USA 2016 Presidential Election Thread

[Guest MattP]

You mean apart from his comments about preventing people from entering the USA based on their religion?  Comments which, even if you accept that they are made with the best interests of the citizens of the USA at heart, any sane person can see only serve to fuel the growing radicalist propaganda machine in the middle east by both providing them with ammo for their e-zines and alienating members of his own population?

(The violent acts come afterwards)

 

So nothing then, I don't see someone saying they want a block on Islamic immigration as an incitement to violence.

 

A lot of people seem to think whenever anyone mentions Islam now it's acceptable to immediately try and shut down the conversation by proclaiming with no actual evidence whatsoever it's fuelling radicalism. If this is the case then we may as well just bow and be totally subserviant to the religion.

[Carl the Llama]

So nothing then, I don't see someone saying they want a block on Islamic immigration as an incitement to violence.

 

A lot of people seem to think whenever anyone mentions Islam now it's acceptable to immediately try and shut down the conversation by proclaiming with no actual evidence whatsoever it's fuelling radicalism. If this is the case then we may as well just bow and be totally subserviant to the religion.

The man's suggesting institutionalised discrimination against a specific religion hasn't he?  I'm really confused that there can be any serious debate about whether or not it's a sane policy which addresses the problem at hand instead of generalising an entire religion and helping to stir up already present hatred.  Nobody's saying Trump's to blame for terrorism, they're saying he's a fuching idiot.

[leicsmac]

Or you could argue that by not saying anything youre showing weakness, encouraging radicalisation. So should we ban any "islam is a peaceful religion" statements?

The democrats are going to make a big deal out of it because they are their electoral rivals. The rest of us dont have to take it seriously.

 

We'll have to if he gets in, gets executive power with a Republican-controlled House and Senate and can pass almost any legislation he likes. The decisions the US makes are felt around the world.

 

That being said, for the reasons Detroit Blues and I have said, that's a long shot as the GOP establishment knows he loses against Hillary in a straight matchup and he won't garner enough support to run as an independent.

 

But also has been said earlier...of course what he says doesn't have to be taken seriously, but there are those that do take what he says extremely seriously. A powerful, charismatic man saying that you essentially have to be wary of an entire demographic might not end well, yes? And of course he is free to speak his piece and what he said isn't a direct incitement to violence, but it's going to push a fair few buttons. He should be responsible if anything comes of that.

[lgfualol]

i remember the same being said about Reagan and he ended the cold war. America is not run by idiots no matter what you hear.

But Reagan wasn't a manchild who was scared of anyone non-christian.

[Webbo]

The man's suggesting institutionalised discrimination against a specific religion hasn't he?  I'm really confused that there can be any serious debate about whether or not it's a sane policy which addresses the problem at hand instead of generalising an entire religion and helping to stir up already present hatred.  Nobody's saying Trump's to blame for terrorism, they're saying he's a fuching idiot.

nobody is saying hes talking sense, its a ridiculous idea. The idea that somebody should be banned from entering the country because they've said something you don't like is what we're arguing against.

[Carl the Llama]

nobody is saying hes talking sense, its a ridiculous idea. The idea that somebody should be banned from entering the country because they've said something you don't like is what we're arguing against.

Ah ok, I was contesting the suggestion that his words couldn't in any conceivable way have the effect of provoking more violence.  Isis or whoever won't attack some random American town while screaming "this is for Donald Trump's racist remarks" but I'd be willing to bet they've already made use of it in their propaganda drive so Trump's being incredibly unhelpful in that respect imo.  I agree that banning him from the UK is somewhat draconian however. 

[The Doctor]

Trump attacked by a bald eagle he had for a photoshoot for TIME magazine (video of it on their YouTube channel)

[Rincewind]

Islamic hooded eagle by any chance?

 

http://img.cliparto.com/pic/xl/197443/3319281-golden-eagle-on-hood.jpg

 

[leicsmac]

Republican debate night. A hoot as always.

 

Rubio: "ISIS is the most sophisticated group thats ever threatened the US."

 

I'm sure that Nazi Germany and the USSR will be so disappointed. Fully functional nation-states with massive militaries (and the latter case more nuclear weapons than you can shake a stick at) and they get beaten into second place in the sophistication, threat and advancement stakes by a bunch of seminomadic death-worshipping cultists with a few AK's and IED's that have a barely functional system of governance covering a small area of the Middle East.

[MPH]

Republican debate night. A hoot as always.

 

Rubio: "ISIS is the most sophisticated group thats ever threatened the US."

 

I'm sure that Nazi Germany and the USSR will be so disappointed. Fully functional nation-states with massive militaries (and the latter case more nuclear weapons than you can shake a stick at) and they get beaten into second place in the sophistication, threat and advancement stakes by a bunch of seminomadic death-worshipping cultists with a few AK's and IED's that have a barely functional system of governance covering a small area of the Middle East.

There's more than one interpretation of the word sophisticated...

[leicsmac]

There's more than one interpretation of the word sophisticated...

 

Well, let's see. From dictionary.com:

 

Sophisticated (adjective)

 

1. altered by education, experience, etc., so as to be worldly-wise; not naive - there is an argument for this one given how savvy Daesh have been with their media campaign, but given how they controlled nation states and crushed much internal resistance, I would say the two regimes I mentioned were reasonably non-naive, yes?

 

2. pleasing or satisfactory to the tastes of sophisticates, or people who are educated, cultured, and worldly-wise: - not really relevant here.

 

3. deceptive; misleading. - hmm...possibly, but I would again say that a fully functional nation-state can play the spy game better than Daesh purely on account of their increased resources to do so. Hell, Stalin knew about the developments of the Manhattan Project almost before Truman did.

 

4. complex or intricate, as a system, process, piece of machinery, or the like - this is closest to the definition of 'sophisticated' I chose to challenge above.

 

5. of, for, or reflecting educated taste, knowledgeable use, etc.: - not really relevant.

 

I really don't think Daesh measure above either Nazi Germany or the USSR no matter what definition of 'sophisticated' you use, though I'd be happy to hear further counterarguments.

[Captain...]

nobody is saying hes talking sense, its a ridiculous idea. The idea that somebody should be banned from entering the country because they've said something you don't like is what we're arguing against.

 

I'm not sure if it is deliberate or not, but there is a certain irony in trying to prevent Trump entering the UK because of his views on stopping Muslims entering the US.

 

Maybe that is the whole point of trying to ban him because of his beliefs. It is to highlight how ludicrous his proposal to ban people from the US is, and not to actually stop him coming here.

[Dr The Singh]

I'm not sure if it is deliberate or not, but there is a certain irony in trying to prevent Trump entering the UK because of his views on stopping Muslims entering the US.

Maybe that is the whole point of trying to ban him because of his beliefs. It is to highlight how ludicrous his proposal to ban people from the US is, and not to actually stop him coming here.

I'm confused by your statement. He is more aware that people abroad, especially UK are annoyed at him. He is playing a game and were all falling for it

[Guest MattP]

I'd just say it's become the natural response of the left now, whether it's Tyson Fury, Donald Trump or anyone else expressing an opinion to the contrary they want them banned.

The SNP should be getting seriously questioned on this, they only removed him as a business ambassador last week, a long time ago he was on about barring Mexicans, why did they only act when it became Muslims.

[bovril]

I'd just say it's become the natural response of the left now, whether it's Tyson Fury, Donald Trump or anyone else expressing an opinion to the contrary they want them banned.

The SNP should be getting seriously questioned on this, they only removed him as a business ambassador last week, a long time ago he was on about barring Mexicans, why did they only act when it became Muslims.

 

The hierarchy of offence.

[davieG]

It's somewhat implausible rhetoric but there's seemingly, as usual a lot of hypocrisy flying around.

 

Not sure how accurate this is but....

 

[Thracian]

Well, let's see. From dictionary.com:

 

Sophisticated (adjective)

 

1. altered by education, experience, etc., so as to be worldly-wise; not naive - there is an argument for this one given how savvy Daesh have been with their media campaign, but given how they controlled nation states and crushed much internal resistance, I would say the two regimes I mentioned were reasonably non-naive, yes?

 

2. pleasing or satisfactory to the tastes of sophisticates, or people who are educated, cultured, and worldly-wise: - not really relevant here.

 

3. deceptive; misleading. - hmm...possibly, but I would again say that a fully functional nation-state can play the spy game better than Daesh purely on account of their increased resources to do so. Hell, Stalin knew about the developments of the Manhattan Project almost before Truman did.

 

4. complex or intricate, as a system, process, piece of machinery, or the like - this is closest to the definition of 'sophisticated' I chose to challenge above.

 

5. of, for, or reflecting educated taste, knowledgeable use, etc.: - not really relevant.

 

I really don't think Daesh measure above either Nazi Germany or the USSR no matter what definition of 'sophisticated' you use, though I'd be happy to hear further counterarguments.

 

 

 

If you go into it deeply enough you'll see that much IS strategy is based on that of the Nazis. Coincidentally (or otherwise) there is considerable historical connection between the Nazis and the Muslim Brotherhood.   This is just one link of many you can look up.   http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/hitler-muslim-brotherhood.html

[MPH]

Republican debate night. A hoot as always.

 

Rubio: "ISIS is the most sophisticated group thats ever threatened the US."

 

I'm sure that Nazi Germany and the USSR will be so disappointed. Fully functional nation-states with massive militaries (and the latter case more nuclear weapons than you can shake a stick at) and they get beaten into second place in the sophistication, threat and advancement stakes by a bunch of seminomadic death-worshipping cultists with a few AK's and IED's that have a barely functional system of governance covering a small area of the Middle East.

 

 

There's more than one interpretation of the word sophisticated...

 

 

Well, let's see. From dictionary.com:

 

Sophisticated (adjective)

 

1. altered by education, experience, etc., so as to be worldly-wise; not naive - there is an argument for this one given how savvy Daesh have been with their media campaign, but given how they controlled nation states and crushed much internal resistance, I would say the two regimes I mentioned were reasonably non-naive, yes?

 

2. pleasing or satisfactory to the tastes of sophisticates, or people who are educated, cultured, and worldly-wise: - not really relevant here.

 

3. deceptive; misleading. - hmm...possibly, but I would again say that a fully functional nation-state can play the spy game better than Daesh purely on account of their increased resources to do so. Hell, Stalin knew about the developments of the Manhattan Project almost before Truman did.

 

4. complex or intricate, as a system, process, piece of machinery, or the like - this is closest to the definition of 'sophisticated' I chose to challenge above.

 

5. of, for, or reflecting educated taste, knowledgeable use, etc.: - not really relevant.

 

I really don't think Daesh measure above either Nazi Germany or the USSR no matter what definition of 'sophisticated' you use, though I'd be happy to hear further counterarguments.

 

 

Well firstly you have to remember That this was said by an American and their are slightly differing definitions to some words in America than in the U.K

 

 

So with that being said:

 

noun

1.

a sophisticated person.

adjective

2.

sophisticated.

verb (used with object), sophisticated, sophisticating.

3.

to make less natural, simple, or ingenuous; make worldly-wise.

4.

to alter; pervert:

to sophisticate a meaning beyond recognition.

verb (used without object), sophisticated, sophisticating.

5.

to use sophistry; quibble.

 

 

They can be considered Sophisticated  for a variety of numbers 1-4 and In the context that they have been able to attack the U.s on their own soil, and thats something the USSR at the time, or Russia and Certainly something Nazi Germany never achieved. 

[MPH]

It's somewhat implausible rhetoric but there's seemingly, as usual a lot of hypocrisy flying around.

 

Not sure how accurate this is but....

 

 

 

•  Algeria
•  Bangladesh
•  Brunei
•  Iran
•  Iraq (except Iraqi Kurdistan)
• Kuwait
•  Lebanon (neighboring country; territory dispute – Shebaa farms)
•  Libya
•  Malaysia (Clearance permit needed from the Ministry of Home Affairs.)
•  Oman
•  Pakistan (Clearance permit needed from the Ministry of Internal Security.)
•  Saudi Arabia
•  Sudan
•  Syria (neighboring country; territory dispute – Golan Heights)
•  United Arab Emirates (accepted for transit only; not allowed for admission)
•  Yemen

 

 

 

 

In addition, Iran, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen do not allow entry to people with evidence of travel to Israel, or whose passports have either a used or an unused Israeli visa. 

[Dr The Singh]

I'd just say it's become the natural response of the left now, whether it's Tyson Fury, Donald Trump or anyone else expressing an opinion to the contrary they want them banned.

The SNP should be getting seriously questioned on this, they only removed him as a business ambassador last week, a long time ago he was on about barring Mexicans, why did they only act when it became Muslims.

Becuase there nobheads

[Dr The Singh]

• Algeria
• Bangladesh
• Brunei
• Iran
• Iraq (except Iraqi Kurdistan)
• Kuwait
• Lebanon (neighboring country; territory dispute – Shebaa farms)
• Libya
• Malaysia (Clearance permit needed from the Ministry of Home Affairs.)
• Oman
• Pakistan (Clearance permit needed from the Ministry of Internal Security.)
• Saudi Arabia
• Sudan
• Syria (neighboring country; territory dispute – Golan Heights)
• United Arab Emirates (accepted for transit only; not allowed for admission)
• Yemen

In addition, Iran, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen do not allow entry to people with evidence of travel to Israel, or whose passports have either a used or an unused Israeli visa. </p>

I bet Corbyn's on top of this...

[leicsmac]

If you go into it deeply enough you'll see that much IS strategy is based on that of the Nazis. Coincidentally (or otherwise) there is considerable historical connection between the Nazis and the Muslim Brotherhood.   This is just one link of many you can look up.   http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/hitler-muslim-brotherhood.html

 

Oh yes, I have no doubt that there are similarities between the two, and at a social and ideological level they are very, very close. I'm just saying that thinking they are a bigger threat to the US (and by extension the rest of the West) than either a fully tooled up industrialised nation state ran by a bunch of genocidal madmen or a communist leviathan complete with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons is a bit of a stretch.

 

Well firstly you have to remember That this was said by an American and their are slightly differing definitions to some words in America than in the U.K

 

 

So with that being said:

 

noun

1.

a sophisticated person.

adjective

2.

sophisticated.

verb (used with object), sophisticated, sophisticating.

3.

to make less natural, simple, or ingenuous; make worldly-wise.

4.

to alter; pervert:

to sophisticate a meaning beyond recognition.

verb (used without object), sophisticated, sophisticating.

5.

to use sophistry; quibble.

 

 

They can be considered Sophisticated  for a variety of numbers 1-4 and In the context that they have been able to attack the U.s on their own soil, and thats something the USSR at the time, or Russia and Certainly something Nazi Germany never achieved. 

 

I'm not sure what you're driving at by quoting those definitions, MPH - they're pretty similar to what I quoted above and I can't see how it would make Daesh 'more sophisticated' than either Nazi Germany or the USSR as Rubio claimed.

 

Regarding attacking the US, the USSR had the ability to invade, conquer and control the entirety of Western Europe and launch bombing raids against the US, if they had the motivation to do so - and that's not counting the aforementioned nuclear weapons they had available. The only reason they chose not to was because they knew that as a nation state the escalation would inevitably lead to nuclear war. Nazi Germany also tried a subterfuge raid of their own on US soil (Operation Pastorius) and if they hadn't had their hands full in Europe I'm sure they would have tried more.

 

Be pretty clear - the US could wipe out the threat posed by Daesh within a month or two if they were totally unconcerned by civilian casualties and world opinion. In fact if they wanted to be particularly brutal it could take less.

 

I honestly don't see how Rubio's point can be defended by you here - Daesh aren't ahead of either Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia in terms of sophistication of threat to the existence of the US by any definition - whether it's number and style of force, espionage and subterfuge or economic and technological sophistication.

 

Rubio just made an clearly erroneous statement to sound tough and try to be remembered in that debate, and I think that's obvious. Of course, it was hardly the only erroneous statement of the night.

[Captain...]

It's somewhat implausible rhetoric but there's seemingly, as usual a lot of hypocrisy flying around.

 

Not sure how accurate this is but....

 

 

It does make an interesting point, and obviously the banning of Jews from a country is no different to the banning of Muslims, the difference is that this is historical whereas Trump proposing banning muslims is current and so is on trend. I think if a modern western country proposed banning Jews or Christians now it would get the same response.

 

I also thought that it was Israelis rather than Jews that were banned, but I could be wrong, it doesn't make it any less intolerant, but it is intolerance on nationality and not religion.

[Merging Cultures]

School in Virginia shut because a teacher used an Islamic text to teach calligraphy. The Christian families then must have sent threatening emails causing the school to shut.

OK so the text said something like, Allah is the one true God. But get over yourselves. I don't understand why US Christians are so insecure. Most of my mates are not tbf.

[leicsmac]

Hmmm...that's interesting, I distinctly remember it saying in the Constitution those religious conservatives value so highly it saying "freedom of religion", not "freedom of religion so long as it is evangelical Christianity". Evidently I read it wrong, huh?