Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 11 Dec 2015, 9:37 am

sass
It's irrelevant, because he isn't going to win the nomination and everybody knows it.

With 35% of the vote, he might be able to...
Because he does have growth potential from currently committed Fiorino, Carson and Cruz voters. Should they drop out.
According to the Washington Post the Republican party leadership are preparing to battle a Trump nomination at the convention. That would be fascinating, and for the party, ultimately destructive. But perhaps necessary from the Party's perspective.

Ray
An uplifting story from our friends up north


Which also leads to this kind of attitude towards Syrian refugees.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/s ... -1.3360154

They don't look too scary do they?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 14 Dec 2015, 7:02 am

Ten things Donald Trump supporters believe:
• 74% of his supporters nationally believe discrimination against whites is as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities (American Values Survey, Sept. 11-Oct. 4)
• 73% of his supporters nationally are bothered when they come into contact with immigrants who speak little or no English (American Values Survey, Sept. 11-Oct. 4)
• 73% of his supporters in Iowa support the deportation of all 11 million illegal immigrants (Des Moines Register, Aug. 23-26)
• 71% of his supporters believe the American Dream — work hard and get ahead — was once true but not anymore (NBC News, Oct. 27-Oct. 29)
• 69% of his supporters nationally say immigration is a critical issue to them personally (American Values Survey, Sept. 11-Oct. 4)
• 68% of his supporters nationally would support him if he ran as an Independent rather than a Republican (USA Today/Suffolk, Dec 2.-Dec. 6)
• 67% of his supporters in North Carolina support a national database of Muslims (Public Policy Polling, Dec. 5-Dec. 7)
• 66% of his supporters nationally believe President Barack Obama, a Christian, is a Muslim (Public Policy Polling, Aug. 28-Aug. 30)
• 63% of his supporters nationally support changing the Constitution to deny automatic citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil (Public Policy Polling, Aug. 28-Aug. 30)
• 20% of his supporters nationally describe themselves as either liberal or moderate and only 13 per cent say they are “very conservative” (YouGov, up to September)

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2015/ ... trump.html

The almost universal public backlash against him may have ended his hopes in Iowa and Cruz seems to be surging with the Evangelicals. But his affect on the election cycle will continue.
From the data above its pretty easy to see what the Republican base constitutes.
There aren't enough like this to win the Presidency.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 14 Dec 2015, 10:26 am

rickyp wrote:From the data above its pretty easy to see what the Republican base constitutes.
There aren't enough like this to win the Presidency.


That's not the GOP base. The GOP base is conservative. Trump is not.

Yes, he's a demagogue. However, he's more than that. He's also the personification of the anger some have with "the system." They're tired of politically-correct clap-trap and appreciate his brash, shoot from the lip style. They also believe he can't be bought.

Everyone knows, on the other hand, that Hillary is bought and paid for. That would be an ugly election. I hope it doesn't take place.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 14 Dec 2015, 10:34 am

Back on topic:

Trump is right in one respect: our government doesn't know what it's doing. Malik Tashfeen should never have been allowed into the US.

Contra Danivon, it's not a matter of "bravery." It's a matter of having ANY sense at all, let alone common sense.

Tashfeen had posted of her desire to participate in jihad BEFORE she came to the US. The government's screening process ought to include social media platforms. A stated desire to kill in the name of your religion should be a DQ for a visa or immigration application.

That it was so easy for her to get here SHOULD be a reason for a through examination of our policies and a hold on further migration from terror-harboring nations (like Pakistan) until we get it right.

That's not Islamophobia; it's common sense.

The idea of bringing folks that you cannot screen here is idiocy.

The bigger problem: assimilation and multi-culturalism. If those who come here want to assimilate, then let them come. If they want to create Sharia-like enclaves here in the US, then no thanks. We already have enough jihadi-ready Somalis and others from hotbeds of terror.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 14 Dec 2015, 12:03 pm

Of course screening can be improved. Continuous Improvement is the best way to proceed. And it needs to be adequately funded.

But that is not what Trump is saying. He is saying no Muslims at all for an undefined period. Just as many Governors were saying no Syrian refugees (who are much more thoroughly vetted than most people applying for normal visas). And in my view that is moral cowardice.

None have done what you have done here and suggested areas to improve.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 14 Dec 2015, 12:25 pm

danivon wrote:Of course screening can be improved. Continuous Improvement is the best way to proceed. And it needs to be adequately funded.

But that is not what Trump is saying. He is saying no Muslims at all for an undefined period.


That's not quite accurate. He said "until [they] know what the h___" is going on.

In contrast, Obama mentioned looking at the procedures, but for him . . . full speed ahead. He is more concerned about offending ISIS than with trying to tighten up procedures. Tashfeen should give everyone pause--if they're prevented from checking social media . . . what are they thinking? According to Islamophobe, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), it may have cost American lives.

Fearing a civil liberties backlash and "bad public relations" for the Obama administration, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson refused in early 2014 to end a secret U.S. policy that prohibited immigration officials from reviewing the social media messages of all foreign citizens applying for U.S. visas, a former senior department official said.

"During that time period immigration officials were not allowed to use or review social media as part of the screening process," John Cohen, a former acting under-secretary at DHS for intelligence and analysis. Cohen is now a national security consultant for ABC News.

One current and one former senior counter-terrorism official confirmed Cohen's account about the refusal of DHS to change its policy about the public social media posts of all foreign applicants.

A spokesperson for the DHS, Marsha Catron, told ABC News that months after Cohen left, in the fall of 2014, the Department began three pilot programs to include social media in vetting, but current officials say that it is still not a widespread policy. A review of the broader policy is already underway, the DHS said.

The revelation comes as members of Congress question why U.S. officials failed to review the social media posts of San Bernardino terrorist Tashfeen Malik. She received a U.S. visa in May 2014, despite what the FBI said were extensive social media messages about jihad and martyrdom.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., demanded Sunday that the U.S. immediately initiate a program that would check the social media sites of those admitted on visas."

"Had they checked out Tashfeen Malik," the senator said, "maybe those people in San Bernardino would be alive."


Just as many Governors were saying no Syrian refugees (who are much more thoroughly vetted than most people applying for normal visas). And in my view that is moral cowardice.


Tell that to the residents of San Bernardino.

Are Syrian refugees "more thoroughly vetted?" Is the Syrian government participating fully in that vetting? What databases do we have access to? How up to date are they? Please, do tell.

[quote=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-the-syrian-refugee-vetting-process/]I am not a fan of this:[/quote]

About 1,800 Syrian refugees have entered the U.S. in the past year. So far, only about 2 percent of the Syrian refugees entering the United States are single men of "combat age." Roughly half of the Syrian refugees are children, and 2.5 percent are adults over 60.


We ought to take more adults over 60. They are little/no threat. We ought to take religious minorities as their lives are more endangered.

Children? Sure, but I would focus on orphans or abandoned children.

None have done what you have done here and suggested areas to improve.


False. Looking at social media is one such suggestion--and it is common sense.

And, assimilation is common sense. Multi-culturalism and a socialist state leads to the nurturing of those who will one day kill in the name of their culture, religion and god. It's happened in Britain, France, and other areas of Europe. Muslim enclaves develop, radical teaching is introduced, and violence ensues.

No thanks.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 14 Dec 2015, 1:27 pm

The fact is that vetting procedures will always be vulnerable. The US issued 9,932,480 visas last year. You simply can't vet that number of people in anything other than the most cursory fashion. Even if you try to target things, it's still an epic amount of work that would be required, most (almost all) of which would be wasted. It's not a realistic expectation or for that matter a good use of resources.

I'd also question how feasible it is to exclude all Muslims. How do you go about that ? I suppose you could simply stop issuing any visas to citizens of Muslim-majority countries, but that would also exclude a lot of non-Muslims and secularists and in any case wouldn't necessarily make America all that much safer. There are tens of millions of Muslims living in Europe, quite a few of whom have become radicalised in recent years. They don't all have names that would necessarily suggest an Islamic background either. Anybody remember Richard Reid ?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 14 Dec 2015, 1:47 pm

Sassenach wrote:The fact is that vetting procedures will always be vulnerable. The US issued 9,932,480 visas last year. You simply can't vet that number of people in anything other than the most cursory fashion. Even if you try to target things, it's still an epic amount of work that would be required, most (almost all) of which would be wasted. It's not a realistic expectation or for that matter a good use of resources.


What is the President's first responsibility? I would argue it is the safety and security of Americans. If our system misses someone who has taken to social media and vowed to wage jihad, I think it is reasonable to say that we can do better.

I'd also question how feasible it is to exclude all Muslims. How do you go about that ?


Another candidate, I forget whom, suggested stopping immigration (again temporarily) from countries infested with Jihadis--Pakistan, Somalia, etc. Again, that makes sense until we sort through ways to minimize the chances of permitting a radical to waltz right in.

I suppose you could simply stop issuing any visas to citizens of Muslim-majority countries, but that would also exclude a lot of non-Muslims and secularists and in any case wouldn't necessarily make America all that much safer. There are tens of millions of Muslims living in Europe, quite a few of whom have become radicalised in recent years. They don't all have names that would necessarily suggest an Islamic background either. Anybody remember Richard Reid ?


True.

I do think it is odd how the Left here has bent over backward to accommodate Islam. Mayor Menino could not wait to sell property to an Islamic center in Boston at a discount. The Saudis were all too eager to foot the bill. That will, I'm sure, be bearing "fruit" for years to come.

There's all sorts of talk about "Islamophobia." Anyone ever talk about an irrational fear of Christians? Well, of course, some Christians do . . . but, oddly, few liberals seem worried about it.

As a footnote: Islam is, I think, as much a political system as it is a religion. In that sense, it is unique. Its followers often come to a new country to transform it into the country they just left. Some sects of Islam are entirely peaceful and moderate, and compatible with Western life, like the one our own Riaz belongs to. However, they are in the minority.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 14 Dec 2015, 11:27 pm

What is the President's first responsibility? I would argue it is the safety and security of Americans. If our system misses someone who has taken to social media and vowed to wage jihad, I think it is reasonable to say that we can do better.


Perhaps, but I don't think you really appreciate the scale of the administrative challenge. I don't know how many of the visas issued each year are to Muslims, but given that you issued almost 10 million of them last year it's not unreasonable to suppose that it's several hundred thousand at least. How are your immigration officials supposed to vet the internet use of each and every one of these people ? Answer: they can't. They can't even do it properly for any of them. It would have to be farmed out to the NSA, and even then you'd need agents with a variety of language skills to check postings on 'social media' that might be written in farsi or pushtu or somali or arabic. This is a vast amount of work that would completely swamp the agency. Again, is this really the best use of resources ? Might it not in fact make your citizens less safe by diverting the energies of the security services from proper, targeted intelligence gathering ?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 15 Dec 2015, 6:47 am

fate
That's not the GOP base. The GOP base is conservative.

According to this mornings national polls he has 41% support from republicans nationally.
How is that not representative of the base?
If Trump wins the first 4 primaries its over. He's won. If Cruz wins Iowa, it will go to Super Tuesday. Trumps almost there. And he can't win without actually representing the "base".

Fate
Tashfeen had posted of her desire to participate in jihad BEFORE she came to the US

Under a pseudonym. With her privacy settings on high. An embassy or consulate member would not have known where to look or had access to her posts.. So your point is?
Perhaps the NSA could discover information in social media and communications. But the sheer volume of information and the volume of visa requests makes the task of finding every potentially incriminating piece of information impossible. The NSA has a budget of 52.6 billion $. Maybe that's where critics of security should be looking? With that kind of money and resources, why haven't they and State been able to develop better visa screening?


Fate
I do think it is odd how the Left here has bent over backward to accommodate Islam

Do you? religious freedom is a central founding principal of your nation and yet you find it odd that people should accommodate people in the free exercise of their religious beliefs?

sass
I'd also question how feasible it is to exclude all Muslims

For instance, the largest share holder in News Corporation? Some of the senior management of Google? Of Microsoft? Members of cabinet of western allied governments?
Any attempt at something like a ban would disrupt commerce, communications and trade so much that major international corporations would relocate so that they could operate like an international company. (Siemans relocated a lot of Muslim staff back to Germany after 9/11 because their travel in the US became unbearable.)
Major allies would protest, and might react. Non-aligned nations who's populace would surely retaliate and Americans would find travel difficult to may parts of the worls.

Fate
What is the President's first responsibility? I would argue it is the safety and security of Americans


Then you'd agree that an intelligent way of dealing with threats is to rank them on the harm that the various threats have actually done to Americans? And deal with them according to the actual damage they have done to Americans?
Since 9/11 42 Americans have died at the hands of terrorist events. Over 150,000 have died from homicide with guns. (about 11,000 a year)
And yet Congress won't even ban those on the no fly list from getting guns...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 15 Dec 2015, 7:07 am

Sassenach wrote:
What is the President's first responsibility? I would argue it is the safety and security of Americans. If our system misses someone who has taken to social media and vowed to wage jihad, I think it is reasonable to say that we can do better.


Perhaps, but I don't think you really appreciate the scale of the administrative challenge. I don't know how many of the visas issued each year are to Muslims, but given that you issued almost 10 million of them last year it's not unreasonable to suppose that it's several hundred thousand at least. How are your immigration officials supposed to vet the internet use of each and every one of these people ? Answer: they can't. They can't even do it properly for any of them. It would have to be farmed out to the NSA, and even then you'd need agents with a variety of language skills to check postings on 'social media' that might be written in farsi or pushtu or somali or arabic. This is a vast amount of work that would completely swamp the agency. Again, is this really the best use of resources ? Might it not in fact make your citizens less safe by diverting the energies of the security services from proper, targeted intelligence gathering ?


Well then, we may as well give up. Let's issue ISIS temporary visas.

Look, 100 million guns have been sold in the US since Obama was inaugurated. How did they do that many checks?

The NSA electronically goes through all kinds of stuff. If I posted some kind of threat against the occupant of the White House, do you suppose they won catch it? Do you think I'd get a visit from the Secret Service?

Oh, and Tashfeen had a non-existent address. Shouldn't that have both been caught and kicked off a higher-level background check?

Worse, Jeh Johnson, head of Department of Homeland Security, issued a policy to prevent investigations into social media. After all, that would look bad.

The President's spokesman announced yesterday that a review of that policy is underway.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 15 Dec 2015, 7:22 am

rickyp wrote:fate
That's not the GOP base. The GOP base is conservative.

According to this mornings national polls he has 41% support from republicans nationally.
How is that not representative of the base?
If Trump wins the first 4 primaries its over. He's won. If Cruz wins Iowa, it will go to Super Tuesday. Trumps almost there. And he can't win without actually representing the "base".


We'll see if that holds up.

Trump will not win the first four primaries. If you think he will, name your price.

Fate
Tashfeen had posted of her desire to participate in jihad BEFORE she came to the US

Under a pseudonym. With her privacy settings on high. An embassy or consulate member would not have known where to look or had access to her posts.. So your point is?[/quote]

She had a fake address. That should have triggered a more thorough check. The background check on her was obviously perfunctory.

Perhaps the NSA could discover information in social media and communications. But the sheer volume of information and the volume of visa requests makes the task of finding every potentially incriminating piece of information impossible. The NSA has a budget of 52.6 billion $. Maybe that's where critics of security should be looking? With that kind of money and resources, why haven't they and State been able to develop better visa screening?


Because they're too concerned about not offending anyone.

Fate
I do think it is odd how the Left here has bent over backward to accommodate Islam

Do you? religious freedom is a central founding principal of your nation and yet you find it odd that people should accommodate people in the free exercise of their religious beliefs?


There is a big difference between religious freedom and favoring one religion, namely Islam. While they don't promote Islam like missionaries, they do treat it with kid gloves something they don't do with Christianity nor with Judaism. As a side note, the White House's Chanakkuh celebration was borderline anti-Semitic, if not over the line.

Fate
What is the President's first responsibility? I would argue it is the safety and security of Americans


Then you'd agree that an intelligent way of dealing with threats is to rank them on the harm that the various threats have actually done to Americans? And deal with them according to the actual damage they have done to Americans?
Since 9/11 42 Americans have died at the hands of terrorist events. Over 150,000 have died from homicide with guns. (about 11,000 a year)
And yet Congress won't even ban those on the no fly list from getting guns...


1. The President can't change the 2nd Amendment, no matter how many pens and phones he has.

2. Automobiles kill more Americans than guns, so does alcohol. Should he ban them?

3. If guns make you so afraid, stay out of our country.

4. This President doesn't care what terrorists do. He has shown zero interest in eliminating ISIS and little passion about the attacks terrorists have launched, whether it be in Paris, Chattanooga, or San Bernardino. The only national security issues he's concerned about are guns. Maybe he should move to Canada? The only thing that outrages him is the GOP. Again, a move to Canada would suit him well.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 15 Dec 2015, 8:43 am

Fate:
the White House's Chanakkuh celebration was borderline anti-Semitic, if not over the line


I watched the first 5 or so minutes and I thought it was fine ... I have seen the commentary that suggests otherwise, but for some reason the video cut off. (I don't think that's a conspiracy.)

Trump's speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition was anti-Semitic and cringe worthy.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 15 Dec 2015, 8:49 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:Of course screening can be improved. Continuous Improvement is the best way to proceed. And it needs to be adequately funded.

But that is not what Trump is saying. He is saying no Muslims at all for an undefined period.


That's not quite accurate. He said "until [they] know what the h___" is going on.
That sounds indefinite to me. Especially give who said it.

Just as many Governors were saying no Syrian refugees (who are much more thoroughly vetted than most people applying for normal visas). And in my view that is moral cowardice.


Tell that to the residents of San Bernardino.
And the point of that snark is what? Neither perpetrator was a Syrian, or a refugee. One was a US citizen by birth.

Are Syrian refugees "more thoroughly vetted?" Is the Syrian government participating fully in that vetting? What databases do we have access to? How up to date are they? Please, do tell.
Well, given that many are fleeing the Syrian government and we are not friends with Assad, of course we are not likely to get much from them.

But the vetting for Syrian refugees takes well over a year, they have to have come through the UN camps. it is nothing like the checks for a marriage visa.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/11 ... ted-states

We ought to take more adults over 60. They are little/no threat. We ought to take religious minorities as their lives are more endangered.
Yazidis are (but they are mainly in Iraq). Christians (not that you probably think they really are Christian) and Alawites are not fleeing Assad because he allies with them. And they are not fleeing ISIS because there are few of them in the East of the country.

And the old guys might just be the preachers, you know?

None have done what you have done here and suggested areas to improve.


False. Looking at social media is one such suggestion--and it is common sense.
I don't think you read that in your zeal to insta-respond and disagree with me. I am giving you credit for coming up with an area to improve, where the likes of Trump and Christie have not. Sheesh.

And, assimilation is common sense. Multi-culturalism and a socialist state leads to the nurturing of those who will one day kill in the name of their culture, religion and god. It's happened in Britain, France, and other areas of Europe. Muslim enclaves develop, radical teaching is introduced, and violence ensues.

No thanks.
You do realise that France was actually following a policy of assimilation for decades? It didn't work because the "beurs" and the blacks are often treated like crap, but that was the policy: Speak French. No religion in schools. etc etc.

Neither does socialism have anything to do with it.

As for "enclaves" developing, this is natural with immigration and certainly is not something the US does not see for other groups of immigrants. Why do many major cities have a "Chinatown"? Don't you have majority latino districts in cities a long way from the Mexican border? Isn't Brighton Beach still full of Russians? Don't many people in the US identify as "[origin]-American", rather than just "American"?

It takes a few generations for things to shake out and enclaves be broken down. Of course, what tends to help that process is a more welcoming society. Treating immigrants as if they the enemy is what makes them more likely to stick to their own company.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 15 Dec 2015, 9:04 am

Ray Jay wrote:Fate:
the White House's Chanakkuh celebration was borderline anti-Semitic, if not over the line


I watched the first 5 or so minutes and I thought it was fine ... I have seen the commentary that suggests otherwise, but for some reason the video cut off. (I don't think that's a conspiracy.)
Well, you can see why with that notorious anti-semite Reuven Rivlin there.

Trump's speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition was anti-Semitic and cringe worthy.
Shh. This thread is now all about Obama. Ignore the title, or the early posts....