2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

ECO_Mental

My opinion is look at 911....

This Tillman guy who was a a NFL player and after 911 he signed up to the army even though he had great future ahead of him he still signed up and got killed

Now imagine a young lad in Syria/Gaza West Bank etc who has nothing to look forward to, professional football career with etc money supermodels and then Israel drops a bomb on his apartment complex and kills all his family. What should be do. Sit at home and play Xbox. I don't think so.....

I'm not excusing these people but if a person who has a lot to lose wants to get in the fight what will a person who had NOTHING to lose do.

We need to get the Muslim people involved I don't know how, education investment etc because bombing the **** out of them is not working

ancapailldorcha

Right, back on topic please.

Overheal

I personally am going to take a cooling off period from presidential politics for a minute while they all try and spin the **** out of recent tragedy or blame Obama for scheduling diplomatic relations with Cuba on the same day as a terror attack.



All of them will come out of the woodworks now with crazy bs, like Cruz wants to start special patrols of muslim neighborhoods in the US. I just can't.

Rule 5 above seems especially pertinent.

Manach

Again Stats and Politics, slightly off topic guide to which professions cleave to Democrat or Republican :
http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/

Black Swan

The 2016 Democrat and Republican presidential candidates should specifically (in great detail, not Trump's simple-minded US banning Muslims temporarily or otherwise) address what they think are appropriate measures to increase the security of US citizens both at home and abroad, but profiling someone by their name, religion, skin colour, or male gender is problematic, and in many cases violates the spirit and intent of the US Constitution.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

So for example at airport security the 20 something year old called Ali Sahrif get a lot more attention than 60 something Mary Smith.

According to you, the "20 something" male named Barack Hussein Obama II should have been profiled, and treated accordingly, especially with that "Hussein" middle name (spelled same as Saddam Hussein), brown skin, his father Barack Obama Sr raised a Muslim, and from age six through ten, Obama II lived with his mother and stepfather in Indonesia, where he attended Catholic and Muslim schools?

AbusesToilets

Black Swan wrote: »

The 2016 Democrat and Republican presidential candidates should specifically (in great detail, not Trump's simple-minded US banning Muslims temporarily or otherwise) address what they think are appropriate measures to increase the security of US citizens both at home and abroad, but profiling someone by their name, religion, skin colour, or male gender is problematic, and in many cases violates the spirit and intent of the US Constitution.


According to you, the "20 something" male named Barack Hussein Obama II should have been profiled, and treated accordingly, especially with that "Hussein" middle name (spelled same as Saddam Hussein), brown skin, his father Barack Obama Sr raised a Muslim, and from age six through ten, Obama II lived with his mother and stepfather in Indonesia, where he attended Catholic and Muslim schools?

None of the candidates are likely to make any effort to address some of the main drivers of political instability in the Middle East, namely the funding of terrorism by SA and other Sunni emirates, and the continuing mess that is Israel. Iran also is of course a significant financier of terrorist groups, however at present they are oriented less against US interests and more so those of SA and Israel.

No serious effort at addressing the Middle East can ignore those issues, and while there has been plenty of energy invested in the Israelis, SA continues to escape large scale scrutiny and censure.

I don't feel that investing more resources conducting surveillance of a particular demographic that has shown a propensity to generate terrorists is problematic. Fairly obvious response to repeated incidents. Balance and care are certainly needed, to ensure such efforts remain focused and useful, and that they don't boil over into discrimination, however it's a logical follow up to an series of events such as today's attack.

Black Swan

After Tuesday's Belgium attacks, Republican party front runner Donald Trump reaffirms his position on the use of torture by the US if he is elected president:

“If it was up to me and if we changed the laws and have the laws, waterboarding would be fine,” Mr. Trump said. “If they could expand the laws I would do a lot more than waterboarding.”

A vote for Trump, is a vote for torture.

Amazingfun

Arizona called for Trump

He's at 46.6 % currently, Cruz way behind.

http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president

Amazingfun

Hillary Clinton, the woman under FBI investigation, has creamed Bernie Sanders in AZ, winning over 60% of the vote.

AbusesToilets

Amazingfun wrote: »

Hillary Clinton, the woman under FBI investigation, has creamed Bernie Sanders in AZ, winning over 60% of the vote.

I still have some hope that the FBI will actually follow through and indite her.

Overheal

Wonder how far demagoguery can go if we let people demonize the muslims or the mexicans?

http://jezebel.com/nixons-policy-advisor-admits-he-invented-war-on-drugs-t-1766359595

“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or blacks, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

(http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057576067)

Amazingfun

Thank God tonight was the last caucus as Cruz mysteriously does very well in them. Some think this will be his last victory at all.

He has swept Utah by a massive number, Cruz 70%, Trump at 13%

Bernie wins Utah, and Idaho as well! And he's done it by a huge margin in each (so far).....

K-9

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Arguing about the statistics behind terrorism numbers is irrelevant. If you recognise a demographic that has shown a propensity to generate violent attackers, you should pay closer attention to them. It works the same for school shootings as it does for terrorism. If a large portion of those committing shootings in schools are young males, who feel alienated socially and suffered from bullying etc, then I might look to pay more attention to those who fall into such a category.

So why the dissembling when it comes to Islamic terrorism? By all means, lets try to improve the social mechanisms that give rise to radicalisation, but simultaneously, there clearly is a need for increased surveillance and scrutiny of those communities.

Indeed there's greater need for scrutiny of Islam terrorism as well as US gun crime. I mean more background checks for people wanting to buy guns is perfectly reasonable, right?

Kur4mA

Amazingfun wrote: »

Hillary Clinton, the woman under FBI investigation, has creamed Bernie Sanders in AZ, winning over 60% of the vote.

Yeah, but what the mainstream media won't tell you is that the levels of voter fraud and shady shenanigans going on in AZ is staggering. 7+ hours after the polls have closed and there are 100's of people still in line waiting to vote...

There's also supposedly a shocking number of people being turned away because they are 'not in the system' or being told they will need a provisional ballot.

Akrasia

Bernie gets 79.1% of the vote in Utah and 80% in Idaho

He lost Arizona by 20 points

The higher than expected wins in Utah and Idaho mean that Sanders has won more delegates than Hilary

The numbers on the internet are a bit all over the place, but based on the Delegate numbers on here: http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016/03/march-22nd-primary-results-arizona-utah-idaho/

Sanders is set to win about 75 delegates compared to Hilary's 56

This means Bernie should come away with about 57% of the delegates

His target for the rest of the campaign was to win 58% of the delegates, so Last night was actually a very good result for Bernie

The 20 point loss in Arizona is disappointing. Hillary is gloating because Bernie spent more money in that state than her, but he had to pay for all of his media coverage, Hillary gets hers for free.

Arizona also had a very large percentage of early and absentee ballots and the stats were that a significant majority of these were middle aged women. Hilary's ground game was obviously very active in getting her demographic to vote early.

Bernie might have already lost the vote before he even gave his first speech in Arizona.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/what-does-early-vote-say-about-who-will-do-well-n543641

Sanders should focus on getting people to vote early in as many of the upcoming states as possible as the higher the voter turnout, the better he expects to do in these coming states, and the primary and Caucus system in the U.S. seems to be a shambolic affair pretty much everywhere, with voters expected to queue for hours often in baking hot or freezing cold conditions just to get into the polling station.

Fr Tod Umptious

Still though, trying to win 58℅ of delegates from here is a massive undertaking.

What states are left and how many a like ID and UT rather than like GA or SC ?

Akrasia

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Still though, trying to win 58℅ of delegates from here is a massive undertaking.

What states are left and how many a like ID and UT rather than like GA or SC ?

The states below have yet to vote for the Democrats

Alaska
Hawaii
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
New York
Connecticut
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Indiana
Guam
West Virginia
Kentucky
Oregon
Virgin Islands
Puerto Rico
California
Montana
New Jersey
New Mexico
North Dakota
South Dakota
District of Columbia

Many of these states should be fertile ground for Sanders to beat Clinton by similar margins to last night

The big states of course are
Washington - 101 delegates
NY - 247 delegates
Pennsylvania - 189 delegates
California - 475 delegates
and New Jersey - 126 Delegates

There are no states left that resemble North Carolina or Georgia. Sanders is still the huge underdog, but if he can win a large number of states by 80 to 20 like he did last night, the race will be alive coming up to California in June and That is a 'semi open' primary, which means registered democrats can only in the democratic primary, but independents are also free to vote if they choose.
This favours Sanders who polls sky high with independents

AbusesToilets

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed there's greater need for scrutiny of Islam terrorism as well as US gun crime. I mean more background checks for people wanting to buy guns is perfectly reasonable, right?

I don't have an issue with background checks, in fact I would be in favor of expanding them. Allowing private sellers access to the NICS system would go a long way in helping to remove the ability of criminals to purchase firearms.

I'm in favor of targeted surveillance, however, as ever it has to be enshrined in processes that respect the privacy of citizens. That hasn't been the case all to frequently this past decade. Not much point defending liberty when there is none left to speak of afterwards.

511

Amazingfun wrote: »

Thank God tonight was the last caucus as Cruz mysteriously does very well in them. Some think this will be his last victory at all.

He has swept Utah by a massive number, Cruz 70%, Trump at 13%

Bernie wins Utah, and Idaho as well! And he's done it by a huge margin in each (so far).....

A religious nutjob is always going to do well in the second-most religious state in America. There's a lot of Mormons in Utah: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_religiosity#Results

Paleface

Romney also called for the people of Utah to vote for Cruz so its not surprising at all that he won there.

https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/?fref=nf

This week, in the Utah nominating caucus, I will vote for Senator Ted Cruz.

Today, there is a contest between Trumpism and Republicanism. Through the calculated statements of its leader, Trumpism has become associated with racism, misogyny, bigotry, xenophobia, vulgarity and, most recently, threats and violence. I am repulsed by each and every one of these.

The only path that remains to nominate a Republican rather than Mr. Trump is to have an open convention. At this stage, the only way we can reach an open convention is for Senator Cruz to be successful in as many of the remaining nominating elections as possible.

I like Governor John Kasich. I have campaigned with him. He has a solid record as governor. I would have voted for him in Ohio. But a vote for Governor Kasich in future contests makes it extremely likely that Trumpism would prevail.

I will vote for Senator Cruz and I encourage others to do so as well, so that we can have an open convention and nominate a Republican.

The Randy Riverbeast

Paleface wrote: »

Romney also called for the people of Utah to vote for Cruz so its not surprising at all that he won there.

https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/?fref=nf

Not voting for someone due to bigotry, votes Cruz.

Needs to make his mind up there.

Billy86

As ridiculous as it is that no Trump supporters seem to actually be able say which of his policies and stances they support outside of Muslims and Mexicans, it's probably more pathetic to vote for a politician because another politician told you to. Sure, Cruz would have won easy in Utah, but I think it's fair to say that a good few did so simply because their Magical Underpants wearing leader told them to do it.

eire4

Amazingfun wrote: »

Hillary Clinton, the woman under FBI investigation, has creamed Bernie Sanders in AZ, winning over 60% of the vote.

Actually the final total was 58-40 Clinton.

eire4

Akrasia wrote: »

Bernie gets 79.1% of the vote in Utah and 80% in Idaho

He lost Arizona by 20 points

The higher than expected wins in Utah and Idaho mean that Sanders has won more delegates than Hilary

The numbers on the internet are a bit all over the place, but based on the Delegate numbers on here: http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016/03/march-22nd-primary-results-arizona-utah-idaho/

Sanders is set to win about 75 delegates compared to Hilary's 56

This means Bernie should come away with about 57% of the delegates

His target for the rest of the campaign was to win 58% of the delegates, so Last night was actually a very good result for Bernie

The 20 point loss in Arizona is disappointing. Hillary is gloating because Bernie spent more money in that state than her, but he had to pay for all of his media coverage, Hillary gets hers for free.

Arizona also had a very large percentage of early and absentee ballots and the stats were that a significant majority of these were middle aged women. Hilary's ground game was obviously very active in getting her demographic to vote early.

Bernie might have already lost the vote before he even gave his first speech in Arizona.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/what-does-early-vote-say-about-who-will-do-well-n543641

Sanders should focus on getting people to vote early in as many of the upcoming states as possible as the higher the voter turnout, the better he expects to do in these coming states, and the primary and Caucus system in the U.S. seems to be a shambolic affair pretty much everywhere, with voters expected to queue for hours often in baking hot or freezing cold conditions just to get into the polling station.

Well it didn't happen as expected but then again in this campaign to quote Oscar Wilde "expect the unexpected".
Sanders got himself back in the race with a big night. He lost Arizona heavily although his late flurry in cutting the deficit to 18 points did help with his delegate count. But the enormous size of his wins in Idaho and Utah was truly eye opening. It also meant on the night he came out on top in wins and in delegates. 3 more western states are up for grabs on Saturday Washington, Alaska and Hawaii.

Overheal

Reports out of Arizona are pretty shocking

http://usuncut.com/politics/5-examples-voter-suppression-arizona-primary/

But I imagine you will never hear much outrage from conservative outlets about it, even though they're the first to jump on the "Integrity of Democracy" bandwagon

eire4

Overheal wrote: »

Reports out of Arizona are pretty shocking

http://usuncut.com/politics/5-examples-voter-suppression-arizona-primary/

But I imagine you will never hear much outrage from conservative outlets about it, even though they're the first to jump on the "Integrity of Democracy" bandwagon

I was just reading about that voter suppression yesterday in Arizona. What is so bad about it is how widespread and how flagrant it was. We may not have heard the last about yesterdays Arizona primary.

Suryavarman

Overheal wrote: »

Reports out of Arizona are pretty shocking

http://usuncut.com/politics/5-examples-voter-suppression-arizona-primary/

But I imagine you will never hear much outrage from conservative outlets about it, even though they're the first to jump on the "Integrity of Democracy" bandwagon

Bernie Sanders supporters are having a very hard time accepting that their candidate isn't as popular as they'd like him to be. They have to start making it out like the only reason he isn't going to get the nomination is because of a great conspiracy against him. The 5 points in that article can summarised as follows:

1. Turnout usually isn't high so a sensible decision is made to not open as many polling stations. Turnout ends up being 3 times as high as it normally is.

2. Areas with lower turnouts don't have polling stations.

3. A number of voters were identified as independents. They claimed this was incorrect. They were given provisional ballots so if it turned out that they were actually Democrats their vote would still count.

4. Buildings were evacuated due to a bomb scare.

5. The press called a state that Hillary Clinton was very likely to win for Hillary Clinton.

Jeb! now endorsing Cruz. The Republican Party is some effing mess.

After the next 5 states (Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming) Bernie may have closed up a tiny bit. After that it's dire though with New York on April 19th followed by Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island on the 26th. Looks like around 630 delegates for those 6 states at a glance with half in New York (247) and Maryland (95) where Hillary should win handily. Pennsylvania with 189 is Bernie's last hope to try and reach the "blue-collar" whites. Unfortunately for him all 6 states except Rhode Island are closed primaries. So far there's been 4 closed primaries with Hillary winning Louisiana (71-23), Florida (64-33) and Arizona (58-40) while Sanders has won Democrats abroad (69-31).

Billy86

Deleted User wrote: »

Jeb! now endorsing Cruz. The Republican Party is some effing mess.

As much as I despise Trump, the GOP are typically not really much better and their tone-deafness for years has been startling. I can't really say I feel sorry for them at all, they made this situation in their own voter base and now they get to reap what they sow. They refuse to waver in any way from exactly what they want, and unless they change that drastically in the next few cycles, I'm beginning to think in 30-odd years they'll have gone the way of the Whigs, Know Nothings, etc.