USA 2016 Presidential Election Thread

[leicsmac]

Cruz has been kinda put in the shadows by Trump recently, but it's good to see the crazy fundy resurfacing in all his glory post-Brussels.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/22/politics/ted-cruz-muslim-neighborhoods/index.html

 

Yup Ted, let's police these 'Muslim neighbourhoods' (are there such things in the US?) and make them even more of a paranoid police state than they are now, in response to an incident that happened thousands of miles away.

 

And this is the sole alternative to Trump on the GOP side.

 

You know what, actually considering his views on women, minorities and religion as expressed in the past this shouldn't really be that much of a shocker.

[SMX11]

Well that settles it. Trump for POTUS. While I like Cruz's flat tax he clearly is a neo-con of the Bush mould. Jeb Bush endorsing him just confirms this.

At least Trump can destroy the neo-con establishment.

[Detroit Blues]

 

Yup Ted, let's police these 'Muslim neighbourhoods' (are there such things in the US?) and make them even more of a paranoid police state than they are now, in response to an incident that happened thousands of miles away.

 

 

There's a heavily Muslim - populated "neighborhood" outside Detroit. Dearborn has about 100,000 residents of arabic descent, a majority of which are muslim (though some are Chaldean Catholics). It will occasionally come up in the news when the republicans say ridiculous shit like you mentioned. They allege that Sharia law is practiced there (it isn't). They talk about how the Islamic call to prayer is played in the town square. Then they say stupid things like it's a breeding ground for terrorism (it's not).

 

Anyone who has been to Dearborn knows that it is just like any other neighborhood with an ethnic population. There's some mosques, some delicious shawarma restaurants, and some signs in arabic. It's actually nicer, and more wealthy than most of the surrounding neighborhoods. To allege that it's a dangerous terrorist breeding ground is just ignorant.

[Robin JD Popley]

I know I'm biased as a GOP supporter (being Conservatively minded), but, I'd hope that Dems agree with me when I say that Obama has been incredibly lax about the concurrent threat IS possess. I'm sure that a Republican President would take a less tolerant view of proceedings in the West.

 

Also, think its wrong that Sanders is only really behind because of Superdelegates on the Dem side. 

 

Mrs Clinton would be a terrible President.

[Guest MattP]

I know I'm biased as a GOP supporter (being Conservatively minded), but, I'd hope that Dems agree with me when I say that Obama has been incredibly lax about the concurrent threat IS possess. I'm sure that a Republican President would take a less tolerant view of proceedings in the West.

 

I'm not a warmonger nor am I a pacifist - however, we need to do something drastic to stop these evil murderers. 

 

Absolutely, he has been an appalling in regards to this and it's hard to see it getting better under Hillary.

 

Barack Obama and his administration seem to want to put this down to complete failure by European authorities in failing to control it, the fact he's lost any interest in the Middle East has been a significant boost to the Jihadi's who carry out these acts, I remember his speech after the Arab spring where he said he was going to start a dialogue between America and Islam, what ever came of it?

 

He said chemical weapons in Syria were a red line and then when they were used bottled doing anything about it, no threat he ever made afterwards would be taken seriously again by any dictator from Assad to Putin, he accuses us and the French of failing to follow through in Libya without taking any responsibility himself, he's been more concerned about ebola, climate change and his relationship with China (a country he was visiting no less than two days after the Battaclan attacks) than tackling this threat and of course he's also been helped by fracking making them less dependant on Arab oil.

 

I don't think he believes that ISIS represent any sort of threat to the USA and that's why he's not bothered about making any effort to combat them.

 

In future his inaction could be seen much of a mistake as anything, even more so if because of it American's plump for a new foreign policy and vote for Donald Trump.

[Detroit Blues]

Absolutely, he has been an appalling in regards to this and it's hard to see it getting better under Hillary.

 

Barack Obama and his administration seem to want to put this down to complete failure by European authorities in failing to control it, the fact he's lost any interest in the Middle East has been a significant boost to the Jihadi's who carry out these acts, I remember his speech after the Arab spring where he said he was going to start a dialogue between America and Islam, what ever came of it?

 

He said chemical weapons in Syria were a red line and then when they were used bottled doing anything about it, no threat he ever made afterwards would be taken seriously again by any dictator from Assad to Putin, he accuses us and the French of failing to follow through in Libya without taking any responsibility himself, he's been more concerned about ebola, climate change and his relationship with China (a country he was visiting no less than two days after the Battaclan attacks) than tackling this threat and of course he's also been helped by fracking making them less dependant on Arab oil.

 

I don't think he believes that ISIS represent any sort of threat to the USA and that's why he's not bothered about making any effort to combat them.

 

In future his inaction could be seen much of a mistake as anything, even more so if because of it American's plump for a new foreign policy and vote for Donald Trump.

 

I think Obama did not want to give ISIS any level of credibility by acknowledging them as a threat, but clearly ignoring them is not a solution either. Though something must be done, I believe US military intervention will only create more problems than they solve. 

 

Given the recent terrorist attacks in Europe, is there any chance that any European nations will do something about the ISIS threat? I am asking because I am admittedly ignorant on the finer points of European Politics. The media over here always has an obvious agenda so you never get an honest idea about what is happening overseas.

[Carl the Llama]

I think Obama did not want to give ISIS any level of credibility by acknowledging them as a threat, but clearly ignoring them is not a solution either. Though something must be done, I believe US military intervention will only create more problems than they solve.

 

Given the recent terrorist attacks in Europe, is there any chance that any European nations will do something about the ISIS threat? I am asking because I am admittedly ignorant on the finer points of European Politics. The media over here always has an obvious agenda so you never get an honest idea about what is happening overseas.

This is the heart of the problem really, isn't it?  US military intervention is one of the key reasons they even exist in the first place, there's absolutely no reason to believe that further US or indeed western military presence in general will help quell the kind of mentality that allows these guys to thrive.  Even if they successfully cleared the insurgents out of Raqqa and got their hands on Al Baghdadi what's to say another mad despot wouldn't pop up to take his place within a matter of months if even that long?  Unfortunately more foreign bombs just means more fuel to catalyse the radicalisation process.

[Detroit Blues]

This is the heart of the problem really, isn't it?  US military intervention is one of the key reasons they even exist in the first place, there's absolutely no reason to believe that further US or indeed western military presence in general will help quell the kind of mentality that allows these guys to thrive.  Even if they successfully cleared the insurgents out of Raqqa and got their hands on Al Baghdadi what's to say another mad despot wouldn't pop up to take his place within a matter of months if even that long?  Unfortunately more foreign bombs just means more fuel to catalyse the radicalisation process.

 

I absolutely agree. Many of these factions only exist because the US disposed Saddam Hussein, and created a power vacuum in Iraq. Our meddling and nation building was a disaster. But the question is what to do now that we're here.

[Carl the Llama]

I absolutely agree. Many of these factions only exist because the US disposed Saddam Hussein, and created a power vacuum in Iraq. Our meddling and nation building was a disaster. But the question is what to do now that we're here.

Crop dust the place with lysergic acid diethylamide and wait for them to realise that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. 

[Guest MattP]

I think Obama did not want to give ISIS any level of credibility by acknowledging them as a threat, but clearly ignoring them is not a solution either. Though something must be done, I believe US military intervention will only create more problems than they solve. 

 

Given the recent terrorist attacks in Europe, is there any chance that any European nations will do something about the ISIS threat? I am asking because I am admittedly ignorant on the finer points of European Politics. The media over here always has an obvious agenda so you never get an honest idea about what is happening overseas.

 

Very little, in reality we are now shit scared of them, even a mild change in strategy to bomb some IS targets across the border in Syria caused a national outrage here and had thousands protesting claiming it was going to see carnage brought to our streets.

 

We generaly now have a standard response to any terrorist atack that most adhere too.

 

1. Attack happens, someone says something insenstitive - Social Media goes into overdrive (not over murderers but person who said something insensitive) and people start to show solidarity by posting flags etc of affected nation.

 

2. We start to search for good news about local Muslims (and make it up if we can't find any ie Muslim outside Stade De France or "I'll ride with You" hastag) -  Not because Muslims don’t do good deeds, but because in the wake of any Islamist terrorist attack people need people opposed to the bombers to be Muslim and the bombers themselves not to be Muslim, then the good Muslim can represent Islam while the bad Muslims can be said to have nothing to do with it.

 

3. Government settles down and tries to pretend to do something about it, claims are made that being in the EU makes us safer (even while blood still is spread across the main tube station next to the main EU buildings) and we start to hear all sorts of security and data issues that we apparantly need to also make us safer, we'll talk about education and Nikki Morgan will roll out some anti-extremism measures which will touch every school that doesn't need it and miss every Madrassa that does.

 

4. Commentators start talking about foreign policy, someone will mention Israel and Palestine, all sorts of excuses and self hating rhetoric will be used to question ourselves if this was our fault, Donald Trump will also get a mention these days (or Marine Le Pen if it's France, Farage if it's UK etc), Islamic community leaders will appear to tell us about the backlash that has happened agains them, victims not even spoken of anymore.

 

5. People will start to say "Where can we learn from?" and use it as some sort of evidence we are moving forward, after 7/7 we had to learn from France, after Paris we had to learn from Sweden, where we'll look to learn from after this happens in Sweden is anyone's guess.

 

Then in a few months the next attack will occur and we can repeat the process above. The reality is that this is now here with us in Europe forever, we aren't going to get rid of it and deep down I think the people and the politicians know it.

 

My advice to any American would be to look at Europe and do the exact opposite of pretty much every thing we have done in regards to integration.

[MC Prussian]

A lifeline on the Democrats' side - Sanders wins in Hawaii, Alaska and California, closing in on Clinton:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/us-election-bernie-sanders-wins-hawaii-caucuses-in-race-against-hillary-clinton-for-democratic-a6954781.html

[SMX11]

Unfortunately for Sanders supporters the super delegates makes the popular vote irrelevant. There's nothing like like the illusion of democracy   

[leicsmac]

Unfortunately for Sanders supporters the super delegates makes the popular vote irrelevant. There's nothing like like the illusion of democracy   

 

If Sanders gets close enough in the count of pledged delegates the supers might flip rather than face a convention fight. I don't think it will happen, but it's a possibility.

[SMX11]

If Sanders gets close enough in the count of pledged delegates the supers might flip rather than face a convention fight. I don't think it will happen, but it's a possibility.

 

Nah they are all in the pocket of the Clinton's both parties will do all they can to stop an outsider. 

[MC Prussian]

Nah they are all in the pocket of the Clinton's both parties will do all they can to stop an outsider. 

 

Well, the Republicans have been very successful with their attempts at stopping Trump so far...

[Claridge]

Very little, in reality we are now shit scared of them, even a mild change in strategy to bomb some IS targets across the border in Syria caused a national outrage here and had thousands protesting claiming it was going to see carnage brought to our streets.

 

We generaly now have a standard response to any terrorist atack that most adhere too.

 

1. Attack happens, someone says something insenstitive - Social Media goes into overdrive (not over murderers but person who said something insensitive) and people start to show solidarity by posting flags etc of affected nation.

 

2. We start to search for good news about local Muslims (and make it up if we can't find any ie Muslim outside Stade De France or "I'll ride with You" hastag) -  Not because Muslims don’t do good deeds, but because in the wake of any Islamist terrorist attack people need people opposed to the bombers to be Muslim and the bombers themselves not to be Muslim, then the good Muslim can represent Islam while the bad Muslims can be said to have nothing to do with it.

 

3. Government settles down and tries to pretend to do something about it, claims are made that being in the EU makes us safer (even while blood still is spread across the main tube station next to the main EU buildings) and we start to hear all sorts of security and data issues that we apparantly need to also make us safer, we'll talk about education and Nikki Morgan will roll out some anti-extremism measures which will touch every school that doesn't need it and miss every Madrassa that does.

 

4. Commentators start talking about foreign policy, someone will mention Israel and Palestine, all sorts of excuses and self hating rhetoric will be used to question ourselves if this was our fault, Donald Trump will also get a mention these days (or Marine Le Pen if it's France, Farage if it's UK etc), Islamic community leaders will appear to tell us about the backlash that has happened agains them, victims not even spoken of anymore.

 

5. People will start to say "Where can we learn from?" and use it as some sort of evidence we are moving forward, after 7/7 we had to learn from France, after Paris we had to learn from Sweden, where we'll look to learn from after this happens in Sweden is anyone's guess.

 

Then in a few months the next attack will occur and we can repeat the process above. The reality is that this is now here with us in Europe forever, we aren't going to get rid of it and deep down I think the people and the politicians know it.

 

My advice to any American would be to look at Europe and do the exact opposite of pretty much every thing we have done in regards to integration.

You forgot to mention that the left, is then amazed when the people don't vote for them in elections. The threat from ISIS is not to be discounted, but the bleeding heart liberals are the real danger. Most people  who are anti-Muslim are because of the reasons you mention above i would imagine. The rise of Trump,Farage etc... thrive on these apologists from the left.

[Carl the Llama]

Love watching politicians sat down having a candid chat.  If anyone has any similar videos with the other candidates I'd love to add them to my late night watching list.

[leicsmac]

Edit: Never mind, life's too short.

 

Sanders wins Hawaii, Alaska and Washington states, he's going to run it close.

[Guest MattP]

Edit: Never mind, life's too short.

 

Sanders wins Hawaii, Alaska and Washington states, he's going to run it close.

 

Still can't see myself, he only has two caucauses left (although Wisconsin is 90% white so he'll probably win there well) and Hillary has big leads in all those East Coast primaries still to declare, more chance of Cruz running Trump close imo.

 

Hope you are right though, for anyone interested in politics Trump v Sanders is the Ali v Frazier battle of politics in historical terms.

[leicsmac]

Still can't see myself, he only has two caucauses left (although Wisconsin is 90% white so he'll probably win there well) and Hillary has big leads in all those East Coast primaries still to declare, more chance of Cruz running Trump close imo.

 

Hope you are right though, for anyone interested in politics Trump v Sanders is the Ali v Frazier battle of politics in historical terms.

 

Can't see him winning it either, but I think it'll end up being pretty close by the end. Could end up being blood on the floor at both conventions.

 

On another note, something of an insight into the motivations of the 'Bernie or Bust' folks, interesting read:

 

http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/03/the-argument-that-the-bernie-or-bust-movement-is-b.html

[Claridge]

I absolutely agree. Many of these factions only exist because the US disposed Saddam Hussein, and created a power vacuum in Iraq. Our meddling and nation building was a disaster. But the question is what to do now that we're here.[/quote

Fancy wanting to get rid of Sadam and Gaddafi,lovely fellas, the west are so nasty.its all their fault that a large proportion of the Muslim world is hellbent on killing people,I mean Belgium and their nasty imperialism deserves everything it got I suppose.Its not the USA,it's the region that's evil , but that would go against the racism that seems to exist against the US and Israel.

[leicsmac]

I absolutely agree. Many of these factions only exist because the US disposed Saddam Hussein, and created a power vacuum in Iraq. Our meddling and nation building was a disaster. But the question is what to do now that we're here.[/quote

Fancy wanting to get rid of Sadam and Gaddafi,lovely fellas, the west are so nasty.its all their fault that a large proportion of the Muslim world is hellbent on killing people,I mean Belgium and their nasty imperialism deserves everything it got I suppose.Its not the USA,it's the region that's evil , but that would go against the racism that seems to exist against the US and Israel.

 

So you're saying the US and other Western powers (including ourselves) haven't been dabbling in the politics of Middle Eastern nations since they were powerful enough to do so, and that hasn't given the death-worshipping fascists a ready source of propaganda?

 

Being a sociopath who likes to kill in the name of an ideology is - oddly enough - not something unique to Muslims. Us and Them is such a simplistic way of looking at things.

 

And by the by, is it possible to keep this BS in one of the threads where it belongs rather than letting it spill over into this one? Plenty of threads regarding it to choose from - how to deal with the ME is just one tiny facet of the American political process.

[Claridge]

So you're saying the US and other Western powers (including ourselves) haven't been dabbling in the politics of Middle Eastern nations since they were powerful enough to do so, and that hasn't given the death-worshipping fascists a ready source of propaganda?

Being a sociopath who likes to kill in the name of an ideology is - oddly enough - not something unique to Muslims. Us and Them is such a simplistic way of looking at things.

And by the by, is it possible to keep this BS in one of the threads where it belongs rather than letting it spill over into this one? Plenty of threads regarding it to choose from - how to deal with the ME is just one tiny facet of the American political process.

Always blaming'us' is part of the problem.Of course Western intervention causes problems,but do we just let murdering dictators get on with it?

[MC Prussian]

I absolutely agree. Many of these factions only exist because the US disposed Saddam Hussein, and created a power vacuum in Iraq. Our meddling and nation building was a disaster. But the question is what to do now that we're here.[/quote

Fancy wanting to get rid of Sadam and Gaddafi,lovely fellas, the west are so nasty.its all their fault that a large proportion of the Muslim world is hellbent on killing people,I mean Belgium and their nasty imperialism deserves everything it got I suppose.Its not the USA,it's the region that's evil , but that would go against the racism that seems to exist against the US and Israel.

 

I know I'm quoting DBlues, as well:

Iraq and Iran have been pawns in the US geopolitical and strategy games for decades, look up the history behind the overthrowing of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in the 50ies. It's not just an issue since Saddam Hussein's rise and demise, it's been so for a while now. After all, the target was destabilizing an entire region, seize control and secure the flow of oil.

 

Or why do you think the US were so fast intervening in Kuwait, which is a sidekick of Saudi-Arabia?

 

The US have played a major active part in this scheme and should be held accountable for it - but who would want to meddle with the world's strongest superpower?

Belgium on the other hand haven't been involved in colonialism for almost 60 years now and used to mainly focus on Central Africa (Congo).

So, I don't know why you need to bring up that particular country in this context.

 

Btw, I didn't know you can be racist against states; I thought this dubious honour was reserved to only people, groups of people and/or individuals.

[Claridge]

I know I'm quoting DBlues, as well:

Iraq and Iran have been pawns in the US geopolitical and strategy games for decades, look up the history behind the overthrowing of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in the 50ies. It's not just an issue since Saddam Hussein's rise and demise, it's been so for a while now. After all, the target was destabilizing an entire region, seize control and secure the flow of oil.

 

Or why do you think the US were so fast intervening in Kuwait, which is a sidekick of Saudi-Arabia?

 

The US have played a major active part in this scheme and should be held accountable for it - but who would want to meddle with the world's strongest superpower?

Belgium on the other hand haven't been involved in colonialism for almost 60 years now and used to mainly focus on Central Africa (Congo).

So, I don't know why you need to bring up that particular country in this context.

 

Btw, I didn't know you can be racist against states; I thought this dubious honour was reserved to only people, groups of people and/or individuals.

So you would of left Kuwait?

If you look at history,you will see that it's Britain that really started the problems in the middle east, after ww1. I mentioned Belgium in this context to show how many in the west blame the USA, where as some people from other cultures just want to kill us, whether we are to blame or not.