2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If you're trying to make the point that Fiorina is best known for fiction, on that at least we can agree. :pac:

My point is that if a politician lies through her teeth and claims that a women's health clinic is performing abortions in order to profit from the sale of foetal organs, and if a terrorist subsequently shoots up a branch of that women's health clinic while shouting "no more baby parts", it takes a special form of confirmation bias to conclude that no harm has been done by the constantly-repeated lies.

I'm not claiming that Fiorina is single-handedly responsible. I'm claiming that everyone who has contributed to the spread of those lies shares some small portion of the responsibility, and that those with the biggest platform have earned a bigger share.

If you disagree, fair enough. I'm sure when someone wearing a "Make America Great Again" cap shoots up a mosque, Trump will be completely blameless.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Inquitus

In first post "Trump No Muslims" poll, Trump moves into biggest ever lead.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/12/10/trump-moves-to-new-high-in-first-poll-carried-out-entirely-after-his-controversial-muslim-immigration-statement/

eire4

oscarBravo wrote: »

And in my view, efforts to distance Republican candidates' constant repetition of what they know to be lies about Planned Parenthood from the actions of terrorists who are motivated by those or similar lies are equally nonsensical.

I'm not saying that Dear was directly inspired by Fiorina's words, but she and others have not been afraid to make political hay from the bare-faced lies that have been spread about Planned Parenthood; if someone shoots up a women's health clinic while repeating those lies, then she can't be completely absolved of responsibility.

Agreed. I have said it a number of times one of the biggest dangers to Trumps openly racist and bigoted out pourings is that having people in leadership and prominent positions making such comments just opens the door for people to act on those kinds of disgusting views as if its ok now to act out. Of course the guy who murdered a number of people at the planned parenthood clinic was deranged. How could you not be to commit such a heinous crime but sadly that is just one end of a spectrum of disgusting behaviour you see getting the green light when leaders and prominent profile people speak as Trump has been.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You're missing a rather fundamental point.

Christopher Nolan didn't suggest that movie-goers are bad people. J D Salinger didn't suggest that former Beatles should be targeted.

Carly Fiorina used inflammatory rhetoric - which she knew to be lies - about Planned Parenthood. Donald Trump is busy suggesting that the treatment of Jews in 1930s Germany or Japanese Americans during WWII are valid templates for the treatment of Muslims today.

What you are apparently suggesting here is radical restrictions on free speech, in case political stances just happen to inspire some mentally unstable person to carry out some act of violence.

I don't recall suggesting any restrictions at all. I pointed out that people in a position to influence others are saying inflammatory and hateful things, and that - contrary to what you appear to believe - preaching hatred can't be divorced from hatred-induced violence.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No; he just suggested that they were unwelcome in America.

So what? She's hardly the first person to use inflammatory rhetoric about Planned Parenthood, or about abortion. There's lots of inflammatory anti-abortion rhetoric in Ireland, too, from what I recall. It's a heated issue that people tend to become passionate about, on both sides of the debate. But heated debate, or inflammatory or emotive rhetoric, in no way excuses shooting people.

I'm lost. When did I suggest that anything excused shooting people?

You're the one arguing that inflammatory rhetoric is OK, and that there's no connection between the fact that Republicans keep spreading lies about Planned Parenthood and the fact that Planned Parenthood as an organisation is subject to an incessant barrage of terrorist attacks, albeit not all as sensational as Dear's recent rampage.

I've never claimed that Fiorina is single-handedly responsible for terrorism against women's health clinics. She's just one of a cohort of politicians who don't give a damn that their intemperate rhetoric against specific organisations and individuals is at least partially responsible for the ongoing campaign of terrorism against those organisations and individuals.

Similarly, Trump may not be calling for the shooting of Muslims. But by constantly sending the message that they are a threat to America, it takes a very special level of disingenuity to argue that his rhetoric is in no way influencing the rising tide of Islamophobia that's gripping the nation.

If you're not suggesting restrictions, are you saying that people should be free to continue saying inflammatory and hateful things?

I'm saying they should be called out for it.

Ideally I'd like to see them lose votes over it, but that's democracy for you.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ancapailldorcha

MPFGLB wrote: »

Harrison Ford on Trump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdZuNHODBHk&feature=youtu.be

Please try to make a more substantial contribution than merely posting a link. Thanks.

eire4

oscarBravo wrote: »

No; he just suggested that they were unwelcome in America. I'm lost. When did I suggest that anything excused shooting people?

You're the one arguing that inflammatory rhetoric is OK, and that there's no connection between the fact that Republicans keep spreading lies about Planned Parenthood and the fact that Planned Parenthood as an organisation is subject to an incessant barrage of terrorist attacks, albeit not all as sensational as Dear's recent rampage.

I've never claimed that Fiorina is single-handedly responsible for terrorism against women's health clinics. She's just one of a cohort of politicians who don't give a damn that their intemperate rhetoric against specific organisations and individuals is at least partially responsible for the ongoing campaign of terrorism against those organisations and individuals.

Similarly, Trump may not be calling for the shooting of Muslims. But by constantly sending the message that they are a threat to America, it takes a very special level of disingenuity to argue that his rhetoric is in no way influencing the rising tide of Islamophobia that's gripping the nation. I'm saying they should be called out for it.

Ideally I'd like to see them lose votes over it, but that's democracy for you.

Again I would agree with you there. It is very dangerous when people in leadership or prominent positions spew forth the kind of racist and bigoted hate speech that we have seen from the likes of Trump and Fiorna and sadly many others. It is like giving a green light for others to act. On the one hand you have the average racist or bigot who now feels more emboldened to verbally abuse those he hates all the way to the other extreme end of the spectrum which we saw with the recent planned parenthood murders.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

At the risk of repeating myself, I haven't suggested that there should be any restriction on free speech. I pointed out that inflammatory rhetoric doesn't exist in isolation; that people who are inclined to commit acts of violence are being validated in their extremism by people who are apparently content to fan the flames and then hide behind the excuse that they didn't intend that their hate speech be interpreted as a call to violent action.

Like it or not, the United States has a large evangelical Christian population that is ardently pro-life, and a liberal population that is just as ardently pro-choice. These positions haven't exactly coexisted harmoniously in the wake of Roe v. Wade, but it is in my view short-sighted and incorrect to identify the pro-life movement solely with the Republican Party. There is an overlap, obviously, but no absolute identification -- there are Republicans with pro-choice views, and Democrats with pro-life views.

I'm trying to think of a Republican presidential candidate who's supportive of Planned Parenthood, or of a Democratic candidate who's not.

...

...nope.

Now you appear to be suggesting that specific organizations and individuals should be above criticism, lest "intemperate rhetoric" directed at them spark violence.

I'm not. And you appear incapable of distinguishing criticism from incitement to hatred.

Radicalized Muslim terrorists are a real and obvious threat to America...

Gun violence is a real and obvious threat to America, but it's apparently off-limits for discussion.

If the candidates want to talk about radicalised Muslim terrorists, fine. Trump isn't talking about radicalised Muslim terrorists; he's talking about Muslims.

His remarks are diametrically at odds with the values on which the USA is founded. You do yourself a grave disservice by defending him in any way. He should be criticised by anyone who truly thinks of themselves as an American. Or, for that matter, as a decent person.

And they are being called out for it. Trump's comments have drawn global condemnation. What else do you want?

I want to be able to criticise him without having to justify my criticism to you or anyone else. I shouldn't have to justify my criticism of a fascist (and I use the word advisedly).

KenjiOdo

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Having 'strong views, ideals and opinions' is a totally pointless reason to vote for someone.

Hitler had strong opinions, Stalin had strong opinions, even ISIS have strong opinions for god's sake.

I don't agree with you, having strong views, if I agreed with 50%+ them would get my vote. You've again picked dictators and terrorists to support your cause, neglecting my retort of goodwilled people who had strong views & ideals.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Vote/support someone you agree with, not someone who shouts the loudest, though it seems you've already made that mistake.

This kinda contradicts what you've stated/your point. How can you agree with someone if they have no views/ideals/opinions?

So should we pick people who have no view & ideals of there own? Who just go with popular opinion of the week?

A superpower needs a man of stature at the helm. Not another Obama, who outside of US heard of him before he ran for presidency?

Black Swan

“At least I would certainly go after the [Muslim] wives who absolutely knew it was happening, and I guess your definition of what I’d do, I’m going to leave that to your imagination,” Trump said on CBS Face the Nation. What does Trump mean when he says "I'm going to leave that to your imagination" regarding what he would do when he goes "after the wives?"

What kind of message (and innuendos) does this send to the vast majority of peaceful Muslim US citizens, thousands of foreign Muslims residing in the US on student visas (UAE has over 1,000 by itself), or the billion plus Muslims living in other countries around the world? Trump is the obvious poll leader for the Republican nomination for president 2016, and has been for some time now. Because of his greatly leading poll numbers, way, way ahead of any other GOP contenders, he appears to be the de facto spokesperson of the Republican party, and one of two serious contenders for the 2016 presidency, consequently the domestic and foreign relations damage that he now does with his mouth are incalculable.

MightyMandarin

KenjiOdo wrote: »

I don't agree with you, having strong views, if I agreed with 50%+ them would get my vote. You've again picked dictators and terrorists to support your cause, neglecting my retort of goodwilled people who had strong views & ideals.

Exactly, so you want a candidate who has views you share. That's fine. My problem was saying you wanted a candidate with 'strong views, opinions' etc. because that means nothing; every candidate has strong views and opinions, you just mightn't agree with them.

This kinda contradicts what you've stated/your point. How can you agree with someone if they have no views/ideals/opinions?

So should we pick people who have no view & ideals of there own? Who just go with popular opinion of the week?

It doesn't contradict at all. I want candidates who have strong views, and luckily there are a lot of them in the field at the moment. People like Rand Paul for example, who I don't necessarily agree with on a plethora of issues but whom I respect because I think he's a truthful, honorable man, especially after his stand against the patriot act.

People like Trump and Cruz however, I don't respect. They prey on the poorest and least educated in society, make wild claims and blatant lies and sensationalise everything in order to get on the front page. They're the worst kind of politicians, aside from corrupt ones imo.

A superpower needs a man of stature at the helm. Not another Obama, who outside of US heard of him before he ran for presidency?

Honestly, who cares if nobody heard of Obama before he ran for president? I honestly didn't know of Merkel, Putin, Hollande, Xi Jinping or any other world leader (aside from Cameron) before they became leaders of their country, and the fact I didn't (and I tend to follow politics a fair bit) means nothing in terms of their stature.

Besides, Trump is not a man of stature. His notoriety comes from the fact that he hosted the apprentice, got a massive inheritance from his rich father and tends to piss off people wherever he goes. He also was on WWE a few years back where he bodyslammed Vince McMahon.

He's an entertainer and a clown and regardless of the the fact that he's a massive racist, liar, bully and just a general asshole, he's just not a man of stature who I'd be proud to represent my country.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Christy42

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Possibly a leader who requires that much interpretation would be a bad guy to have on your side in negotiations. He had a speech written down and diidn'T use the word radicalised. He meant what he said. Finally "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on" is not best described by temporary. I would go with indefinite as more accurate. Banning people of a certain belief system from entering is hate speech. Banning black people from a shop would be regarded as racist, the same logic applies here.

frostyjacks

Interesting point on Question Time tonight re. Trump's plan to protect America from Islamic terrorists. The questioner pointed out that the Charlie Hebdo magazine was publishing material that was incredibly offensive to Muslims, and they were being held up as heroes of free speech. Now Trump puts forward a well-intentioned plan to protect America in response to the very real threat of Muslim terrorists, and he's public enemy no.1? How many more innocent people need to die before we properly address the issue?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

...Mrs. Fiorina told Sean Hannity that the current debate over Planned Parenthood was about “butchering babies for body parts,” and said, “Planned Parenthood has not, will not, cannot deny that this is happening because it is.”

Planned Parenthood is a provider of women's health services. Its employees are subject to a reign of terror (I'm not exaggerating) at the best of times; lies such as the above are designed to fan the flames. And they do not need fanning.

According to a recent Gallup poll, 31 percent of Republicans identify as pro-choice. In fact, it was Nixon who authorized federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Prescott Bush, George W. Bush's grandfather, was treasurer for the first national campaign for Planned Parenthood, and Barry Goldwater's wife was a founding member of Planned Parenthood in Arizona. There's a long history of Republican Party support for Planned Parenthood -- not in recent years, obviously, but it's clear that many of the sweeping generalizations on this thread about Republicans and Planned Parenthood are grossly historically uninformed.

But not those about Republican candidates and Planned Parenthood.

Allegations of "hate speech" or "incitement to hatred" often translate to "shutting down criticism we don't like while still pretending to support free speech."

And sometimes they refer to hate speech or incitement to hatred.

Trump's comments were made in response to the December 2nd San Bernardino terrorist attack by Islamic extremists, in which 14 people died and 21 were injured. One of the attackers entered the U.S. on a K-1 (fiancée) visa in July 2014. I don't think it's possible to separate Trump's remarks from the clear context in which they were made, i.e., taking a stand against radicalised Muslim terrorists.

The context doesn't make the remarks OK. It's perfectly possible - and very acceptable - to condemn radical Islamic terrorists while not tarring all Muslims with the same brush.

Which values in particular are you referring to here?

Freedom of religion is one.

Trump stated that Muslims should be barred from entering the United States "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

Yes. He proposed that American citizens be prevented from entering their own country solely on the basis of the religion they practice.

Yes, he had a plausible pretext for wanting to shred the first amendment: he believes that terrorists should be allowed to dictate that American values are optional.

If you agree that people should be discriminated against on the basis of their religion, you have some nerve preaching to me about the first amendment.

I can certainly sympathize with the position that screening of visa applicants needs to be better... I don't endorse Trump's idea of a travel ban on all Muslims, however.

If his expressed position was that screening of visa applicants needs to be better, I wouldn't be calling him a fascist. His expressed position is that Muslims should be prevented from entering the country, and that it may be necessary to register American Muslims in a database.

I'm happy to criticize Trump's call for a temporary travel ban on Muslims as wrongheaded without jumping on the liberal hysteria bandwagon and calling him a "fascist."

There's something terribly facile about taking what Trump says, stepping back to the context of his remarks, pointing out what a sane person would have said in that context, and then arguing that it's unfair to criticise Trump for the things the sane person would have said.

Trump wants America to discriminate against all members of a religion. If that's not unAmerican, I don't know what is.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It means 46% of Americans are being terrorised by their political leaders into accepting unAmerican values. This is not something for the country to be proud of.

There was a time when a majority of Americans were OK with slavery. That didn't make it right: it only made it legal.

Christy42

frostyjacks wrote: »

Interesting point on Question Time tonight re. Trump's plan to protect America from Islamic terrorists. The questioner pointed out that the Charlie Hebdo magazine was publishing material that was incredibly offensive to Muslims, and they were being held up as heroes of free speech. Now Trump puts forward a well-intentioned plan to protect America in response to the very real threat of Muslim terrorists, and he's public enemy no.1? How many more innocent people need to die before we properly address the issue?

I think people might argue the well the well intentioned part. Or the effectiveness of it. Or that it will not make the entire issue far worse. I don't care about stuff being offensive but this is a man running for president. The plan could be carried out. I don't think anyone has argued for him to be legally restrained from saying those things so free speech isn't affected. However people are free to use his words to help form an opinion about the man.

Speaking of issues that are leading to the deaths of innocent people do you have a moment to talk about gun control? Surely the same logic applies.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

MightyMandarin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's just one poll. NBC and WSJ (owned by another right wing billionaire, Rupert Murdoch) ran a poll showing 57% of Americans opposed it, 25% agreed with it and 42% of Republicans agreed with it.

Shelga

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Is favouring fascist ideology the same as being a fascist? Then yes. It's fairly terrifying that the percentage is so high. I'd wager that it's the less intelligent half of the population too. Don't you find it worrying that nearly half of Americans are in favour of banning people from their country based solely on religion?

Yosef.coen

Interesting topic. When it comes to terrorism Israel knows first hand of the dangers of letting kind gloves get in the way.
Take for example the separation barrier that was started in 2002 as a reaction to continued Palestinian suicide bombings.
The vast majority of Israeli citizens approved the measure. 84% in a 2004 poll.

Likewise when Operation Protective Edge was in full flow in 2014 94% of Israeli's supported it and did not think it was excessive.

Terrorism hardens attitudes and if other incidents like the one in San Bernardino happen during the 2016 campaign then you will see growing support for harsher measures.

Trump is an interesting character but he is not stupid. Playing the media like a puppet master. I see him as a reaction though to the failure of the American political system as a whole. People look at the Clinton's, the Bush's, the Obama's of this world and know they are all bought and paid for by the same vested interests and lobbyists. Hillary Clinton would be the classic example of this. Does she ever tell the truth? Trump is a reaction to this, people have given up on the system and are treating it as a joke as the system with its slick media sound bites, lies, double talk treats the electorate as a joke.

Nodin

Yosef.coen wrote: »

Interesting(...............)excessive.

Terrorism hardens attitudes and if other incidents like the one in San Bernardino happen during the 2016 campaign then you will see growing support for harsher measures.

I'm sure that residents of Apartheid South Africa who supported the system thought much the same over the years. This, however, is in reference to America. Thankfully the American system is such that any move along the lines proposed by Trump would be extremely difficult to enact, if they are possible at all.

Yosef.coen wrote: »

Trump is an interesting character but he is not stupid. Playing the media like a puppet master. I see him as a reaction though to the failure of the American political system as a whole. People look at the Clinton's, the Bush's, the Obama's of this world and know they are all bought and paid for by the same vested interests and lobbyists. Hillary Clinton would be the classic example of this. Does she ever tell the truth? Trump is a reaction to this, people have given up on the system and are treating it as a joke as the system with its slick media sound bites, lies, double talk treats the electorate as a joke.

Fascinating. The notion that playing to the lowest common denominator was some indication of honesty is a new one to me. It smacks far more of calculated demagoguery than anything else.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

Yosef.coen wrote: »

Trump is a reaction to this, people have given up on the system and are treating it as a joke as the system with its slick media sound bites, lies, double talk treats the electorate as a joke.

If you are suggesting that Trump is different from the other Republican and Democrat candidates running for 2016 president in terms of using "sound bites, lies, double talk," he is worse. You may be sadly disillusioned if you read his 1987 book about deal making, wherein he advocates doing this with vigour, especially outrageous and controversial statements to draw the press in for free coverage. Trump reminds me of another infamous book author and public speaker from 1930s and 1940s Europe that not only told lies and used double talk, but frequently told the BIG LIE, singling out a particular religious minority in his nation back then, just like Trump is singling out Muslims today, fanning the flames of historic religious hatred to win office.

frostyjacks

Black Swan wrote: »

If you are suggesting that Trump is different from the other Republican and Democrat candidates running for 2016 president in terms of using "sound bites, lies, double talk," he is worse. You may be sadly disillusioned if you read his 1987 book about deal making, wherein he advocates doing this with vigour, especially outrageous and controversial statements to draw the press in for free coverage. Trump reminds me of another infamous book author and public speaker from 1930s and 1940s Europe that not only told lies and used double talk, but frequently told the BIG LIE, singling out a particular religious minority in his nation back then, just like Trump is singling out Muslims today, fanning the flames of historic religious hatred to win office.

Of course we have nothing to fear from them. Let's ignore the fact that twice as many Muslims in the UK are joining ISIS than the British Army. Let's ignore the organised gangs grooming underage girls for sex. Trump is the real bad guy in all of this.