits. It's beginning to appear that these Republican "outsiders" are lasting longer than "outsiders" in past presidential elections, so there is a chance that history may not repeat itself with "outsiders" dropping off as the November 2016 election draws nearer.

What message does this send to the GOP?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Manach

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

As both come from a Hispanic heritage, would that give them a greater likelihood of attracting votes from what has been (AFAIK) more democrat leaning?

Black Swan

Manach wrote: »

As both come from a Hispanic heritage, would that give them a greater likelihood of attracting votes from what has been (AFAIK) more democrat leaning?

The Hispanic demographic voter segment is now the largest and fastest growing minority, and should have a significant impact on November 2016.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

They are diverse as you say Permabear. If I recall correctly, we generally saw that Hispanic split between Cubans and non-Cuban Hispanics in the 2008 Florida presidential vote.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Overheal

I think it's funny that as Cubans, neither Rubio or Cruz might not even be here if their parents were denied immigration under the same type of xenophobic policies they are hellbent on enacting. Speaking of which here is Rubio lying about his family to further his political goals https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/marco-rubios-compelling-family-story-embellishes-facts-documents-show/2011/10/20/gIQAaVHD1L_story.html

And Ted? Born in Kenya - I mean, Canada. Don't even need a birth certificate for that.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/26/ted-cruz-born-canada-eligible-run-president-update/

Trump is suspiciously silent on that too.

Thargor

Overheal wrote: »

I think it's funny that as Cubans, neither Rubio or Cruz might not even be here if their parents were denied immigration under the same type of xenophobic policies they are hellbent on enacting. Speaking of which here is Rubio lying about his family to further his political goals https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/marco-rubios-compelling-family-story-embellishes-facts-documents-show/2011/10/20/gIQAaVHD1L_story.html

And Ted? Born in Kenya - I mean, Canada. Don't even need a birth certificate for that.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/26/ted-cruz-born-canada-eligible-run-president-update/

Trump is suspiciously silent on that too.

Wow that could be a killer for Rubio if he gets the nomination, he has gotten a lot of mileage out of that story, I think its been brought up in every single thing Ive ever seen about him.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Fr Tod Umptious

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

With Obama's new found love for Cuba would this policy change under a Dem. president, i.e. require them to go through the same process as other immigrants.

As it was inacted during Bills presidency I don't think Hillary would be quick to change it.

Overheal

It's just a double standard in immigration/refugee politics: we see Cubans sailing to Florida in tyres and makeshift rafts as refugees fleeing Cuba. For political reasons we have to turn them back - sometimes there are dramatic quagmires that result (Elian Gonzalez)

Despite the Red Scare, nobody ever feared that Cuban refugees were spies or terrorists. It wasn't until the early 2000s - I recall a DARPA freeware game/crowdsourcing program that was trying to optimize Gulf of Mexico search pattern tactics for unmanned/drone patrol boats. Messed around with that for a day or two. At that point I think they were actually concerned about the possibility of nukes etc. getting in this route; presumably the drones would be equipped with rad detection. But either way, this never raised any eyebrows in the political sphere nor did it affect Cuban policy.

Black Swan

Have Cuban foreign affairs occurred in any of the 2016 president candidate debates? Would the Republicans be more prone to continue some barriers while the Democrats move more towards normalisation?

jobbridge4life

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

As it was inacted during Bills presidency I don't think Hillary would be quick to change it.

In case he what? Doesn't speak to her over dinner?

Overheal

It needs to be an issue in this campaign, at some stage. Every candidate needs to take a stance on it,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba%E2%80%93United_States_relations

Cuba and the United States restored diplomatic relations on July 20, 2015, which had been severed in 1961 during the Cold War. U.S. diplomatic representation in Cuba is handled by the United States Embassy in Havana, and there is a similar Cuban Embassy in Washington, D.C.. The United States, however, continues to maintain its commercial, economic, and financial embargo, which makes it illegal for U.S. corporations to do business with Cuba. Although the U.S. President, Barack Obama, has called for the ending of the embargo, U.S. law requires congressional approval to end the embargo.

Reaction to this change in policy within the Cuban-American community was mixed,[74] and Cuban-American senators Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Ted Cruz (R-TX) all condemned the Obama administration's change in policy.[75] However, opinion polls indicated the thaw in relations was broadly popular with the American public.[76]

Black Swan

Overheal wrote: »

It needs to be an issue in this campaign, at some stage. Every candidate needs to take a stance on it

The 2016 presidential candidates cannot credibly appeal to the communist nation status to reject Cuban normalisation with America, given that the US has long since given PRC Most Favoured Nation status for trade, and also trades with Vietnam today, both communist. It would be interesting to see how the candidates rationalise how to exclude or include Cuba in trade and the removal or continued maintenance of any barriers or sanctions that may still exist.

Black Swan

The latest Republican presidential candidate Trump proposal is to force all persons (including US citizens) of the Muslim religion in the United States to register in a national database. He will not require persons of other religious faiths to register.

When asked whether Muslims would be legally obligated to sign into the database, Trump responded, "They have to be — they have to be."

NBCNews.com at this moment on the telly stated that Trump's poll numbers rose after his Muslim database proposal. This reminds me of the McCarty Era in the US, and worse the internment of 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry (including US citizens) in concentration camps during WWII. You need a list first, and Trump wants one. Welcome to the politics of fear mongering.

Wompa1

Black Swan wrote: »

The latest Republican presidential candidate Trump proposal is to force all persons (including US citizens) of the Muslim religion in the United States to register in a national database. He will not require persons of other religious faiths to register.



NBCNews.com at this moment on the telly stated that Trump's poll numbers rose after his Muslim database proposal. This reminds me of the McCarty Era in the US, and worse the internment of 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry (including US citizens) in concentration camps during WWII. You need a list first, and Trump wants one. Welcome to the politics of fear mongering.

Ben Carson doubled his points after his comment that a Muslim should never be US President. It's getting to a very worrying place. The two most popular candidates grown in support based on the most outlandish and hate filled crap they can come up with.

Overheal

Who are they polling Here is his solution for Palestine:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/20/ben-carson-create-palestinian-state-in-egypt-get-israel-out-of-hamass-rocket-fire-range/

“We need to look at fresh ideas,” said Carson. “I don’t have any problem with the Palestinians having a state, but does it need to be within the confines of Israeli territory? Is that necessary, or can you sort of slip that area down into Egypt? Right below Israel, they have some amount of territory, and it can be adjacent. They can benefit from the many agricultural advances that were made by Israel, because if you fly over that area, you can easily see the demarcation between Egypt and Israel, in terms of one being desert and one being verdant. Technology could transform that area. So why does it need to be in an area where there’s going to be temptation for Hamas to continue firing missiles at relatively close range to Israel?”

Which is plenty tragic of a statement on its own - but there is also his map of the USA, which helps to highlight just how readily Carson assumes you can just slip a State wherever you want it [Insert Oxford Dictionary Word of the Year]...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/18/ben-carsons-campaign-made-a-u-s-map-and-put-a-bunch-of-states-in-the-wrong-place/

eire4

Wompa1 wrote: »

Ben Carson doubled his points after his comment that a Muslim should never be US President. It's getting to a very worrying place. The two most popular candidates grown in support based on the most outlandish and hate filled crap they can come up with.

It truly is disgusting and lets call it what it is. It is overt and clear racism. Trump played that card with his comments about putting a data base together of all muslims in America and refusing to rule out making all muslims have a special ID. A jewish group commented on this sick orwellian racism with a comment along the lines of that was done before and we know how that turned out. Carson also made this infamous racist comment:


'If there's a rabid dog running around in your neighborhood, you're probably not going to assume something good about that dog,' Carson told reporters at a campaign stops in Alabama. 'It doesn't mean you hate all dogs, but you're putting your intellect into motion.'


That has nothing to do with intellect and everything to do with racism.

RedPaddyX

Wompa1 wrote: »

Ben Carson doubled his points after his comment that a Muslim should never be US President. It's getting to a very worrying place. The two most popular candidates grown in support based on the most outlandish and hate filled crap they can come up with.

Did you actually listen to his whole quote. He was basically saying Sharia law isn't compatible with US constitution (which its not). And that therefore in his opinion he wouldn't think they should be president. He added that if anyone of any faith (incl Muslim) would put the principles of the US constitution first and foremost he'd support them - but that would be incompatible with the Muslim belief.

He is just speaking the truth in my view and not pandering to PC.

Fr Tod Umptious

Right now Muslims are the only ones shooting up cafes in the western world, set off bombs at a marathon, or have flown planes into skyscrapers in the recent past.

So people in the west have evey right to be concerned about Muslims/Islam and the potential spread of the radical forms of Islam.

So when candidates put forward proposals that are seen to curb the spread of radical Islam people react favorably.

The Dem. candidates are pussy footing around the topic, refusing to even use the term "radical Islam" for example.
Has it gained them anything in the polls ?

Manach

On such indexes, it is a matter of rights. I'm aware both of the historical precedents of holding such wide ranging databases on people : both based on a person characteristic or them having the ill-luck of being swepped up in a police inquiry (thus against a DNA database except under the strictest controls) This is due to potential for a different regieme (of any stripe) to abuse such in the name of circumstances or national security.

Overheal

RedPaddyX wrote: »

Did you actually listen to his whole quote. He was basically saying Sharia law isn't compatible with US constitution (which its not). And that therefore in his opinion he wouldn't think they should be president. He added that if anyone of any faith (incl Muslim) would put the principles of the US constitution first and foremost he'd support them - but that would be incompatible with the Muslim belief.

He is just speaking the truth in my view and not pandering to PC.

Well, Obama is allegedly a muslim. In that period we've seen federal support for non-traditional marriage, continued support for Israel, killed OBL and ISIS terrorists alike. Even if he is a muslim, or was raised around Islam, or is sympathetic to greater Islam beliefs, it has not been in direct conflict with our constitution. The Supreme Court still holds the biggest string on that.

You will discover that there are Many religions in the US, not all of which if taken at literal face value, are not always congruent with the US Constitution. That includes Christianity and its various churches, seen in the various attempts to integrate church and religious values with the state (adding references of God to the currency, blocking federal processes for personal beliefs, attempting to establish churches as providers of social care, etc).

Right now Muslims are the only ones shooting up cafes in the western world, set off bombs at a marathon, or have flown planes into skyscrapers in the recent past.

That is rather ignorant:

Russian Airstrike, Damascus

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/10/russia-drone-footage-shows-devastated-damascus-suburb-151021054441887.html



US Airstrike, registered hospital, Kunudz Afghanistan

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/doctors-without-borders-report-kunduz-hospital-bombing_563b408ee4b0307f2cac20dc

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057518356



US Drone strike, Yemen

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2015/Sep-12/314972-drone-strike-kills-4-suspected-militants-in-yemen.ashx

(jump to 7:50, 10:05 really lands my point however)

State-Sponsored-Terrorism is a phrase that just depends on who is looking.

Overheal

Manach wrote: »

On such indexes, it is a matter of rights. I'm aware both of the historical precedents of holding such wide ranging databases on people : both based on a person characteristic or them having the ill-luck of being swepped up in a police inquiry (thus against a DNA database except under the strictest controls) This is due to potential for a different regieme (of any stripe) to abuse such in the name of circumstances or national security.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy

eire4

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Right now Muslims are the only ones shooting up cafes in the western world, set off bombs at a marathon, or have flown planes into skyscrapers in the recent past.

So people in the west have evey right to be concerned about Muslims/Islam and the potential spread of the radical forms of Islam.

So when candidates put forward proposals that are seen to curb the spread of radical Islam people react favorably.

The Dem. candidates are pussy footing around the topic, refusing to even use the term "radical Islam" for example.
Has it gained them anything in the polls ?

Hmmm last time I checked the United States has been using drone bombings in many different cuntries killing many innocent people. For instance they even bombed a hospital recently.
But besides all that way way more people are killed by domestic terrorists who very often are white males in the United States every year but I do not see any big speeches never mind action being done about that.
For instance you have a gun loophole that allows people on the terrorsit watch list in the United States to buy assault rifles 2,000 of whom have done so in the last 10 years.
No some of the disgusting comments coming from a number of politicans since Paris is overt and outright racism and it is very dangerous for any country to have people in leadership or with prominent profiles puting forth such racism as that acts as an OK to those of a racist mindset in the public to actually act on that at times.

Overheal

For instance you have a gun loophole that allows people on the terrorist watch list in the United States to buy assault rifles 2,000 of whom have done so in the last 10 years.

The loophole in that case was that the Bush era terrorism laws did not disrupt the 2nd Amendment. You could be on that watch list for being associated with Edward Snowden, or any number of classified reasons. If they blocked people on the watch list from doing that, support for the watch list would disappear overnight.