And the great admission tour continues..

[*bfine32*]

(12-20-2016, 09:46 PM)Dill Wrote: Well it's been shown that both Trumpsters and Trump protestors were violent towards each other.  But it was never shown that anyone ever disputed that. 

It has not been established that Clinton's rhetoric incited more violence than Trump's. 

Have you considered that protestors sometimes turn to violence, not because of what their own leaders say, but because of stated beliefs of those they are protesting?  E.g., Klan rallies often turn violent, but not because Democrats or anyone else encourage violent protest of such rallies. Rather, groups who feel especially affronted by Klan beliefs often take it upon themselves to start throwing rocks and punches.  If you disagree, why do you think Klan rallies turn violent?

So if I am understanding you "new point"; it is that Clinton supporters were just more violent because of their beliefs. 

[Dill]

(12-20-2016, 08:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Unfortunately, you did make that claim.  When you discuss campaign violence and only reference incidents involving Trump supporters as the aggressors you make that very argument.  Not including the incidents of Clinton supporter violence, which more objectively much more severe in scope, is lying by omission.  I'm starting to get why you have a hard time connecting the similarities between HuffPo and Breitbart.

Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: [url=http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-And-the-great-admission-tour-continues?pid=322628#pid322628][/url]Sure, I'll give you that.  The GOP has a lock on the rhetoric of violence and the Dems have a lock on the actual physical violence.  Well played, sir.

I was talking about campaign rhetoric. You are the one who said one side had a lock on the actual physical violence. Why isn't that "lying by omission"?

It is not "lying by omission" when I offer counter examples to your claim.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-20-2016, 09:53 PM)Dill Wrote: I was talking about campaign rhetoric. You are the one who said one side had a lock on the actual physical violence. Why isn't that "lying by omission"?

It is not "lying by omission" when I offer counter examples to your claim.  

Right, Trump's rhetoric was more violent and Clinton's supporters were more physically violent.

[Dill]

(12-20-2016, 09:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So if I am understanding you "new point"; it is that Clinton supporters were just more violent because of their beliefs. 

Two quick points--Trump protestors doesn't always equal Clinton supporters, and you have not established the protestors were more violent.

I am saying that it is possible that Trumps views--calling Mexican immigrants "rapists" and vowing to deport millions of immigrants--could indeed spur people along the Southern border to violence. Though I do not condone that. If you are considering possible causes of the violence, I am saying that pro-immigrant and anti-racist views could motivate some violence, especially if they felt family members under threat.

[Dill]

(12-20-2016, 09:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Right, Trump's rhetoric was more violent and Clinton's supporters were more physically violent.

Did the Trump protestors have a "monopoly" on violence? Are you saying there is no equivalence here?

[SunsetBengal]

(12-20-2016, 09:46 PM)Dill Wrote: Well it's been shown that both Trumpsters and Trump protestors were violent towards each other.  But it was never shown that anyone ever disputed that. 

It has not been established that Clinton's rhetoric incited more violence than Trump's. 

Have you considered that protestors sometimes turn to violence, not because of what their own leaders say, but because of stated beliefs of those they are protesting?  E.g., Klan rallies often turn violent, but not because Democrats or anyone else encourage violent protest of such rallies. Rather, groups who feel especially affronted by Klan beliefs often take it upon themselves to start throwing rocks and punches.  If you disagree, why do you think Klan rallies turn violent?

Comparing the klan to the Republican party is a ploy, albeit a ploy that gains violence.  But still, just a ploy to leverage people..

[*Nately120*]

(12-20-2016, 09:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Right, Trump's rhetoric was more violent and Clinton's supporters were more physically violent.

So perhaps Clinton's supporters (or Trump detractors) are preemptively striking, knowing that Trump's followers advocate violence and oppression?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-20-2016, 07:00 PM)Dill Wrote: 1. I don't recall Bernie supporters yelling that. Perhaps they did. How did Bernie respond?

2. Mike, do you think Mexico is sending the US rapists? 3. Are you for the Muslim ban and building the wall? 4. Would you agree that it is pretty hard for a woman to be a 10 if she's flat chested? 5. Was Obama born in Kenya? 6. Are Muslims threatening to impose Sharia law on the US? 7. Is Obama himself a Muslim?

There is some evidence a large number of Trump supporters would answer "yes" to the above questions and the majority of Democrats would answer "no."  Or do you disagree? Perhaps you maintain there is no way we can tell?

8. Were endorsements for Clinton and Trump equally divided along the Storm Front? 9. Or did one candidate attract more white nationalists than the other? 

1. Uhm they did quite often. Often enough that Hillary flipped off a crowd of Bernie supporters.
Can't believe you missed it, they did it at the DNC in Philly.

No idea how he responded, but I'm sure he played it up until he conceded, then he ask people to chill. Then 2 new chants popped up. "Eff you Debbie" and "We trusted you".


2. Wait, why are you taking Trump's comment out of context? Read the full speech below.

"When do we beat Mexico at the border? They’re laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me. But they’re killing us economically.

The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems.

Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people.

It’s coming from more than Mexico. It’s coming from all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming probably— probably— from the Middle East. But we don’t know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don’t know what’s happening. And it’s got to stop and it’s got to stop fast."

Doesn't seem so racist when you don't omit most of it. What does common sense tell you?

3. Again, omitting the critical pieces of the conversation to get a "ban all Muslims"
You mean a temporary ban against Muslims coming from areas where we have no idea if they are who they say they are. We need a better system for vetting them. You know, like the same Ban Obama put in place 6 times, including people from Muslim Countries.

Trump is not doing anything different than the past 6 Presidents haven't done. Common Sense again.

4. A flat chest doesn't define the beauty of a woman.

5. Don't know, don't care.

6. Why do you think the Muslims in Irving were in an uproar about a law that prevents them from holding their own tribunal courts?

7. I don't care what his religious affiliations are.

When you put your misquotes in proper context, it's hard not to answer yes to most of those. In fact, Democrats did answer yes to some already.

8. Hell no. The money was on Hillary's side, along with MSM.

9. Labels again?  Labels have lost their true meaning because of so much over usage lately.
Trump had David Duke and Richard Spencer.
Hillary had Will Quigg and Robert Boyd.

I'd say it's about even.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-20-2016, 08:24 PM)Dill Wrote: You may have misunderstood the intent of my post. I was not about "deck stacking" of any sort or who had the most appeal. (In any case, Hillary clearly won more votes.) It was an indication of one group Clinton might be referring to when she mentioned "deplorables" among Trump supporters.

The number 300,000 is claimed by the website. No one knows whether that is more or less the number who use it.

LOL 300k is not enough to fill the deplorable basket as Hillary suggested. Keep digging.

[GMDino]

(12-21-2016, 08:47 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: 1. Uhm they did quite often. Often enough that Hillary flipped off a crowd of Bernie supporters.
Can't believe you missed it, they did it at the DNC in Philly.

No idea how he responded, but I'm sure he played it up until he conceded, then he ask people to chill. Then 2 new chants popped up. "Eff you Debbie" and "We trusted you".

I stopped at one.  Please provide a link because a search showed nothing except "allnewspipeline" which MUST be a good source with a name like that. Right?

After that I assumed the rest was drivel.....

[Dill]

(12-21-2016, 08:47 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Doesn't seem so racist when you don't omit most of it. What does common sense tell you?

3. Again, omitting the critical pieces of the conversation to get a "ban all Muslims"
You mean a temporary ban against Muslims coming from areas where we have no idea if they are who they say they are. We need a better system for vetting them. You know, like the same Ban Obama put in place 6 times, including people from Muslim Countries.

Trump is not doing anything different than the past 6 Presidents haven't done. Common Sense again.

"Common sense" tells me 1. Trump's speech was incredibly rambling and unfocused--very disturbing on that score alone, when you think it is the commander in chief blurting out his xenophobic world view. And 2. "They're rapists" is not less racist because he is rambling about other things as well. His goal is still to excite fear and disgust at foreign, brown people crossing the border.  Adding that immigrants "bring drugs" and some are "good people" is not adding "critical pieces" that change Trump's intent.

Trump originally called for a ban "on all Muslims."  After his advisors got to him, he walked it back a bit. Any sort of ban on this religious group is still an unconstitutional religious based ban. The point of naming Muslims as part of a mass ban is to appeal to ignorance and prejudice.  Obama has not put a "Muslim ban" in place six times.

The past 6 presidents have not called to ban the entry into the US of all members of an entire faith. Nor have they warned immigrants are "rapists."

NO PREVIOUS PRESIDENT HAS TALKED LIKE THIS SINCE ANDREW JACKSON.

[Dill]

(12-21-2016, 08:47 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: 1. Uhm they did quite often. Often enough that Hillary flipped off a crowd of Bernie supporters.
Can't believe you missed it, they did it at the DNC in Philly.

No idea how he responded, but I'm sure he played it up until he conceded, then he ask people to chill. Then 2 new chants popped up. "Eff you Debbie" and "We trusted you".

Can't believe you didn't provide a link for that.  Sounds like fake news.

[Dill]

(12-21-2016, 08:47 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: 4. A flat chest doesn't define the beauty of a woman.

5. Don't know, don't care.

6. Why do you think the Muslims in Irving were in an uproar about a law that prevents them from holding their own tribunal courts?

7. I don't care what his religious affiliations are.

When you put your misquotes in proper context, it's hard not to answer yes to most of those. In fact, Democrats did answer yes to some already.

8. Hell no. The money was on Hillary's side, along with MSM.

9. Labels again?  Labels have lost their true meaning because of so much over usage lately.
Trump had David Duke and Richard Spencer.
Hillary had Will Quigg and Robert Boyd.

I'd say it's about even.

Don't know who Robert Boyd is. Will Quigg was a stunt, claiming Hillary will do the exact opposite of what she says. That is no endorsement of her platform. Labels have hardly lost their true meaning here. White nationalists support Trump. They are attracted to his platform and his rhetoric. They do not support Hillary, either platform or rhetoric. How does this make it "about even"?

Trump revived the birther movement, didn't he? What does that say about his judgment? Either he is just not good at vetting such cases, or he is willing to advance conspiracy theories for political gain.

If you are not yourself alt right, then, it is not "common sense" to ignore all these warning signs.

[Rotobeast]

(12-22-2016, 07:43 AM)Dill Wrote: Don't know who Robert Boyd is.

Pretty sure he meant Byrd.

(12-22-2016, 07:43 AM)Dill Wrote: If you are not yourself alt right, then, it is not "common sense" to ignore all these warning signs.

He's far from alt-right.

[Dill]

(12-22-2016, 08:58 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: Pretty sure he meant Byrd.


He's far from alt-right.

I hope he is not, Roto.

If he meant Byrd, still no points. Byrd renounced the Klan and became a supporter of civil rights.

That doesn't equal a room full of White nationalists giving the nazi salute and shouting "Heil Trump."

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-22-2016, 12:12 AM)GMDino Wrote: I stopped at one.  Please provide a link because a search showed nothing except "allnewspipeline" which MUST be a good source with a name like that.  Right?

After that I assumed the rest was drivel.....

In the other thread, seems that the WSJ was bipartisan.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/07/24/bernie-sanders-supporters-chant-lock-her-up-in-philadelphia-protest-against-clinton/

As far as flipping off the Bernie supporters? You missed the point.

Bernie had been asking for her to resign prior to the emails being leaked. After the DNC email leaks involving DWS and her collusion for Bernie's Presidential bid, she resigned only to be hired by Clinton right away. That's a middle finger to me and lost her a lot of Bernie supporters in the process.

Yea, good idea to stop there. Taking Trump's words out of context is also your thing and I'm sure you don't want to address it.

[GMDino]

(12-22-2016, 02:55 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: In the other thread, seems that the WSJ was bipartisan.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/07/24/bernie-sanders-supporters-chant-lock-her-up-in-philadelphia-protest-against-clinton/

As far as flipping off the Bernie supporters? You missed the point.

Bernie had been asking for her to resign prior to the emails being leaked. After the DNC email leaks involving DWS and her collusion for Bernie's Presidential bid, she resigned only to be hired by Clinton right away. That's a middle finger to me and lost her a lot of Bernie supporters in the process.

Yea, good idea to stop there. Taking Trump's words out of context is also your thing and I'm sure you don't want to address it.

So you weren't being literal then.  That at least makes sense, but would fall under "editorializing" and "fake news" to some.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-22-2016, 07:30 AM)Dill Wrote: "Common sense" tells me 1. Trump's speech was incredibly rambling and unfocused--very disturbing on that score alone, when you think it is the commander in chief blurting out his xenophobic world view. And 2. "They're rapists" is not less racist because he is rambling about other things as well. His goal is still to excite fear and disgust at foreign, brown people crossing the border.  Adding that immigrants "bring drugs" and some are "good people" is not adding "critical pieces" that change Trump's intent.

Trump originally called for a ban "on all Muslims."  After his advisors got to him, he walked it back a bit. Any sort of ban on this religious group is still an unconstitutional religious based ban. The point of naming Muslims as part of a mass ban is to appeal to ignorance and prejudice.  Obama has not put a "Muslim ban" in place six times.

The past 6 presidents have not called to ban the entry into the US of all members of an entire faith. Nor have they warned immigrants are "rapists."

NO PREVIOUS PRESIDENT HAS TALKED LIKE THIS SINCE ANDREW JACKSON.

1. Trumps job is to protect Americans and it's interests first. Cartels come right over the border, bring drugs, women and children to be exploited. Doesn't mean that they are all Mexican's either. He said it clearly in his speech that they are also coming from South America and Latin America. His intent??? taking pieces away clearly changes his intent. WTF is wrong with you? He clearly said not all people coming over are bad. You can't attempt to change what he said by trying to omit pieces to fit your agenda.

Hmm so blocking certain countries that are predominately Muslim is not a form of "Muslim" banning? Weird argument you want to run with.

is it Unconstitutional? I don't recall immigrants getting the same rights as Citizens get?
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trump-muslim-ban-probably-legal

Easy way around most of it,
ban all immigrants from countries we are at war with (Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia & Yemen)
ban all immigrants from countries where their is state sponsored terrorism (Iran, Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, South Yemen, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia)
ban all immigrants from Arabic speaking countries (covers a lot of them, including Israel).

So as you can see, there is ways around it with out actually making it about Religion :)


Now for your comments about the past 6 Presidents,
ps please note that what Carter did is very similar to what Trump wants to do:

Donald Trump has received much flak from Democrats and Republicans alike for his proposal to ban Muslims from entering the U.S through executive authority. However, the past six presidents have all used the executive power to bar different classes of immigrants.


Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

President Barack Obama has used the authority this statute provides six times in his tenure. In July 2011, Obama barred the entry of “anyone under a UN travel ban; anyone who violates any of 29 executive orders regarding transactions with terrorists, those who undermine the democratic process in specific countries, or transnational criminal organizations.”


In April of 2012, he barred the entry of anyone “facilitating computer or network disruption that could assist in or enable serious human rights abuses by or on behalf of the government of Iran and Syria; anyone who have sold or provided goods, services, or technology to Iran or Syria likely to be used for such purposes; or to have materially assisted anyone whose property or interests are described.”

Former President George W.Bush used this authority six times as well during his tenure, typically on government officials. In January 2004, he signed an order “barring entry for public officials who solicit or accept bribes in exchange for any act or omission in their public duties that has serious adverse effects on the national interests of the U.S.; anyone who provides or offers to provide such a bribe; any current or former public official whose misappropriation of public funds or interference with public processes has had serious adverse effects on the national interests of the U.S.; or the immediate families.”


The groups Bush barred for entry included members of the Mugabe government in Zimbabwe and the Lukashenka government in Belarus.

The authority of the president to bar certain classes of aliens was used six times by former President Bill Clinton. For example, in May of 1994 Clinton signed an order “barring entry for members of the Haitian military, their immediate families, any major participants in the coup d’état of 1991.”

Then in January of 1998, Clinton signed an order “barring entry for members of the military junta in Sierra Leone, and their families.”

Former President George H.W Bush only used this executive authority once in his four years of office. When he did use it, it was actually to undo a previous executive order by President Ronald Reagan that suspended entry of officers and employees of the Nicaraguan government.

Former President Ronald Reagan used this executive authority five times while in office. In September of 1981, he barred the entry of “any undocumented aliens arriving at the borders of the United States from the high seas.” In August of 1986, Reagan signed an order “barring entry for any Cuban nationals or immigrants except in certain cases.” These “certain cases” included Cuban nationals who had applied for entry into the U.S as immediate family members and those who under law were “special immigrants.”

Former President Jimmy Carter used this executive order only once and in a way quite similar to what Trump has proposed. In April 1980, as the U.S embassy in Tehran was under terrorist control, Carter signed an order invalidating “all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States.” The order said that the U.S “will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires.”

Law Professor Jan Ting of Temple University told The Daily Caller that “absolutely and without any doubt” does existing law allow Trump to restrict immigration of certain nationalities or religious groups.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/16/the-past-six-presidents-have-all-used-executive-power-to-block-certain-classes-of-immigrants/#ixzz4TawNiqNu

[Dill]

(12-22-2016, 05:34 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: 1. Trumps job is to protect Americans and it's interests first. Cartels come right over the border, bring drugs, women and children to be exploited. Doesn't mean that they are all Mexican's either. He said it clearly in his speech that they are also coming from South America and Latin America. His intent??? taking pieces away clearly changes his intent. WTF is wrong with you? He clearly said not all people coming over are bad. You can't attempt to change what he said by trying to omit pieces to fit your agenda.

Hmm so blocking certain countries that are predominately Muslim is not a form of "Muslim" banning? Weird argument you want to run with.

is it Unconstitutional? I don't recall immigrants getting the same rights as Citizens get?
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trump-muslim-ban-probably-legal

Easy way around most of it,
ban all immigrants from countries we are at war with (Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia & Yemen)
ban all immigrants from countries where their is state sponsored terrorism (Iran, Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, South Yemen, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia)
ban all immigrants from Arabic speaking countries (covers a lot of them, including Israel).

So as you can see, there is ways around it with out actually making it about Religion :)

Now for your comments about the past 6 Presidents,
ps please note that what Carter did is very similar to what Trump wants to do:

No one is changing anything Trump said. I am just not ignoring what he said. And you cant just ignore parts of what he said to fit your agenda.

No one claimed that immigration, cartels, etc. are not a problem, or that all immigrants are Mexican, or that border security should not be a concern. The problem is whipping up hatred with inflammatory terms like "rapists."  It's like saying women are bitches, but some of them are good.  Trump is a person who thinks in ethnic stereotypes and cannot filter that out of his speech. And this isn't all about security. His desire to expel dreamers is just vicious.

And no, blocking immigration from predominately Muslim countries is not a form of "Muslim banning." (Though Muslim haters might be very happy with that--"close enough"). Thanks for providing a list of ways around Trump's original proposal which present non-religious criteria--all unnecessary unless the proposal was facing a legal/political block. You offer some legal opinions on how the ban might work, depending upon Congress, the Supreme Court, and a host of other factors.

My comments about the previous 6 presidents were not about executive orders or selective immigration. The US has often put racist criteria on immigration and used executive orders to manage security issues. No dispute there.  I was referring to 1) bans upon an entire religious faith, and 2) Trump's general vulgarity and racism. No post WWII president has spoken in such an unfiltered manner about women, non white races, and religious groups. No president has behaved like Trump since Jackson, who ethnically cleansed Georgia of the 5 civilized tribes.

Even if there had been a ban on an entire faith, like a Nazi style ban on Jews, it is unlikely such would fly today. It would require Congressional action to secure it from the courts.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-22-2016, 02:55 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: In the other thread, seems that the WSJ was bipartisan.

The WSJ swings a good bit to the right in the editorial section.  Their hard news is reported fairly and generally respected.  Odd that Dino would criticize something based on the name alone.  That doesn't seem very open minded.