2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Brian?

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

So it's Trump's fault then ?

I blame

1. The idiots who attacked Trump supporters
2. The media for passively encouraging the idiots
3. Trump supporters for commuting the first acts of violence. This is a reaction to the protesters being beaten when removed from Trump rallies
4. Trump for encouraging his supporters to physically assault protesters at his rallies
5. The DNC for not repeatedly calling for an end to protests at Trump rallies. Pull away the attention, campaign positively.
6. Myself.

Akrasia

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

So it's Trump's fault then ?

When you campaign based on creating division and hatred, it's not a surprise when there are protests against you, and when tensions rise over the course of a 6 months long campaign, it's not a surprise when some of the protests turn violent.

Trump escalates everything. I mean, he's had a judgement against him in one of the Trump University legal cases, so he stokes up a race war with all of mexico by declaring that the judge is not fit to hear the trial because his parents were Mexican.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/03/politics/donald-trump-tapper-lead/index.html

JPNelsforearm

Akrasia wrote: »

When you campaign based on creating division and hatred, it's not a surprise when there are protests against you, and when tensions rise over the course of a 6 months long campaign, it's not a surprise when some of the protests turn violent.

Trump escalates everything. I mean, he's had a judgement against him in one of the Trump University legal cases, so he stokes up a race war with all of mexico by declaring that the judge is not fit to hear the trial because his parents were Mexican.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/03/politics/donald-trump-tapper-lead/index.html

Its moreso that he is a member of the LaRaza lawyers association, which is patently racist in nature. Imagine a white judge who was a member of the "white european lawyers association", an organisation with links to advocates of a white homeland, and plans to "further the cause" of white people.
This is the actual motto of LaRaza...

Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada.”

“For The Race everything. Outside The Race, nothing"

The judge "mistakenly" unsealed documents from the mlm scam that Trump licensed his name to, highly suspicious.

B_Wayne

http://larazalawyers.org/about-us/

LaRaza Lawyers are an advocacy group that provides resources to Latino legal community etc, nothing actually racist. The organisation initially came about for the simple reason that Latino lawyers were not a thing, the opportunities were not there, so a group offered the educational opportunities that the Latino community was not getting. Unless

Neither you or Trump has any proof that he is racist, surely there would be legal judgments that you could point to. He also uses him being an Obama appointee and his Mexican heritage as a further attack. Trump is being the racist, he's creating a scenario where a judge will be intimidated and harassed. It is far from professional behaviour and it's Trump covering his own ass that is motivating him.

Also the motto you refer to is from an entirely separate organisation.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEChA

InTheTrees

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

The judge "mistakenly" unsealed documents from the mlm scam that Trump licensed his name to, highly suspicious.

What do you mean "mistakenly"? Can you explain what you mean?

Court records are public information, why should they remain sealed?

And why is it "highly suspicious"? You know that trumps lawyers haven't made any legal attempts to have the judge replaced?

InTheTrees

B_Wayne wrote: »

Neither you or Trump has any proof that he is racist, surely there would be legal judgments that you could point to. He also uses him being an Obama appointee and his Mexican heritage as a further attack. Trump is being the racist,

Its all waffle to appeal to his base. Trump has to demonize the judge so that when he's found guilty he can claim it was all a Mexican conspiracy against him.

It diverts attention away from the fact that he was involved in a scam.

JPNelsforearm

InTheTrees wrote: »

What do you mean "mistakenly"? Can you explain what you mean?

Court records are public information, why should they remain sealed?

And why is it "highly suspicious"? You know that trumps lawyers haven't made any legal attempts to have the judge replaced?

The judge unsealed court documents "by mistake" and then ordered them "resealed"... after the media has reported on them of course....

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/whoops-judge-mistakenly-unsealed-too-many-records-in-trump-u-lawsuit/
Last Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel ordered the release of a number of documents in the Trump University lawsuit that had previously been sealed. The release caused a mini-media storm with news outlets

The trial isnt due until November... I would say its suspicious.

However, late on Tuesday, Judge Curiel entered new order that essentially tries to put the toothpaste back in the tube after realizing he had ‘mistakenly’ allowed certain documents to be unsealed without proper redactions..

InTheTrees

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

I would say its suspicious.

Do you know what redactions are?

The documents will still be released after thats done.

I still dont see why thats suspicious?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

InTheTrees

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes. And as soon as those details are redacted the documents will be released.

There was no mistake in unsealing the documents. The mistake was not completing the redaction's.

Billy86

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I have been consistent throughout.

Consistently wrong, yes. Until you can show us where Trump's statement specifically mentioned extremists, terrorists or Islamists rather than blanketing all Muslims together that's all you will be. Wrong.

Trump has been opposed to Jihadism in America, Jihadism is the same as Islamism. Islamism is the rejection of American values and to be one is to repudiate the Republic. Trump's bellicose is directly at those extremists. People like you are grouping all the Muslims together and shouting Islamophobe, Islamophobe to your hearts content.

And where does Trump specifically mention any of these subsections of Muslims in his statements, rather than the blanket titlee of 'Muslims'?

Now as for that eloquent quote you have of him when talking to religious leaders. Trump has courted the Christian Right who have a very different view on Muslims. In America you have to flaunt your Christian Credentials in order to do well in the GOP. Barack Obama was savaged for his lack of religion during both his election campaigns.

Those quotes are from 2012!! http://hollowverse.com/donald-trump/

This article was written by Tom Kershaw and last updated on March 3, 2012.

Let me use those quotes again...

"I believe in God. I am Christian. I think The Bible is certainly, it is THE book..First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica Queens is where I went to church. I’m a Protestant, I’m a Presbyterian. And you know I’ve had a good relationship with the church over the years. I think religion is a wonderful thing. I think my religion is a wonderful religion."
- Donald Trump

"[I go to church] as much as I can. Always on Christmas. Always on Easter. Always when there’s a major occasion. And during the Sundays. I’m a Sunday church person. I’ll go when I can."
- Donald Trump

FROM 2012!! :pac: What, was he just courting the religious four years in advance?

Looking forward to your latest attempt to shift the goalposts on this point. Or, like the 'only dislikes Islamists' comment, to just boldly continue to claim that those comments FROM 2012 were an attempt to court the 2016 religious right. The latter is what I am expecting, to be honest.

I'm not a fan of his religious base having said that the vile forms of extremism is coming from Islamism and you really want us all to belief that Muslims in America are being discriminated against. This is blatantly untrue as America is not and has never been a sectarian country.

I would advise you to look up what that word actually means, Brian. You clearly have absolutely no idea what it means, or no clue about anything to do with the history of the US.

Here's a pretty little picture to get you started...

What we see on the ground in America is the material lifestyle of Americans is incompatible with Islamism. America can handle religious tolerance even of sectarian religions, what it cannot deal with is Jihadi movements that wish to impose a their own standards on everyone else who share American citizenry.

So where did Trump's statement mention Islamism? Because it said Muslims three times.

You really don't want to answer this, do you Brian? And the reason you don't, is because you can't answer it and still try to claim Trump is "all for religious toleration" - because if he were, he wouldn't be making blanket statements about Muslims, and instead his official statement would have had words like 'Islamists', 'terrorists' or 'extremists' rather than simply 'Muslims'.

Brian you're not fooling anyone here, apart from possibly yourself.

oscarBravo

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

So it's Trump's fault then ?

I have literally no idea whatsoever how you managed to parse that from my post.

Fr Tod Umptious

Brian? wrote: »

I blame

1. The idiots who attacked Trump supporters
2. The media for passively encouraging the idiots
3. Trump supporters for commuting the first acts of violence. This is a reaction to the protesters being beaten when removed from Trump rallies
4. Trump for encouraging his supporters to physically assault protesters at his rallies
5. The DNC for not repeatedly calling for an end to protests at Trump rallies. Pull away the attention, campaign positively.
6. Myself.

I think that's a fairly accurate list of who is to blame, certainly no side are blameless in this.

However what makes me laugh is crowd that are against the "intolerant" candidate are showing the most "intolerance" by attacking those who they disagree with.

Brian?

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I think that's a fairly accurate list of who is to blame, certainly no side are blameless in this.

However what makes me laugh is crowd that are against the "intolerant" candidate are showing the most "intolerance" by attacking those who they disagree with.

I'll stop you there. There is nothing wrong with being intolerant. It's almost a virtue. I'm intolerant of violence, inequality, prejudice and bigotry. Among other things.

No one is claiming to be the bastion of tolerance here. I'm faulty intolerant of Trump and his supporters and see nothing wrong with it. It's bigotry and hatred these protestors were protesting, not intolerance.

KingBrian2

Billy86 wrote: »

Consistently wrong, yes. Until you can show us where Trump's statement specifically mentioned extremists, terrorists or Islamists rather than blanketing all Muslims together that's all you will be. Wrong.

And where does Trump specifically mention any of these subsections of Muslims in his statements, rather than the blanket titlee of 'Muslims'?

Those quotes are from 2012!! http://hollowverse.com/donald-trump/

This article was written by Tom Kershaw and last updated on March 3, 2012.

Let me use those quotes again...

"I believe in God. I am Christian. I think The Bible is certainly, it is THE book..First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica Queens is where I went to church. I’m a Protestant, I’m a Presbyterian. And you know I’ve had a good relationship with the church over the years. I think religion is a wonderful thing. I think my religion is a wonderful religion."
- Donald Trump

"[I go to church] as much as I can. Always on Christmas. Always on Easter. Always when there’s a major occasion. And during the Sundays. I’m a Sunday church person. I’ll go when I can."
- Donald Trump

FROM 2012!! :pac: What, was he just courting the religious four years in advance?

Looking forward to your latest attempt to shift the goalposts on this point. Or, like the 'only dislikes Islamists' comment, to just boldly continue to claim that those comments FROM 2012 were an attempt to court the 2016 religious right. The latter is what I am expecting, to be honest.

I would advise you to look up what that word actually means, Brian. You clearly have absolutely no idea what it means, or no clue about anything to do with the history of the US.

Here's a pretty little picture to get you started...


So where did Trump's statement mention Islamism? Because it said Muslims three times.

You really don't want to answer this, do you Brian? And the reason you don't, is because you can't answer it and still try to claim Trump is "all for religious toleration" - because if he were, he wouldn't be making blanket statements about Muslims, and instead his official statement would have had words like 'Islamists', 'terrorists' or 'extremists' rather than simply 'Muslims'.

Brian you're not fooling anyone here, apart from possibly yourself.

As I said before Trump has been opposed to Jihadism and Jihadism is the same as Islamism. You keep leaving that part of his message out.

In 1864 President Lincoln spoke eloquently at Gettysburg to mark the bravery and sacrifice made that day to celebrate and mourn the death of proud Union troops who fought a heroic battle for their Nation to wipe out the power of the Slaveholders.

Today in America the Jihadists are back to re-impose the Slave Trade on America. All that those Americans fought for would be discarded if that was allowed to happen. Calls for clemency for the world's bullies is once again being heard and the distortions being made about Trump is the beginning of the ignorance people have shown towards those that value human freedoms.

Sand

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Hitler didnt get into power due to "hate speech", he got into power on the back of a jewish-led communist insurrection in 1919 which segued into a weak incompetent and debt ridden Weimer Rep, massive unemployment and economic stagnation.

Incorrect. The Weimar Republic solved the insurrection, hyperinflation and indeed had the German economy growing again before the Wall Street Crash in 1929.

Hitler capitalised on the austerity/misery caused by the German governments terror of hyperinflation leading to an insistence on maintaining a strong currency at a time of financial collapse. Very similar to the strategy Germany ran for the Euro crisis, which comparable if less pronounced results. Democratic Germany survived hyperinflation, it did not survive austerity under a fixed exchange rate.

Hitler promised to fix those issues, and he did, so he stayed in power and had full support of the people because of economic success. The German people could not eat off the back of Hitlers words. No matter how much fiery rhetoric and blame he espoused if he did not fix the economic situation he would have been out on his ear and communists probably would have taken over.

Hitler never fixed the Germany economy. He too was desperate to maintain the Gold standard, despite all Germanys trade partners devaluing. Germany was/is a manufacturer with no raw materials. It was/is a huge country that cannot feed itself. The only coherent strategy for Germany was to trade with its neighbours. This was the strategy Germany pursued after WW2 to great success. But the idea of trade and dependency was completely alien to Hitler who deeply believed there was a vast Jewish conspiracy against Germany. He simply built an army as fast as he could, way beyond anything the German economy could support. He funded it by stealing private wealth from internal scapegoats, and then as the economy was collapsing he went to war with the army to steal the wealth from others that he could not create himself.

His 'economic miracle' was all smoke and mirrors, with a dose of Goebbel PR. His ability to get into power and maintain it had a lot to do with his ability as an orator, his ability to misdirect anger onto useful scapegoats, propaganda, and ultimately his willingness to straight-up murder his opponents. His 'success' was not meritocratic. Though in fairness, he was not given a multi-million fortune by his dad so he had it tougher than some.

Rhetoric<Economic performance.

Quite.

As for Drumpf, it appears he is falling back as Clinton goes on the attack. I read her speech in San Diego and she destroyed him. I don't think someone as thin skinned and narcissistic as Drumpf will be able to keep his cool as he's chipped away at. There could be a really entertaining meltdown in the future.

Assuming he is defeated, there will be two lasting legacies: The Republicans will have tied their flag to the mast of a terrible candidate, which may do lasting damage to their 'brand'. Lets face it, the Republicans couldnt find a single candidate able to defeat a clown.

Also the angry group who aren't really sure what they are angry about but are as mad as hell about it will still be out there waiting for another crank to unify behind. Maybe a candidate less cartoonish than Drumpf may be able to tap into that without being as obviously a fool to startle the more moderate voters and actually stand a chance of getting into power.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

InTheTrees

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No, I'm really not splitting hairs.

The "mistake" was in not redacting some sections and not the fact that they were unsealed.

The documents will be released. We're clear on that right?

InTheTrees

Sand wrote: »

Also the angry group who aren't really sure what they are angry about but are as mad as hell about it will still be out there waiting for another crank to unify behind. Maybe a candidate less cartoonish than Drumpf may be able to tap into that without being as obviously a fool to startle the more moderate voters and actually stand a chance of getting into power.

Well we all though that the republicans had hit bottom with sarah palin and the 2008 campaign.

Sand

InTheTrees wrote: »

Well we all though that the republicans had hit bottom with sarah palin and the 2008 campaign.

Palin is a Republican, as was McCain who was the lead on that ticket. Drumpf is not a Republican. As to what he is...well, what day of the week is it?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Fr Tod Umptious

Brian? wrote: »

I'll stop you there. There is nothing wrong with being intolerant. It's almost a virtue. I'm intolerant of violence, inequality, prejudice and bigotry. Among other things.

No one is claiming to be the bastion of tolerance here. I'm faulty intolerant of Trump and his supporters and see nothing wrong with it. It's bigotry and hatred these protestors were protesting, not intolerance.

But what are the people in the video, attacking opponents because they are opponents, nothing else, called ?

Surely there is a category for their motivation, hate, bigotry, intolerance, stupidity ?

The problem here is that people are being violently attacked because they support a certain candidate, and people wish to blame that certain candidate for the attacks rather than the attackers.

ShooterSF

Trump really confuses the **** out of me. Now he's offering his condolences for Mohammad Ali. A muslim. The people he wants banned from the U.S (which I never understood as no official documentation ever lists your religious beliefs)

Manic Moran

Sand wrote: »

Lets face it, the Republicans couldnt find a single candidate able to defeat a clown.

That's not really true. The problem that the Republicans have isn't that they don't have any particularly good candidates, but that they refuse to nominate them when they throw their hat into the ring. We're starting to see this on both sides: The Democratics are likely to put forward Hillary, even though she's almost as unpopular as Trump, and independents (You know, those really important folks in swing states) heavily favour Sanders. The winning candidate this year is likely to be "the one which motivates people to hate them the least."

It's bigotry and hatred these protestors were protesting, not intolerance.

The couple of hundred protestors, fine. The folks physically attacking the Trump supporters, that's not protesting, and that's a lack of respect for the ideals of freedom for all which they are purporting to support. They may not like it, but folks have a right to be bigots and hateful. Their rights to -act- on those feelings are limited by law, but having them and speaking on them are very firmly protected.

And yes, it's counter-productive, in at least two ways. Firstly, it can be viewed as a symptom of the purported lack of enforcement of law and order, the need for increases in policing which Trump advocates, and secondly, that there were Mexican flags present reinforces the narrative about immigration. There is precedent, when Prop 187 was being proposed back in the '90s, a lot of Mexican flags started showing up at the rallies which created a 'recoil effect'. Similarly, in 2006, hispanic radio stations felt it necessary to tell their listeners that they needed to leave the Mexican flags at home and fly American ones as the Mexican ones were hurting their case.

What's worrying, though, is that this is still primary season. When the campaign goes on to full on Presidential, how much worse is it going to get?

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

What's worrying, though, is that this is still primary season. When the campaign goes on to full on Presidential, how much worse is it going to get?

Who knows? The Trump protests in Anaheim and Costa Mesa in relatively safe Republican dominated Orange County got pretty bad, and I would assume that there certainly is potential for it to get very ugly leading up to 8 November 2016 at Trump rallies in less safe cities and counties across the States. Remember the Trump rally in Chicago was cancelled?

Sure, Trump supporters can claim freedom of speech, as will the protesters, so it's a standoff with one side pointing fingers at the other (while claiming complete innocence depending upon the side you favour). Whether hate speech is legal or not in the States is besides the point, given the frequent instances where hate speech results in violence in America (e.g., road rage, gang fights, etc.). I mean let's get real. If you've had a few beers and get face-to-face yelling nasty things to another person, while that person yells nasty things back, where do you think that will lead? Democracy? What a craic!

Jawfin

ShooterSF wrote: »

Trump really confuses the **** out of me. Now he's offering his condolences for Mohammad Ali. A muslim. The people he wants banned from the U.S (which I never understood as no official documentation ever lists your religious beliefs)

It gives him an opportunity to cry 'I don't hate Muslims' as appropriate.

Sand

Manic Moran wrote: »

That's not really true. The problem that the Republicans have isn't that they don't have any particularly good candidates, but that they refuse to nominate them when they throw their hat into the ring.

I meant a single candidate that could defeat a clown in their primary. Good alternatives or not, the Republican primary process went for the least qualified and least capable candidate because he was angry and offered simple solutions for complex problems. They could have picked any other candidate and had a better chance of defeating a very unpopular Democratic candidate. That's a bad result for a process that's supposed to produce a viable candidate around which the party can unify.

The Republicans need to seriously consider their primary process, because that 'mad as hell' constituency is not going to vanish after Drumpf is defeated. Next time out Republicans are going to have more good candidates that will likely not be angry or extreme enough to make it through the primary. Its not good for the Republican brand as a party of government if their primaries descend into freak shows.

The Democrats also need to look at their process, though its not as urgent. Sanders similarly has no chance of winning the wider election but he still gains enough support to force a damaging and costly primary campaign for the party. And Sanders only joined the party late last year so he is probably unconcerned on that point.

Christy42

Sand wrote: »

I meant a single candidate that could defeat a clown in their primary. Good alternatives or not, the Republican primary process went for the least qualified and least capable candidate because he was angry and offered simple solutions for complex problems. They could have picked any other candidate and had a better chance of defeating a very unpopular Democratic candidate. That's a bad result for a process that's supposed to produce a viable candidate around which the party can unify.

The Republicans need to seriously consider their primary process, because that 'mad as hell' constituency is not going to vanish after Drumpf is defeated. Next time out Republicans are going to have more good candidates that will likely not be angry or extreme enough to make it through the primary. Its not good for the Republican brand as a party of government if their primaries descend into freak shows.

The Democrats also need to look at their process, though its not as urgent. Sanders similarly has no chance of winning the wider election but he still gains enough support to force a damaging and costly primary campaign for the party. And Sanders only joined the party late last year so he is probably unconcerned on that point.

A lot of it is less the process and more the election tactics they have used. They have had candidates play on the same fears the Trump is to get voters out. The difference is that they used to be party insiders playing lip service but they still encouraged these views that are being used against them now.

Sand

Christy42 wrote: »

A lot of it is less the process and more the election tactics they have used. They have had candidates play on the same fears the Trump is to get voters out. The difference is that they used to be party insiders playing lip service but they still encouraged these views that are being used against them now.

Agreed, the Republicans have encouraged and endorsed the concept that some sort of existential threat is posed by Barack Obama in particular, and the Democrats in general. Its no surprise that when the lunatic fringe is validated by moderate Republican patronage, that Republicans may increasingly turn to the lunatic fringe for solutions. Moderate solutions cant work if the threat is so terrible and dire afterall. The Republicans have handed over leadership of their party to the lunatics, and its going to take a huge effort to take it back as they will be painted as traitors by the likes of Drumpf with no sense of irony.

The Democrats have done likewise (Bush for example was not the lord of the end times...), but their supporters are not as insecure in the first place. Its not unusual in politics for there to be a extreme/lunatic/disproven views expressed with almost religious fervour (look at the leave campaign in the Brexit debate, or the Corbyn leadership campaign), but it is unusual for it to be validated and endorsed in the way it has been by the Republicans.

Fr Tod Umptious

Jawfin wrote: »

It gives him an opportunity to cry 'I don't hate Muslims' as appropriate.

It's a bit more complex than that.

Ali was very radical in some of his ideas about race and society back in the day but over time he became less so and people seemed to "warm" to him a bit more, and he ended up meeting everyone from the Pope to Mandela to the chairman of Clare County Council.

So there is no surprise in what Trump said about him.