2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

alastair

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Like every election promise in the world the devil is in the detail, but Trump has gone at least further than the Obama administration by using the term "radical Islam" on the first place

Colour me unimpressed. 'Radical Islam' is a meaningless term.

20Cent

trumps transition website apologies if posted already.
More detail on his policies, some interesting stuff.

https://www.greatagain.gov/

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

Colour me unimpressed. 'Radical Islam' is a meaningless term.

Do you deny that extreme forms of Islam do not exist and manifest themselves in the Muslim world? They do. You, me and half the world know this yet the bleeding liberals are completely clueless on this. By the way being anti Radical Islam is not the same as hating all Muslims everywhere.

alastair

Sofa Spud wrote: »

Yeah, I agree Alastair, I don't think there's any merit to his platform either, how could I with all of the insane rhetoric and racism?

The point is that the media have alienated his followers to such a degree that they are now impervious to any reasoned argument and are ripe for Trump. Listening to their fears and frustrations about how immigration and globalisation have impacted their lives does not mean we are turning our back on liberal ideals or condoning the nonsense.

But by completely ignoring them means they, in turn, completely ignore liberal view points and there's a stalemate. Their bubble is bad, our bubble is bad, we just don't condone discrimination, which is a big plus. But if we don't prick our bubble, how we can expect them to listen to us? To reason with us? Bottom line, I want a media where all view points are heard, in my own bubble belief that if they are open to discussion, they'll see that most of what Trump comes out with is certifiable...

Two comments.
1. I don't actually agree that there's much ignoring of the disenfranchised going on. I doubt Hillary was kept in the dark about rust belt concerns. She just wasn't prepared to offer magic 'solutions' to real problems. Same story on the Remain campaign in sink estates (or Cornwall!?).
2. It's a bit patronising (that other fine quality ascribed to liberals) to assume that the only/prime reason punters reject liberal platforms is because they haven't been exposed to them enough. Sometimes people are just contrary, stubborn, or, yes, dumb, and no amount of dialogue will shift them.

marienbad

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Do you deny that extreme forms of Islam do not exist and manifest themselves in the Muslim world? They do. You, me and half the world know this yet the bleeding liberals are completely clueless on this. By the way being anti Radical Islam is not the same as hating all Muslims everywhere.

It is just another pejorative term like 'militant atheist ' signifying nothing . A bit like 'bleeding liberals '

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Do you deny that extreme forms of Islam do not exist and manifest themselves in the Muslim world? They do. You, me and half the world know this yet the bleeding liberals are completely clueless on this. By the way being anti Radical Islam is not the same as hating all Muslims everywhere.

The strawman argument is strong here.

'Radical' is an entirely subjective term, and therefore has no place in any reasoned debate.

CMOTDibbler

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Do you deny that extreme forms of Islam do not exist and manifest themselves in the Muslim world? They do. You, me and half the world know this yet the bleeding liberals are completely clueless on this. By the way being anti Radical Islam is not the same as hating all Muslims everywhere.

By using the word Islam, you are giving the terrorists legitimacy. They no more represent Islam than the KKK represent Christians.

20Cent

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Do you deny that extreme forms of Islam do not exist and manifest themselves in the Muslim world? They do. You, me and half the world know this yet the bleeding liberals are completely clueless on this. By the way being anti Radical Islam is not the same as hating all Muslims everywhere.

It is important to distinguish between radical/militant Muslims and the vast majority of peaceful Muslims. Responsible people with power have avoided the term in order to avoid conflating the two words. Obama and George Bush did this. The reason being that the vast majority of Muslims who are totally innocent and overwhelming the victims of terrorism would see it as linking the two together. It also gives a false legitimacy to the radicals.
Using the term does not help at all,it is in fact counterproductive. The aim of the terrorists is to radicalise all of Islam, they want to turn a fight between a tiny minority into a fight against all Muslims.

trump is helping them achieve this aim.

RobertKK

oscarBravo wrote: »

Wow, you're just a GOP-talking-point parroting machine, aren't you?

Can you point to the scientific consensus that backs up that position?

It is scientific fact the sun has a major effect on the climate of the Earth.

http://www.space.com/19280-solar-activity-earth-climate.html

The pollutants humans put out affect some of the climate but there are other factors in climate. Humans need to work to reduce pollution.
Back in 2010 when we had the record breaking cold December, Met Eireann said the lack of sun spots is linked to a negative Arctic oscillation which causes blocking highs to form which keeps the Atlantic at bay.
Currently sun spot activity is weakening and weather models are projecting a colder than average winter for western Europe due to blocking highs sending us winds from the Arctic.
El Nino's are associated with higher than average rainfall in places like Peru and milder winters in Europe, it also reduces the number of Atlantic hurricanes.
El Nina is associated with higher than average rainfall in places like Australia.
http://www.environmentalscience.org/el-nino-la-nina-impact-environment

Most weather events we see st this stage are the results of natural effects rather than man made climate change.
Some man made climate sceptics and some man made climate change people overstate their positions, which does no one any good.
A total denial is wrong, but blaming a specific weather event on man made climate change is also wrong.
The main thing people should work towards is technologies that reduce pollution of the environment.
Like smoking, polluting the air is not good for anything.

RobertKK

B0jangles wrote: »

Are you saying it is as valid to protest in favour of racism as it is to protest against it?

I mentioned rioting and that is not acceptable whatever one supports.

CMOTDibbler

RobertKK wrote: »

It is scientific fact the sun has a major effect on the climate of the Earth.

http://www.space.com/19280-solar-activity-earth-climate.html

The pollutants humans put out affect some of the climate but there are other factors in climate. Humans need to work to reduce pollution.
Back in 2010 when we had the record breaking cold December, Met Eireann said the lack of sun spots is linked to a negative Arctic oscillation which causes blocking highs to form which keeps the Atlantic at bay.
Currently sun spot activity is weakening and weather models are projecting a colder than average winter for western Europe due to blocking highs sending us winds from the Arctic.
El Nino's are associated with higher than average rainfall in places like Peru and milder winters in Europe, it also reduces the number of Atlantic hurricanes.
El Nina is associated with higher than average rainfall in places like Australia.
http://www.environmentalscience.org/el-nino-la-nina-impact-environment

Most weather events we see st this stage are the results of natural effects rather than man made climate change.
Some man made climate sceptics and some man made climate change people overstate their positions, which does no one any good.
A total denial is wrong, but blaming a specific weather event on man made climate change is also wrong.
The main thing people should work towards is technologies that reduce pollution of the environment.
Like smoking, polluting the air is not good for anything.

There's a big difference between meteorological outliers and gradual climate change.

You need to be able to tell the difference.

But happily there's plenty of literature out there to help you. If that's too much effort, there are videos.

oscarBravo

RobertKK wrote: »

It is scientific fact the sun has a major effect on the climate of the Earth.

Well, that's just fascinating, but it's nothing more than a deflection from the actual question, which is the effect of human activity on climate change.

The pollutants humans put out affect some of the climate but there are other factors in climate.

There are other factors in lung cancer, but that doesn't make smoking a good idea.

Back in 2010 when we had the record breaking cold December, Met Eireann said the lack of sun spots is linked to a negative Arctic oscillation which causes blocking highs to form which keeps the Atlantic at bay.
Currently sun spot activity is weakening and weather models are projecting a colder than average winter for western Europe due to blocking highs sending us winds from the Arctic.
El Nino's are associated with higher than average rainfall in places like Peru and milder winters in Europe, it also reduces the number of Atlantic hurricanes.
El Nina is associated with higher than average rainfall in places like Australia.
http://www.environmentalscience.org/el-nino-la-nina-impact-environment

Most weather events we see st this stage are the results of natural effects rather than man made climate change.
Some man made climate sceptics and some man made climate change people overstate their positions, which does no one any good.
A total denial is wrong, but blaming a specific weather event on man made climate change is also wrong.

Nice pivot from a discussion on climate to one on weather, which is not what we're discussing.

I'll ask again: can you link to the scientific consensus that the sun is affecting the global climate more than human activity is?

RobertKK

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

There's a big difference between meteorological outliers and gradual climate change.

You need to be able to tell the difference.

But happily there's plenty of literature out there to help you. If that's too much effort, there are videos.

I am not denying man made climate change.

The people who do the most damage to the argument are people who blame specific weather events on man made climate change.

I saw people blame man made climate change for the record breaking cold of December 2010. When it was a combination of no sun spots and a La Nina doing what they have always done as in the famous snow and cold events of 1917, 1947, 1963, 2009 and 2010.
The scientific evidence is there but some who refuse to look at the science simply said the cold of December 2010 was evidence of man made climate change.

You might see me as an ignoramus, I don't know, but there are plenty of ignoramuses on all sides of this, whether denying putting so much pollution into the atmosphere has no effect, or blaming single weather events as evidence of climate change, or not understanding natural climate change events.

Fr Tod Umptious

alastair wrote: »

Colour me unimpressed. 'Radical Islam' is a meaningless term.

This response just typifies how the liberal wing got it so wrong this week.

The inability to use certain language to describe something and the castigating of other who do use that language just baffels me.

I'll help you out however, tell me what term you would use to describe the people who shot up Paris this night last year, or who bombed the Brussels airport, and I'll yell you that Trump has promised to keep America safe from them.

I'll not use radical Islam again, but you have to come up with an alternative term to describe them, while maintaining the realty that these people believe that they are doing this in the name of Islam.

KingBrian2

20Cent wrote: »

It is important to distinguish between radical/militant Muslims and the vast majority of peaceful Muslims. Responsible people with power have avoided the term in order to avoid conflating the two words. Obama and George Bush did this. The reason being that the vast majority of Muslims who are totally innocent and overwhelming the victims of terrorism would see it as linking the two together. It also gives a false legitimacy to the radicals.
Using the term does not help at all,it is in fact counterproductive. The aim of the terrorists is to radicalise all of Islam, they want to turn a fight between a tiny minority into a fight against all Muslims.

trump is helping them achieve this aim.

Oh I very much agree we have to get a lot better at distinguishing between radical Muslims and the secularists who are being murdered by the followers of this sick warped ideology. Lets get this straight the literature that comes out of the Madrassas of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan is causing the anti-Semitism in Arab lands and in Europe and America. People like you saying the Wahhabi Islamist fanaticism does not exist is just plain silly. Islam is full of sectarianism and the secularist are being totally ignored.

RobertKK

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, that's just fascinating, but it's nothing more than a deflection from the actual question, which is the effect of human activity on climate change. There are other factors in lung cancer, but that doesn't make smoking a good idea.

Nice pivot from a discussion on climate to one on weather, which is not what we're discussing.

I'll ask again: can you link to the scientific consensus that the sun is affecting the global climate more than human activity is?

The sun is the main heater of the planet which in turn affects the climate. Humans are causing effects which are above what the sun does.
Put it this way, which has a bigger effect on the climate of Earth- the sun dies and becomes a white dwarf, or if humans go the way of the dinosaurs?

Are you going to say humans have a bigger effect than the sun?

aloyisious

There's infighting in the Trump camp about who's going to get what job. Chris Christie demoted to deputy of transition team, Mike Pence takes over as head of team. Rudy might be given Sec of State job. Don favours Mike Bannon as his Chief of Staff in W/House.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjzy8nRzaHQAhWjJcAKHctmB9kQqQIIHzAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Fdonald-trump-shuffles-transition-team-making-mike-pence-chairman-1478890592&usg=AFQjCNFr0duGiGEwqZUEIlgpUGxIBkjRbA

20Cent

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Oh I very much agree we have to get a lot better at distinguishing between radical Muslims and the secularists who are being murdered by the followers of this sick warped ideology. Lets get this straight the literature that comes out of the Madrassas of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan is causing the anti-Semitism in Arab lands and in Europe and America. People like you saying the Wahhabi Islamist fanaticism does not exist is just plain silly. Islam is full of sectarianism and the secularist are being totally ignored.

Where did I say Wahhabi Islamist fanaticism doesn't exist?

George W Bush didn't use the term either because its divisive and counterproductive to conflate the two words. Nothing to do with denying anything. Even the CIA and terrorism experts avoid using it. Imagine the IRA were called "radical catholicism" all the time.

Hank Scorpio

Gowdy for AG maybe?

KingBrian2

20Cent wrote: »

Where did I say Wahhabi Islamist fanaticism doesn't exist?

George W Bush didn't use the term either because its divisive and counterproductive to conflate the two words. Nothing to do with denying anything. Even the CIA and terrorism experts avoid using it. Imagine the IRA were called "radical catholicism" all the time.

I would consider Guy Fawkes a Radical catholic just like I consider Osama Bin Laden a radical Muslim who planned the 9/11 attacks and the ISIS militants slaughtering and maiming Syrian and Iraqi civilians.

20Cent

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I would consider Guy Fawkes a Radical catholic just like I consider Osama Bin Laden a radical Muslim who planned the 9/11 attacks and the ISIS militants slaughtering and maiming Syrian and Iraqi civilians.

Grand so what?

How do you think the benefit to calling it radical Islam is?

oscarBravo

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I would consider Guy Fawkes a Radical catholic...

And yet, he's almost never referred to as such. It's almost as if his religion is objectively less important than the fact that he decided that mass murder was a useful way of achieving his political goals.

KingBrian2

20Cent wrote: »

Grand so what?

How do you think the benefit to calling it radical Islam is?

The most appropriate term to call them is Jihadists committed to suicide bombings & beheadings against non practicing Muslims. You see it in Gaza and Mosul. They are terrorists they hate our values and distort their own religion. For centuries beautiful heritage sites were untouched by Islamic leaders. Sunni, Shia and non religious lived side by side before we see this rise of Jihadism and sectarianism. Clearly these people are terrorists engaging in mass murder.

20Cent

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The most appropriate term to call them is Jihadists committed to suicide bombings & beheadings against non practicing Muslims. You see it in Gaza and Mosul. They are terrorists they hate our values and distort their own religion. For centuries beautiful heritage sites were untouched by Islamic leaders. Sunni, Shia and non religious lived side by side before we see this rise of Jihadism and sectarianism. Clearly these people are terrorists engaging in mass murder.

Bit long isn't it? "Jihadists committed to suicide bombings & beheadings against non practicing Muslims"

Most of the people they kill are other Muslims so why the "non practicing muslims" bit?


Why not call them terrorists or by whatever group they belong to?

KingBrian2

20Cent wrote: »

Bit long isn't it? "Jihadists committed to suicide bombings & beheadings against non practicing Muslims"

Most of the people they kill are other Muslims so why the "non practicing muslims" bit?


Why not call them terrorists or by whatever group they belong to?

No call them Jihadists the committed to suicide bombings and beheadings is the addendum.

Fr Tod Umptious

oscarBravo wrote: »

And yet, he's almost never referred to as such. It's almost as if his religion is objectively less important than the fact that he decided that mass murder was a useful way of achieving his political goals.

Really ?
I have always considered the main theme of the gunpowder plot was that the plotters were Catholics and they were doing it because they were Catholics.

But its historical obviously so its just ones interpretation of what they know about it.

alastair

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

This response just typifies how the liberal wing got it so wrong this week.

The inability to use certain language to describe something and the castigating of other who do use that language just baffels me.

I'll help you out however, tell me what term you would use to describe the people who shot up Paris this night last year, or who bombed the Brussels airport, and I'll yell you that Trump has promised to keep America safe from them.

I'll not use radical Islam again, but you have to come up with an alternative term to describe them, while maintaining the realty that these people believe that they are doing this in the name of Islam.

How about terrorists? Works well, and has at least the benefit of identifying an actual problem. It really doesn't matter what the rational for the act is, the problem is the act itself.

Fr Tod Umptious

alastair wrote: »

How about terrorists? Works well, and has at least the benefit of identifying an actual problem. It really doesn't matter what the rational for the act is, the problem is the act itself.

Great
Trump is going to be tough on terrorists, so is that something positive from his platform ?

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Oh I very much agree we have to get a lot better at distinguishing between radical Muslims and the secularists who are being murdered by the followers of this sick warped ideology. Lets get this straight the literature that comes out of the Madrassas of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan is causing the anti-Semitism in Arab lands and in Europe and America. People like you saying the Wahhabi Islamist fanaticism does not exist is just plain silly. Islam is full of sectarianism and the secularist are being totally ignored.

Sorry to burst another bubble, but the world isn't divided between 'radical muslims' and 'secularists'. There's the usual range of belief within the faith, and plenty of devout followers who reject both secularism and Islamist violence. Just like any other faith tbh. Christianity is equally full of sectarianism, as a glance around this little island will confirm.

alastair

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Great
Trump is going to be tough on terrorists, so is that something positive from his platform ?

Again - depends what you mean by 'tough'. I'll stick my neck out and suggest torture and punishment murders of family members are probably the wrong shade of 'tough'. But then I doubt he's really thought much of his 'tough' talk through.

RobertKK

Grubhub shares fell near 6% after that email controversy.

CMOTDibbler

RobertKK wrote: »

Grubhub shares fell near 6% after that email controversy.

Buy some quick. Easiest 6% you'll ever make.

alastair

RobertKK wrote: »

Grubhub shares fell near 6% after that email controversy.

Wow! Just goes to show that kneejerk difficulties with written comprehension are not that limited! Validation for ignorance is to be found in the markets!

Stheno

aloyisious wrote: »

There's infighting in the Trump camp about who's going to get what job. Chris Christie demoted to deputy of transition team, Mike Pence takes over as head of team. Rudy might be given Sec of State job. Don favours Mike Bannon as his Chief of Staff in W/House.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjzy8nRzaHQAhWjJcAKHctmB9kQqQIIHzAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Fdonald-trump-shuffles-transition-team-making-mike-pence-chairman-1478890592&usg=AFQjCNFr0duGiGEwqZUEIlgpUGxIBkjRbA

How are his adult children both on the transition team and managing his businesses? When does the blind trust have to kick in?

CMOTDibbler

alastair wrote: »

Wow! Just goes to show that kneejerk difficulties with written comprehension are not that limited! Validation for ignorance is to be found in the markets!

Meh! Markets are as skittish as a newly broken colt. They see something fluttering in the wind and shy away.

Which is why I said it would be an easy 6%.

They'll forget about it after a good night's sleep and in the morning, wonder why a company like that is so undervalued.

alastair

Stheno wrote: »

How are his adult children both on the transition team and managing his businesses? When does the blind trust have to kick in?

Presumably it isn't an issue until post-transition. Though I see Ivanka's husband is being mooted as an appointee. I'm sure it'll all be up to the normal level of Trump enterprise legality and transparency.

RobertKK

President-elect Trump being such an unreasonable person has said he is ready to compromise on Obamacare after his talks with President Obama.

RobertKK

Trump says Hillary was lovely when she called to concede, she said 'congratulations and well done', he said she couldn't have been nicer and it was tougher for her than if he had lost and had to ring Hillary and it would have been very difficult for him.
He said he thanked her and told her she was a very strong competitor and very smart.
Bill rang and said it was one of the greatest campaigns he had ever seen.
He said he would consider ringing the Clintons for advice as they are a very talented family.

aloyisious

Stheno wrote: »

How are his adult children both on the transition team and managing his businesses? When does the blind trust have to kick in?

Probably not till it's a bit closer to the swearing-in day. Re the kids, it keeps them safe from talking and from haters. Paul (I think it was) made the statement years ago to the media about Fox News and Republicans being stupid. Think of it as on-the-job training in a new line of work.

20Cent

RobertKK wrote: »

Trump says Hillary was lovely when she called to concede, she said 'congratulations and well done', he said she couldn't have been nicer and it was tougher for her than if he had lost and had to ring Hillary and it would have been very difficult for him.
He said he thanked her and told her she was a very strong competitor and very smart.
Bill rang and said it was one of the greatest campaigns he had ever seen.
He said he would consider ringing the Clintons for advice as they are a very talented family.

A week ago he wanted to jail Hillary. Backtracking now.

RobertKK

20Cent wrote: »

A week ago he wanted to jail Hillary. Backtracking now.

Trump did to Hillary what he did to win the Republican primaries - attack, attack, attack his rivals then when no longer a threat he stops completely, look he had Ted Cruz speak at the convention...though that kinda backfired on Ted :pac:

Terrlock

He might be just being nice until he actually gets past the inaugurations.

I hear rumor that Trey Gowdy might be the new Attorney General.

Now that would be very interesting for Hillary Clinton.

aloyisious

RobertKK wrote: »

President-elect Trump being such an unreasonable person has said he is ready to compromise on Obamacare after his talks with President Obama.

It might be an indicator that the plan he had to replace Obama-care when he took over may not be fit for purpose. The health insurance industry itself might not like some-one moving in and shutting down the lucrative business they have under Obama-care with the ability to up customers charges, which was one of the reasons voters told the TV crews they were voting Trump.

Just in passing, is there much difference in the wording of the bills which were the basis of Obama-care and the other care plan of Obama's predecessor, and the schemes themselves? Would the earlier scheme have been hijacked as easily by the greedy industry companies? Is there any legislation whereby the companies can be pursued by Trump when he takes up office or will he be stymied by friends in congress?

oscarBravo

RobertKK wrote: »

President-elect Trump being such an unreasonable person has said he is ready to compromise on Obamacare after his talks with President Obama.

I'm curious: was he "telling it like it is" when he promised to completely repeal the ACA on his first day in office, or when he decided that he'd keep it after all?

For someone who tells it like it is, he seems awfully vague on what "it" is.

RobertKK

John Podesta is blaming Comey and the media for Hillary's loss.

CNN are blaming Hillary for setting up the private email server.

RobertKK

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm curious: was he "telling it like it is" when he promised to completely repeal the ACA on his first day in office, or when he decided that he'd keep it after all?

For someone who tells it like it is, he seems awfully vague on what "it" is.

He said after talking to Obama that he wants to keep the law that people with pre-existing conditions are not excluded from health insurance and that children can remain on their parents plans until age 26.

oscarBravo

RobertKK wrote: »

He said after talking to Obama that he wants to keep the law that people with pre-existing conditions are not excluded from health insurance and that children can remain on their parents plans until age 26.

That's nice. Want to have a stab at answering the question?

FISMA.

oscarBravo wrote: »

For someone who tells it like it is, he seems awfully vague on what "it" is.

Before anyone can say what "it" is, we first need to know what "is" is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

RobertKK

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Buy some quick. Easiest 6% you'll ever make.

alastair wrote: »

Wow! Just goes to show that kneejerk difficulties with written comprehension are not that limited! Validation for ignorance is to be found in the markets!

The CEO and CFO had sold $148 million worth of shares earlier this year so they seem to be telling shareholders to sell...

RobertKK

RobertKK wrote: »

He said after talking to Obama that he wants to keep the law that people with pre-existing conditions are not excluded from health insurance and that children can remain on their parents plans until age 26.

It was answered.

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's nice. Want to have a stab at answering the question?

You never answered this from earlier:

RobertKK wrote: »

The sun is the main heater of the planet which in turn affects the climate. Humans are causing effects which are above what the sun does.
Put it this way, which has a bigger effect on the climate of Earth- the sun dies and becomes a white dwarf, or if humans go the way of the dinosaurs?

Are you going to say humans have a bigger effect than the sun?