Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

recedite

Apparently Trump wants to stop these guys going to the USA, and that's why you don't like him.

robindch

^^^ Gentlemen - a bit of civility wouldn't go amiss here.

thanking youze.

Nodin

recedite wrote: »

Apparently Trump wants to stop these guys going to the USA, and that's why you don't like him.

He said "muslims" and you automatically throw in a rapist from Pakistan in Ireland?

The Randy Riverbeast

recedite wrote: »

Apparently Trump wants to stop these guys going to the USA, and that's why you don't like him.

As much as some people think America is easy to get into I'm pretty sure having a past involving crime can already prevent you getting it.

JPNelsforearm

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

As much as some people think America is easy to get into I'm pretty sure having a past involving crime can already prevent you getting it.

Implying those people are applying for visas and are being honest, as we have seen its only the honest people going the legal route who get their backgrounds flagged. Any dishonest people, illegals or "refugees" do not get flagged.

Nodin

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Implying those people are applying for visas and are being honest, as we have seen its only the honest people going the legal route who get their backgrounds flagged. Any dishonest people, illegals or "refugees" do not get flagged.

I'd say you haven't a clue what you're on about there.

JPNelsforearm

Nodin wrote: »

I'd say you haven't a clue what you're on about there.

Ha, the criminal background of an illegal or refugee is irrelevant seeing as they are not going the legal route, their background is pretty much unverifiable, hence the growth in crime from South American members of MS13 etc, they weren't liasing with the DHS or applying for visas. The only people who are disadvantaged by a criminal backgrounds are the people who try to enter openly and legally.

Nodin

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Ha, the criminal background of an illegal or refugee is irrelevant seeing as they are not going the legal route, their background is pretty much unverifiable, hence the growth in crime from South American members of MS13 etc, they weren't liasing with the DHS or applying for visas. The only people who are disadvantaged by a criminal backgrounds are the people who try to enter openly and legally.

It takes up to two years for Syrians to be resettled in the US.

recedite

Nodin wrote: »

It takes up to two years for Syrians to be resettled in the US.

And since the outbreak of war have the US authorities ever vetted any of them by asking for the police/court records of any candidate? Perhaps by asking for documentation or by directly contacting either of the two principal jurisdictions involved, ie President Assad or Islamic State? I think not.

Nodin

recedite wrote: »

And since the outbreak of war have the US authorities ever vetted any of them by asking for the police/court records of any candidate? Perhaps by asking for documentation or by directly contacting either of the two principal jurisdictions involved, ie President Assad or Islamic State? I think not.

It's bad enough that we see you throw in a case of rape to this thread (for which there is yet no explanation) without this series of assertions with no relation to whats going on.

http://time.com/4116619/syrian-refugees-screening-process/

JPNelsforearm

Nodin wrote: »

It takes up to two years for Syrians to be resettled in the US.

The length of time is immaterial to the fact they are limited in the amount of data they can analyse, therefore we are back to square one, its merely the pretense of security only tagging honest people, or those who have left a particularly egregious amount of carnage in their wake...

If someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home but we are not going to -- there will be nothing show up because we have no record on that person,"

"We have gotten much better as an intelligence community at joining our efforts and checking our databases in a way that gives us high confidence. If we have a record on somebody, it will surface. That's the good news. … The challenge we face with Syria is that we don't have that rich set of data. So even though we've gotten better at querying what we have, we certainly will have less overall. And so as I said to a question earlier, someone only alerts as a result of our searches if we have some record on them. That's the challenge we face with Syria."

FBI director, James Comey

Nodin

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

The length of(..........) we face with Syria."

FBI director, James Comey

You might read my last post.

JPNelsforearm

Nodin wrote: »

You might read my last post.

you might want to read mine, you can have the most "intensive screening process" you like, but if you have limited or incomplete information its all just a case of spinning your wheels

Nodin

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

you might want to read mine, you can have the most "intensive screening process" you like, but if you have limited or incomplete information its all just a case of spinning your wheels

........nobody has "complete information". However out of the 750,000 people take in since 2001, according to the article I posted, only two have been involved in terrorism.

recedite

Nodin wrote: »

http://time.com/4116619/syrian-refugees-screening-process/

This describes two vetting processes. The first, describing detailed checks by UNHCR, is only a fairytale.
The second describes in-house checks by US agencies of their own databases, which is unlikely to throw up anything except in the case of the more notorious militants.

One interesting statistic there; "Only 2% of those admitted, the senior administration official said, have been single males of “combat age.”
So its back to the old reliable that security forces tend to use in the absence of any specific information; "profiling".
That policy is not inconsistent with Trump's expressed view to restrict such people until they know more about them.

Nodin

recedite wrote: »

This describes two vetting processes. The first, describing detailed checks by UNHCR, is only a fairytale.
The second describes in-house checks by US agencies of their own databases, which is unlikely to throw up anything except in the case of the more notorious militants.

One interesting statistic there; "Only 2% of those admitted, the senior administration official said, have been single males of “combat age.”
So its back to the old reliable that security forces tend to use in the absence of any specific information; "profiling".
That policy is not inconsistent with Trump's expressed view to restrict such people until they know more about them.

2 dubious cases out of 750,000 immigrants. Neither Syrian.

Are you going to explain why you posted a link to a case about a rape in Ireland?

robindch

Ladies and gents - please keep to the topic and please be whole lot cooler than yiz all have been to date.

Honestly, it's beginning to look more and more like a Trumpendammerung.

Nodin

....certainly is as far as the nomination is concerned.
http://www.bbc.com/news

PopePalpatine

In the latest episode of "I've Got Friends In Strange Places", Russia's pro-Kremlin media is warming to Trump, including the Russian fascist Alexandr Dugin, who declared him as "the real right-wing America".

Custardpi

Interesting article by Michael Tomasky at the Daily Beast, comparing Trump's rise to events in Ancient Rome & seeing it at least in part as an uprising by the Plebian against the Patrician class, possibly leading to ochlocracy. The article has some slightly snobbish undertones but it does highlight the economic injustice issues which help drive support for "anti-establishment" candidates like Trump on the Right & Sanders on the Left.

robindch

Leaving Trump, Cruz and Kasich in the race, Rubio announces that god didn't want him to be president after all.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/03/marco-rubio-suspends-presidential-campaign-blames-god/

Nodin

For whatever reason, I think of Trump as a sort of cruder Reagan, in that he taps into a certain element of the American populations psyche. Given the number of dead that left abroad its a rather worrying thought. (and, as mentioned earlier, I have my doubts about Mrs Clinton as well). I can't see Sanders winning either the nomination or, in that unlikely event, the presidency - "socialism" or "leftwing" still has that cold war "un-American" albatross round its neck in too many places.

recedite

Australian Trump.

(NB not a real politician....yet)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtWVJikNnx4

Cabaal

Custardpi wrote: »

Interesting article by Michael Tomasky at the Daily Beast, comparing Trump's rise to events in Ancient Rome & seeing it at least in part as an uprising by the Plebian against the Patrician class, possibly leading to ochlocracy. The article has some slightly snobbish undertones but it does highlight the economic injustice issues which help drive support for "anti-establishment" candidates like Trump on the Right & Sanders on the Left.

Nothing says how things are economically unjust like trying to elect a billionaire who inherited all his billions as a protest.

Its like saying you hate monarchs but demanding the country is run by a king and queen
:rolleyes:

The Randy Riverbeast

Cabaal wrote: »

Nothing says how things are economically unjust like trying to elect a billionaire who inherited all his billions as a protest.

Its like saying you hate monarchs but demanding the country is run by a king and queen
:rolleyes:

But he isn't controlled by rich business owners. Instead they cut out the middle man and just put the rich business owner up there.

orubiru

Cabaal wrote: »

Nothing says how things are economically unjust like trying to elect a billionaire who inherited all his billions as a protest.

Its like saying you hate monarchs but demanding the country is run by a king and queen
:rolleyes:

Unfortunately the costs of education, and the costs of having a life where pursuing a political career is a realistic prospect, pretty much guarantees that the leaders of society are going to be the rich people.

Even if they wanted to elect a president who isn't rich, that candidate would probably have outside interests investing many millions of dollars in them.

I can agree with your point of view that voting Trump would not be an "anti establishment" act because he is a part of the establishment, in a way. It would, however, be a mighty kick in the teeth for many of these patronizing "holier than thou" types who are not quite as clever as they think they are.

I think Nodin has made a good point that Trump can be seen as "crude". This is very attractive to people who just want to watch stuffy, condescending, politicians squirm.

Some of the video clips from debates and the comments made by Trump against his opponents are absolutely ridiculous, inappropriate, unprofessional but also downright hilarious. This presidential election is a goldmine for internet trolls and people are lapping it up because it makes for great entertainment.

Guys like Carson, Bush, Rubio and Cruz should not be anywhere near a presidential election. Trump shouldn't either but he's made these guys look like weak-willed, ineffectual, little morons.

At least Sanders and Clinton come across as actual competent politicians. They might not be perfect but they are far and away the most appropriate people to lead a country out of the whole group of candidates that have been presented.

Trump seems more and more like a way for the struggling citizen to give the "establishment" a bloody nose.

I feel sorry for people who are taking it seriously and I feel sorry for folks who are genuinely worried that Trump is basically Hitler. I can't imagine President Trump being anything other than a complete disaster.

They have, in many ways, brought a lot of this upon themselves though.

If the majority of Trumps supporters are indeed the poor, the uneducated and the unsophisticated then you have to ask what the other candidates are doing to appeal to these voters. Are these voters just being ignored by the other candidates? Or are they being alienated by the other candidates?

A favourite topic of conversation among Americans these days is "privilege". Take people who are struggling to make ends meet, struggling with debt, struggling with illness or just generally living in despair and try to tell them that they have privilege because of their gender or the colour of their skin. What does it achieve? I'd argue that it simply creates a sense of resentment and injustice amongst those people. This is where someone like Trump comes in. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and all that.

Shouting from the rooftops that Trump supporters are all dumb racist idiots just about guarantees that they won't ever change their minds. Rambling on about "white privilege" and other assorted identity-focussed theories leaves people feeling alienated and looking for somewhere to turn, somewhere they can get sympathy and understanding.

Everyone struggles. Everyone has problems. Trump is offering hope (false hope, I think) to people who feel their struggles and their problems are being ignored or, worse, dismissed offhand.

If Trump wins then I'm afraid that the "anti-Trump" crowd have no one to blame but themselves.

Bernie Sanders is, in my opinion, the only decent candidate in the whole thing and it looks unlikely that he will even get the nomination.

robdonn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZKDmYfhMhQ

JPNelsforearm

robdonn wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZKDmYfhMhQ

Trump says something, audience clearly laughing > Vox

robdonn

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Trump says something, audience clearly laughing > Vox

Trump says something, audience clearly laughing, audience member does what Trump was 'joking about' ...

PopePalpatine

Michelle Bachmann claims that the Brussels attacks were part of God's plan to humiliate Obama.