GOP Race and 2016 Election Thread

Posted:
in PoliticalOutsider
It's been a while since we really discussed politics here.  Many of the members who kept the discussion going rarely come by anymore.  I'm just now getting back into it.  Anyway, I didn't see a thread about this.  

What are the thoughts on the GOP race and the general election itself?  I have some....

The GOP race is between Trump, Cruz and Rubio.  I really don't see anyone else having a shot at this point.  Rubio is 3rd, but is built for the long haul.  Trump's national poll numbers are sky high (nearly 40% in most polls now), and Cruz is leading in Iowa.  It will be interesting to see what happens there, as Iowa isn't really a good indicator of winning the nomination (Santorum won in 2012, and Huckabee won in 2008).   

Like many, I once dismissed Trump as a sideshow.  But I'll be honest, I've changed my mind to a degree.  He's outlandish, egotistical, and bombastic.  I don't agree with his position on immigration in general, and don't think his proposal on Muslim immigration is feasible or the right policy (I think we should consider a total freeze on all immigration until we sort things out).  But he's a leader, a master negotiator, and wants to protect the country first and foremost.  He's entertaining, and not beholden to special interests.  He's a man who knows how to get things done.  By the time our primary comes around, it will probably be over, but I'd consider voting for him.  Our political system is so corrupt at this point that I'm all for a guy like Trump blowing it up.  

I like Cruz, though I think it will be easy for the Democrats to portray him as a lunatic.  Rubio's freshness and charisma are his strengths, but also part of his negatives.  He just comes off as so young.  Realistically, I think the others are done.  Christie might find group in New Hampshire, but I don't think he's going anywhere.  

For November, barring indictment, Clinton is the nominee.  As much as there is talk of the demographic shift in the country making her job easier, I don't buy it.  I think she's very beatable.  I think her support from women is a paper tiger, and that she won't do better than Obama (maybe worse).  By contrast, she's going to lose at least a few points in core voting blocs, like African Americans and Latinos  They may not necessarily vote for the GOP candidate, but they won't vote for her in the same numbers, either.  She's also going to have a tough time if terror continues to dominate the news.  She can't run away from Obama fast enough.  

One more point:  Many have said that Trump can't win the general election because of his policies on immigration and statements about women, etc.  I don't think I buy that.  My suspicion is he will get many conservatives, moderates and first time voters to the polls, but will also peel off a decent amount of black support.  Even if he gets 15% instead of 5% and turnout doesn't match 2012 (it won't), that's enough to swing the entire election.  I've talked to a lot of people from different walks of life, and I'm surprised how many of them quietly support Trump or are at least open to the idea of him being President.  I've talked to staunch conservatives, moderates, and people who are non-ideological...most of them say a version of the same thing:  "Washington is a disaster, and Trump will go in and wreck shop. Normally I'd never consider voting for him, but this isn't a normal time."  Or, something along those lines.  It's an interesting phenomenon.  But he's tapped into "it," whatever it is.  When someone like me feels like he could support someone who's not really conservative (though I'm not on everything), has no government experience, and acts the way he does, something is going on.

Thoughts?   
«13456770

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 1399
    MacProMacPro Posts: 16,078member
    Quite simply put, folks that cannot comprehend science shouldn't be elected.
  • Reply 2 of 1399
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,340member
    I haven't been too into the election this round yet but the most fun I've had reading about it, and something that appeals to my very skeptical 45 year old mind is the take of Scott "Dilbert" Adams regarding Trump and the race in general.

    His prediction is Trump in a landslide and for reasons that absolutely don't appeal to logic and reason at all. I'd start with "How to Spot a Wizard" for a bit of fun.

    I guess one of the reasons I don't care as much about politics anymore is I've just gotten so used to being right with regard to my personal financial matters. The national debt is on course to be $20 trillion by the end of the second Obama term. I don't think anyone we elect will attempt to address it seriously. That means at some point that the rather decent amount of generated inflation the government has been ignoring and claiming doesn't exist will probably have to double or triple down in an attempt to make it manageable. How this relates to me personally is that my apartment building which had the cheapest unit start at $485 for a studio over a decade ago now has the same studio rent for $650 and the unit rented in a day. Run this out another 8 years and I suspect my cheapest unit will be around $1000 a month. 

    People should be caring about their pocketbook. Instead they are more worried about their psyche, their speech codes and their safe spaces. Electing Trump isn't anymore insane than elected a man who promised Hope and Change while lowering the level of the ocean. The problem isn't the politicians. The problem is the populace. The enemy isn't terrorism. It is reality.


  • Reply 3 of 1399
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,324member
    I have a hard time believing that Trump is even nominatable (is that a word?), let alone electable. I'm still not convinced he is even serious. He seems to have attracted a lot of support among Republicans who are dissatisfied with US politics in general, including their own party, but will they actually vote for him in the primaries, which presumably requires them to see him as electable? He seems to have taken the concept of disregard for demonstrable facts to a new level: it may be good entertainment, but it's surely not a recipe of widespread acceptance.

    Personally I think that the lessons of the last election will prevail, and the Republican primaries will actually produce a candidate perceived to be electable. That may be a tough one given the current field - to me only Bush fits the bill, and he has got some catching up to do.
  • Reply 4 of 1399
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,340member
    muppetry said:
    I have a hard time believing that Trump is even nominatable (is that a word?), let alone electable. I'm still not convinced he is even serious. He seems to have attracted a lot of support among Republicans who are dissatisfied with US politics in general, including their own party, but will they actually vote for him in the primaries, which presumably requires them to see him as electable? He seems to have taken the concept of disregard for demonstrable facts to a new level: it may be good entertainment, but it's surely not a recipe of widespread acceptance.

    Personally I think that the lessons of the last election will prevail, and the Republican primaries will actually produce a candidate perceived to be electable. That may be a tough one given the current field - to me only Bush fits the bill, and he has got some catching up to do.
    How is this any different from any other cycle? I mean seriously. Do you think most Republicans considered it serious to run a man who's name sounded like the name of a terrorist cell and who was promising universal health care, peace on earth and to stop global warming with his mere election?

    Some changes have obviously occurred and as a President, Barack Obama has gotten certain things done, but claiming it isn't serious to suggest big action is sort of silly in and of itself. It was a demonstrable fact that we had never elected a black president, endorsed any sort of large scale health care reform and a host of other items that were just fiction until they became fact.

    Trump isn't my candidate but to suggest he can't be the candidate because he speaks off the cuff is really silly. Some of his positions are frankly not ones I could endorse but that doesn't mean he isn't electable.

    That said he could just as easily be overtaken by another Republican candidate. We watched Clinton be the front runner in the race 8 years ago and she was beat by Obama for the nomination. I think people forget how close that race happened to be. There was certainly talk of a brokered convention then and it did not harm the ability of Barack Obama to get elected in the general election at all. 
  • Reply 5 of 1399
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,324member
    I wasn't addressing what Democrats might think of Trump, so what Republicans may have thought of Obama isn't really relevant here. I view this as an issue of whether enough registered Republican voters see him as a credible candidate, rather than just a protest polling position. I didn't say that Trump can't be a candidate because he "speaks off the cuff", unless you are using that as a euphemism for talking nonsense and then standing behind it when it's called out.

    And I didn't say anything about "big action" either. Would that be closing the country to Muslims, building the Mexico wall, and shutting down parts of the internet that we don't control, or something else? It certainly doesn't sound like any previous election cycle that I can remember.
  • Reply 6 of 1399
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,470member
    muppetry said:
    I wasn't addressing what Democrats might think of Trump, so what Republicans may have thought of Obama isn't really relevant here. I view this as an issue of whether enough registered Republican voters see him as a credible candidate, rather than just a protest polling position. I didn't say that Trump can't be a candidate because he "speaks off the cuff", unless you are using that as a euphemism for talking nonsense and then standing behind it when it's called out.

    And I didn't say anything about "big action" either. Would that be closing the country to Muslims, building the Mexico wall, and shutting down parts of the internet that we don't control, or something else? It certainly doesn't sound like any previous election cycle that I can remember.

    Had you written this 4 months ago, or even 2, I might agree.  At this point, Trump's lead is astounding.  No candidate who has led like this has gone on to lose the nomination as far as I know.  By "this" I mean not just the size of the lead (it's UUUUGE), but the duration.  I have trouble believing that a guy who has led for all but a small time in the last 6 months is just getting the protest vote.  

    Don't get me wrong, I have my doubts, too.  I wonder if people are really going to vote for him.  The thing is, though, that he's got as much chance of beating the polls as he does not living up to them.  I think a lot of people quietly support him, but just don't talk about.  He says things they think, but don't say.  In a way, I'm an example.  I'm not all in for the guy, but I could vote for him, I think.  If I did, I wouldn't be running around campaigning for him or trying to convince others to vote for him.  By contrast, I volunteered for the Romney campaign, made calls, passed out literature, etc.  My suspicion is there are a lot of those people.  

    What's more interesting is everything Obama does seems to fuel Trump.  The focus on terror and boarder just plays into everything he's saying.  
    edited December 2015
  • Reply 7 of 1399
    sdw2001 said:

     I think a lot of people quietly support him, but just don't talk about.  He says things they think, but don't say.  In a way, I'm an example.
    Hmmm, not sure that's the best option-

    Im Christian and I Love the Quran74

    I think Trump will win and hate will lose. 

  • Reply 8 of 1399
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,324member
    sdw2001 said:
    muppetry said:
    I wasn't addressing what Democrats might think of Trump, so what Republicans may have thought of Obama isn't really relevant here. I view this as an issue of whether enough registered Republican voters see him as a credible candidate, rather than just a protest polling position. I didn't say that Trump can't be a candidate because he "speaks off the cuff", unless you are using that as a euphemism for talking nonsense and then standing behind it when it's called out.

    And I didn't say anything about "big action" either. Would that be closing the country to Muslims, building the Mexico wall, and shutting down parts of the internet that we don't control, or something else? It certainly doesn't sound like any previous election cycle that I can remember.

    Had you written this 4 months ago, or even 2, I might agree.  At this point, Trump's lead is astounding.  No candidate who has led like this has gone on to lose the nomination as far as I know.  By "this" I mean not just the size of the lead (it's UUUUGE), but the duration.  I have trouble believing that a guy who has led for all but a small time in the last 6 months is just getting the protest vote.  

    Don't get me wrong, I have my doubts, too.  I wonder if people are really going to vote for him.  The thing is, though, that he's got as much chance of beating the polls as he does not living up to them.  I think a lot of people quietly support him, but just don't talk about.  He says things they think, but don't say.  In a way, I'm an example.  I'm not all in for the guy, but I could vote for him, I think.  If I did, I wouldn't be running around campaigning for him or trying to convince others to vote for him.  By contrast, I volunteered for the Romney campaign, made calls, passed out literature, etc.  My suspicion is there are a lot of those people.  

    What's more interesting is everything Obama does seems to fuel Trump.  The focus on terror and boarder just plays into everything he's saying.  
    You may be right, although if he does win the nomination then I don't think the election will be much of a contest, almost irrespective of who gets the Democratic nomination.

    I'm curious that you say you might be able to vote for him. Do you think that there is a reasonable, thoughtful mind behind all the nonsense that he spouts? I understand that some of his declarations probably resonate with some of the electorate in a "that's what I'm talking about, and to hell with reality" kind of way. The "he says what others are afraid to say" factor may appear refreshing, but I'm afraid that it misses the point that the reason others don't say those things is because they genuinely are either unacceptable or impractical positions for a leader to take.
  • Reply 9 of 1399
    muppetry said:
    I'm curious that you say you might be able to vote for him. Do you think that there is a reasonable, thoughtful mind behind all the nonsense that he spouts?
    Where’s the nonsense? He’s a showman and a showboater, but nonsense? He keeps being vindicated on everything he says.

    He’s forcing the Overton Window back where it belongs.
  • Reply 10 of 1399
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,324member
    muppetry said:
    I'm curious that you say you might be able to vote for him. Do you think that there is a reasonable, thoughtful mind behind all the nonsense that he spouts?
    Where’s the nonsense? He’s a showman and a showboater, but nonsense? He keeps being vindicated on everything he says.

    He’s forcing the Overton Window back where it belongs.
    That's not really true. I'm talking about comments such as building a wall, closing parts of the internet elsewhere in the world, closing the borders to an undefined class of people, assertions about tens of thousands of Muslims celebrating in the US after 9/11 etc. Those statements are, I would argue, genuinely nonsense. They are the kind of things you expect to hear from random, ill-informed and/or uneducated people, not from candidates for high political office.

    This is not an issue of what the public might accept - it's an issue of repeatedly disseminating ideas that are impracticable and stories that are demonstrably false. I'm not sure what you are referring to, so can you provide an example where he has been vindicated?
  • Reply 11 of 1399
    puppetry said:
    I'm talking about comments such as building a wall, closing parts of the internet elsewhere in the world, closing the borders to an undefined class of people, assertions about tens of thousands of Muslims celebrating in the US after 9/11 etc. Those statements are, I would argue, genuinely nonsense.
    So you argue that enforcing our laws is nonsense. So you argue that things which are either legal, within perfect reason, and which did happen are “nonsense”.

    I don’t see how.
    ...ideas that are impracticable and stories that are demonstrably false.
    There is nothing impracticable about the ideal nor false about the stories. I’m shocked that you’d say something based on zero research of your own.

    Is such a wall physically impossible? No. Myself I’d just prefer motion-sensing turrets on the border that shoots anything which moves. A wall is hard to dismantle if the border ever moves, after all. Bring our troops back and guard our borders instead of Europe’s, Japan’s, and South Korea’s. Complete nonsense that they get protection and we do not.
    Is shutting off foreign access to US IP addresses impossible? No. Why would you even suggest that?
    Is closing the borders to a class of people impossible? No. It’s neither physically nor legally impossible.
    Did Muslims not celebrate after 9/11? Of course they did. Not only was Trump right about what he said specifically (New Jersey), he was right about the scope of what he said (thousands). It wasn’t even just Muslims.
  • Reply 12 of 1399
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,324member
    puppetry said:
    I'm talking about comments such as building a wall, closing parts of the internet elsewhere in the world, closing the borders to an undefined class of people, assertions about tens of thousands of Muslims celebrating in the US after 9/11 etc. Those statements are, I would argue, genuinely nonsense.
    So you argue that enforcing our laws is nonsense. So you argue that things which are either legal, within perfect reason, and which did happen are “nonsense”.

    I don’t see how.
    There is nothing impracticable about the ideal nor false about the stories. I’m shocked that you’d say something based on zero research of your own.

    Is such a wall physically impossible? No. Myself I’d just prefer motion-sensing turrets on the border that shoots anything which moves. A wall is hard to dismantle if the border ever moves, after all. Bring our troops back and guard our borders instead of Europe’s, Japan’s, and South Korea’s. Complete nonsense that they get protection and we do not.
    Is shutting off foreign access to US IP addresses impossible? No. Why would you even suggest that?
    Is closing the borders to a class of people impossible? No. It’s neither physically nor legally impossible.
    Did Muslims not celebrate after 9/11? Of course they did. Not only was Trump right about what he said specifically (New Jersey), he was right about the scope of what he said (thousands). It wasn’t even just Muslims.
    I'm not sure which of the examples I gave constitutes the notion that "enforcing our laws" is nonsense.
    1. Building a wall might be one way to enforce border controls, but that does not make it a practicable method, or the only method, and certainly not the best method, to do so.
    2. Shutting off foreign access to US IP addresses was not what he suggested - he suggested shutting down other parts of the internet - that he also suggested the US owns, which it does not.
    3. Closing the borders to a defined class of people - defined by their nationality and thus documented by their passports - would be possible, and maybe even desirable in certain circumstances. But passports do not list religion, so how would the prohibited class be identified? And what law would that strategy be enforcing anyway?
    4. There were certainly celebrations after 9/11, especially in the Middle East. There were reports of isolated celebrations in the US. But Trump has repeatedly claimed tens of thousands in the US, and specifically in New Jersey. Are you saying that you also think that is even remotely accurate? If so, can you point to any links to news reports or video from that time that supports that assertion?
    So do you regard him as a credible candidate, or were you just objecting to my criticism of his comments?

  • Reply 13 of 1399
    muppetry said:
    Building a wall might be one way to enforce border controls, but that does not make it a practicable method, or the only method, and certainly not the best method, to do so.
    Of course it’s practicable. It’s a WALL.
    Shutting off foreign access to US IP addresses was not what he suggested - he suggested shutting down other parts of the internet - that he also suggested the US owns, which it does not.
    Well, we have certain sway where we don’t own. That’s the whole idea, isn’t it? A single global economy over which there is total control?
    Closing the borders to a defined class of people - defined by their nationality and thus documented by their passports - would be possible, and maybe even desirable in certain circumstances. But passports do not list religion, so how would the prohibited class be identified?
    So you block a wider group. Or everyone. It was done for decades in the past.
    And what law would that strategy be enforcing anyway?
    Are you asking what law makes it legal to do this? 8 U.S. Code § 1182. The president, Congress, and even individual states are granted the power to block anyone–or group–they choose at any time, for any reason.
    If so, can you point to any links to news reports or video from that time that supports that assertion?
    Sure. I’m not a fan of Breitbart myself, generally, but that’s a genetic fallacy. If you’d like some other source, I’ll gladly provide.
    So do you regard him as a credible candidate
    I’m liking him more, little by little. I have certainly always been bemused by the people (obviously paid shills, but there can’t be THIS many) who are of the delusion that “TRUMP WILL START WWIII ON DAY ONE!” and other various nonsense phrases. I’d love to know their “justification” for believing these things.

    What do we need from a president right now? A leader, not an apologetic. An isolationist, not an interventionist. A fiscally-minded individual, not someone with a looser pocketbook than his lips. An American exceptionalist (or, at the very least, an actual nationalist), not an internationalist (which is disgustingly antithetical to the office itself).

    I withhold my final assertion until we’re into the throes of the forthcoming economic collapse. They can only hold it off for so long (I will make no comment as to the accuracy of Trump’s accusation that the Fed is purposely holding it back to keep it from affecting Obama while in office–though since we never left the “Great Recession”, the definition of ‘affect’ is fairly loose–simply because I don’t personally know enough about the interworkings of the modern system to say one way or another). We cannot know who is the best person to get us through a nigh-depression until we know the full scope thereof.
    edited December 2015
  • Reply 14 of 1399
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,324member
    muppetry said:
    Building a wall might be one way to enforce border controls, but that does not make it a practicable method, or the only method, and certainly not the best method, to do so.
    Of course it’s practicable. It’s a WALL. Well, we have certain sway where we don’t own. That’s the whole idea, isn’t it? A single global economy over which there is total control? So you block a wider group. Or everyone. It was done for decades in the past. Are you asking what law makes it legal to do this? 8 U.S. Code § 1182. The president, Congress, and even individual states are granted the power to block anyone–or group–they choose at any time, for any reason. Sure. I’m not a fan of Breitbart myself, generally, but that’s a genetic fallacy. If you’d like some other source, I’ll gladly provide.
    I’m liking him more, little by little. I have certainly always been bemused by the people (obviously paid shills, but there can’t be THIS many) who are of the delusion that “TRUMP WILL START WWIII ON DAY ONE!” and other various nonsense phrases. I’d love to know their “justification” for believing these things.

    What do we need from a president right now? A leader, not an apologetic. An isolationist, not an interventionist. A fiscally-minded individual, not someone with a looser pocketbook than his lips. An American exceptionalist (or, at the very least, an actual nationalist), not an internationalist (which is disgustingly antithetical to the office itself).

    I withhold my final assertion until we’re into the throes of the forthcoming economic collapse. They can only hold it off for so long (I will make no comment as to the accuracy of Trump’s accusation that the Fed is purposely holding it back to keep it from affecting Obama while in office–though since we never left the “Great Recession”, the definition of ‘affect’ is fairly loose–simply because I don’t personally know enough about the interworkings of the modern system to say one way or another). We cannot know who is the best person to get us through a nigh-depression until we know the full scope thereof.
    OK - I don't disagree that building a 2000 mile impenetrable (his word) wall is physically possible, even through the mountainous terrain involved, so perhaps "impracticable" is too strong a word. Impractical would definitely be too weak a word though. The cost would be enormous, although I guess that wouldn't matter since he said that Mexico would pay. 

    Not sure what you mean by "sway". If you mean that we could persuade various foreign countries to shut down their internet service to prevent terrorist communications, then no, we don't have that much sway.

    We could block a wider group, or even all foreigners. It would seriously hurt the economy, and perhaps hasten the economic meltdown that you have been predicting for what seems like years.

    I started trying to dig through the Breitbart stuff - which are mostly not news reports from that time but just links to other Breitbart articles. The few links that did go anywhere else were to accounts and videos of various people recounting that they had heard unverified reports of a few Muslims celebrating on rooftops. In other words the unverified accounts that were never, apparently, verified. Surely you have something more solid than that on which to base your conviction that it happened.

    I doubt that Trump would start WWIII - I don't think he would be allowed to. I think that comments like that are just a response to ideas such as his proposal to implement a Syrian no-fly zone - that would probably involve engaging Russian military aircraft. Unlikely to be a real problem though, since Putin appears to be a fan of his.
  • Reply 15 of 1399
    muppetry said:
    We could block a wider group, or even all foreigners. It would seriously hurt the economy…
    By blocking immigration? I doubt it. Particularly with the other changes he has planned happening at the same time.
    for what seems like years.
    But hasn’t been. People need to pay more attention to how these things cycle. The last hundred years have been almost clockwork in their spiral downward. Are you of the belief that there will never be another crash? Another depression? The collapse of the currency? It’s coming.
    accounts and videos of various people recounting that they had heard unverified reports of a few Muslims celebrating on rooftops.
    NYPD, though; I sort of trust them a little more than the man on the street. Their account was in there, as well. IT HAPPENED.

    Looks like Snopes even confirms it.

    Funny how even the Web Archive page that proves the news articles cited on Snopes (about expunging data) has been… mmm… [EXPUNGED]…

    “Who are you going to believe? The guy who’s telling you this circle is a square because all the documents say so, or your lying eyes and lying ears?”
  • Reply 16 of 1399
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,324member
    muppetry said:
    We could block a wider group, or even all foreigners. It would seriously hurt the economy…
    By blocking immigration? I doubt it. Particularly with the other changes he has planned happening at the same time.
    But hasn’t been. People need to pay more attention to how these things cycle. The last hundred years have been almost clockwork in their spiral downward. Are you of the belief that there will never be another crash? Another depression? The collapse of the currency? It’s coming.
    NYPD, though; I sort of trust them a little more than the man on the street. Their account was in there, as well. IT HAPPENED.

    Looks like Snopes even confirms it.

    Funny how even the Web Archive page that proves the news articles cited on Snopes (about expunging data) has been… mmm… [EXPUNGED]…

    “Who are you going to believe? The guy who’s telling you this circle is a square because all the documents say so, or your lying eyes and lying ears?”

    But Trump didn't suggest blocking just immigration - he suggested simply blocking all Muslims from entering the country for any reason.

    I agree - at some point the next recession/crash will happen. I disagree that it appears imminent. Back in the summer you seemed quite adamant that it would be this year. How is the Fed holding it back?

    Where is the NYPD account? Snopes did not confirm it at all - Snopes confirmed that video of people celebrating the event in East Jerusalem was real. Not tens of thousands, and not in the US.

    You don't seem to be defending what Trump actually said at all, but rather a different version entirely that his supporters might wish that he had said instead. Which seems to me to highlight a big part of the problem with him as a candidate. If he still kept the same basic philosophy but, at least, made proposals along those lines that make sense and didn't insult his audiences' intelligence by assuming that they will swallow blatantly false information, he might, just, be credible. His supporters seem to hear what they want to hear and be deaf to the rest of his output. Take away that filter and he sounds like an idiot.
  • Reply 17 of 1399
    muppetry said:
    But Trump didn't suggest blocking just immigration - he suggested simply blocking all Muslims from entering the country for any reason.
    Sure, but the fact that ALL of it is possible shows that a portion of it is.
    I disagree that it appears imminent. Back in the summer you seemed quite adamant that it would be this year.
    The Fed raising rates while manufacturing absolutely collapses, inventories are at near record highs, and 
    How is the Fed holding it back?
    I’m not sure of the specific claim. They’re the ones in charge, of course, as their predecessors had been; they certainly have the capability of postponing any given type of economic judgement day (*coughQE1,2,3cough*). Before Jackson destroyed the Second Bank, they threw a hissy fit and wrecked the economy by screwing with interest rates to bully him into stopping. Of course the Third Bank has far more power than that.
    Where is the NYPD account?
    There are a few.
    You don't seem to be defending what Trump actually said at all, but rather a different version entirely that his supporters might wish that he had said instead.
    What about, the celebrations or the banning of further immigration? The former is correct and the latter is entirely sensible.
    …blatantly false information…
    You keep saying this in the face of being shown otherwise. I don’t get it. The standard Unicode “confusion” emoji–to lighten the tone–is scrubbed before posting…
  • Reply 18 of 1399
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,324member
    Sure, but the fact that ALL of it is possible shows that a portion of it is.

    That does not necessarily follow - these are completely different. That it would both be possible to attempt to stop Muslim immigration and it would be possible to block all foreign entry (close the borders entirely) does not mean that it would be possible to block all entry just to Muslims. The immigration process involves screening that could, potentially, be used to try to determine religion (although no guarantee of accuracy, since one could claim to be of any religion). Simply entering the US as a traveller or US Citizen has no such screening process, and so refusal of entry could only be based on passport and/or watch-list information. 

    You keep saying that, but all you linked to there is a video that includes the ex-Commisioner saying that there were reports of pockets of people celebrating in the US. The rest of the video is mostly others pointing out that it did not happen. No videos, no photos, no police reports, no names, no actual locations, nothing that goes beyond anecdotal. Remember - the claim made by Trump is that there are videos of tens of thousands of Muslims celebrating on the rooftops of New Jersey alone. If you have reason to think that to be even remotely accurate, you must have seen some actual evidence. 

    What about, the celebrations or the banning of further immigration? The former is correct and the latter is entirely sensible.

    On the former (as defined by Trump as mass celebrations in the US) the evidence is still completely absent. The wisdom of the latter is arguable but, once again, not what he advocated and not what I was discussing. You did the same thing again - tried to recast the proposal from banning all Muslims from entering the US (Trump's proposal) to suspending immigration, and are again defending that modified proposal. 

    You keep saying this in the face of being shown otherwise. I don’t get it.

    Except that nothing has been shown otherwise. You have linked to a few unverified anecdotal comments that isolated celebrations by a few people happened in the US - nothing remotely close to Trump's claims even if those anecdotes were true, repeatedly defended a different border strategy than the one he proposed, and abandoned any defense of his other suggestions such as the internet issue, the legality of requiring the registration of muslim US citizens, the practicality of building a wall etc. And these are just a few examples among many of his apparently ignorant, juvenile beliefs and approaches to running the country.

    If my arguments do not sway you and unless you can suggest solid reasons why Trump might, all this notwithstanding, be a credible leader, then we will just have to agree to differ.

  • Reply 19 of 1399
    muppetry said:
    ...a few unverified anecdotal...
    They’re verified. I don’t get it.
    repeatedly defended a different border strategy than the one he proposed
    I defend his border strategy. I don’t get it.
    the internet issue
    We have full power and capability of shutting these things down. What’s so hard to understand?
    the legality of requiring the registration of muslim US citizens
    It’s legal. Better to just not come here in the first place.
    the practicality of building a wall
    I like turrets better, but a wall isn’t physically impossible, nor is it something we can continue to do without.

    I don’t understand your argument because it’s not based in fact, just feelings.
  • Reply 20 of 1399
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,324member
    TS - the only thing approximating to verified is that it did not happen - you can't reasonably continue to assert his celebration claims as verified if you can't point to any actual evidence which, despite your insistence to the contrary, you haven't. You didn't defend his border strategy - you defended a quite different strategy. We don't have the power or authority to shut down the internet elsewhere in the world, short of military action perhaps, which is not what Trump suggested. Nor do we own the internet, contrary to his assertion. How is requiring the registration of some US citizens, based purely on their religion, legal? And, just to be clear - you are saying that we cannot continue without a wall? 

    That you don't understand my argument(s) doesn't seem to have anything to do with the facts, the lack of which appears to be entirely on your side on this occasion. I'd suggest that you let this one go but, knowing you, I suspect that you won't. I'd still be much more interested in trying to understand why you think Trump is a credible leader, rather than have to keep refuting your attempts to defend the indefensible. 
Sign In or Register to comment.