Heh heh! Just one more piece of writing on the wall that Trump - like it or not - is nearly certain to be the Republican nominee and quite possibly the next US president. We all need to wrap our heads around that.Astronuc said:
Dotini said:
If Trump is elected, I won't leave the US. But I will be very, very distressed.StatGuy2000 said:
lisab said:
The thought of a ******* (word censored) clown & carnival barker like Trump as president makes me shudder!As an outsider, I believe it is all just political dramas mainly to filter all citizens'ideas to understand their desires ranging from those for basic needs or life support to many more for advanced levels of higher social development.lisab said:
)Astronuc said:
As distressed as I at Obama's re-election?lisab said:
Even without Bloomberg, it could still move into the House of Representatives if neither GOP or Dem candidate obtains 270 electoral votes.
Someone mentioned this in another thread, but I don't see how it is actually a realistic possibility: most states are winner take all pluralities in the electoral college. Do people forget Ross Perot and his 18% of the popular vote in 1992? He won precisely zero electoral votes, making Clinton's substantially less than a majority victory look like a landslide.Astronuc said:
Probably. First I want to reiterate that I won't vote for him because I don't think he's a real person. But that said, I think if people actually look at his positions on issues (with the caveat that because he isn't real, they may not be either), they will be hard pressed to find any that fit with their apocalyptic vision of where Trump might take us. My perception is that both the love and hate for Trump are similarly void of content: both are based on emotional reactions to his circus act of provocative statements.Dotini said:
russ_watters said:
StatGuy2000 said:
Law professor or no, I think Ackerman confuses "constitutional crises" with a crisis of the status quo. I suppose a status quo crisis is unlikely to grab many column inches in the LA Times.Astronuc said:
gleem said:
Really? Wait, if you didn't see that coming, how could you think he's thinking VP?Greg Bernhardt said:
It is certainly reasonable to disagree with him based on that, but most people who don't like him think he's crazy. Heck, *I* think he's crazy, but I still recognize that that opinion is actually pretty reasonable. In principle it is supported by most Americans and most candidates, across party lines.StatGuy2000 said:
The relevant sections might be built for $6 billion. The payoff lies with improved blue collar and entry level employment which is terrible. One can argue the trade offs, but fence benefits are not zero.StatGuy2000 said:
Closing the legal portals across the S. border for a few hours has a good chance of forcing Mexican attention. More likely just the threat could be enough. Given that 83% of Mexican exports go to the US, which US Customs can grind to a halt, they're in no position to refuse. The Saudis and Kuwaitis paid some $80 B for US efforts in the Gulf War.
Fixed that for youruss_watters said:
There's a saying: "Democrats fall in love; Republicans fall in line."russ_watters said:
Christie is from NJ, which has a big economic dependency on NY City. Trump's empire encompasses the NY metropolitan area which includes the NE corner of NJ. I'm sure Christie thinks NJ (and himself) will benefit from the Don.Greg Bernhardt said:
Is it radical? May want to ask that question of a European...mheslep said:
Naa, I liked it better the way I had it.lisab said:Fixed that for you
Naa, I like it the other way: "Democrats vote with their hearts, Republicans vote with their heads."
russ_watters said:
Trump's original 'ban proposal' wasn't in the context of discussing Syrian refugees (I believe Cruz was the one who explicitly proposed to accept only Christian Syrians, but it didn't receive much attention). It was a general ban for Muslims who want to enter the US, which includes tourists, international students, academics, spouses of American citizens who happen to be Muslim, etc...russ_watters said:
-- or broader, anyone who isn't Daesh. Shia are perhaps most at risk, followed closely by Yazidi. The Sunni Daesh consider Shia to be apostates, and hence Shia tend to be killed (although women may be taken as wives or sex slaves).russ_watters said:
You're talking anecdotes and I'm talking broad generalities. They aren't mutually exclusive -- though you stated it as a self-contradiction.HossamCFD said:
If this is the original, it was posted the day after the San Bernadino shooting, by ISIS sympathizers:
Yeah, that one's pretty wrong and can be judged at face value for what he actually said, unlike a lot of other things that are posted as interpretations, not actual quotes. That's probably the clearest bad thing I've seen that Trump has said.lisab said:
Not anecdotes. The point is that there are factors that really affect the level of risk a person is in, being Muslim or Christian doesn't seem to be one of them (unless we define Muslims the same way ISIS does). I'd regard ANYONE fleeing ISIS as someone in imminent danger, regardless of their faith. I've never seen any statistical evidence that Muslims are safer under ISIS than Christians, let alone a difference that's significant enough to justify prioritising Christian refugees. Slovakia's stated reason for taking in only Christian refugees was not that they're in more danger, but that Muslims won't fit in their culture.russ_watters said:
russ_watters said:
You said "specifics of each case" - while not "anecdotes" per se, it is the same issue: individual cases are not necessarily representative of the average/typical. However:HossamCFD said:
I must acknowledge not seeing any statistics of any kind regarding this and largely basing this on the logic that the further the religion is from Islam the more "wrong", the bigger the threat should be. Following that logic, CNN lists a small religion I'd never heard of as being the most at risk due to it not being in the same family as Judaism/Christianity/Islam:
I think you may have missed the point: it should be clear that proposing it in response to an ISIS inspired attack is a reflection of fear of refugees being infiltrated by ISIS like they were with some of the Paris attackers.
The clarification on your definition of "quite" helps -- yes, there is a bit of a language barrier there. "Quite" in Americanese means "very" or even "extremely". The British version looks like dry irony to me. "Somewhat extreme" would be (a self contradiction, but still...) more in line with what I'm thinking.