Trump or Clinton

[fredtoast]

(12-07-2015, 11:36 PM)Beaker Wrote: Rubio will get the nomination.

Right now I would agree.

Young, ethnic, and not a complete religious nut.  He is probably their best bet to win in the general election.

[*PhilHos*]

If it came down to a Trump vs Hillary election, I'd either not vote at all (I know, I know) or vote Trump. At least with Trump, you hope that it sends a wake up call to politicians that the general public is getting tired of their bullshit and that the political arena in America better change or Trump is just the beginning.

[Aquapod770]

Dear god please no...



I'd probably vote 3rd party depending on who was out there. Or write in a name. Trump vs Hilldog is the worst possible outcome.

[*PhilHos*]

(12-08-2015, 03:11 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Dear god please no...



I'd probably vote 3rd party depending on who was out there. Or write in a name. Trump vs Hilldog is the worst possible outcome.

Pretty much guaranteed to have THE worse presidency in US History.  

[Millhouse]

Hillary easily. Trump has zero poltical experience, appears to be a non-compromiser, and his latest idiotic comment on banning muslims did it for me. He may be a smart businessman, but I simply dont trust him being leader of the free world.

[Millhouse]

(12-08-2015, 03:06 PM)PhilHos Wrote: If it came down to a Trump vs Hillary election, I'd either not vote at all (I know, I know) or vote Trump. At least with Trump, you hope that it sends a wake up call to politicians that the general public is getting tired of their bullshit and that the political arena in America better change or Trump is just the beginning.

Yeah I get what you are saying and I agree in spirit, but do we really want Trump to have access to the nuke launch codes? 

[CKwi88]

I feel like it would be my civic duty to do everything in my power to keep Trump from the oval office. This might actually be a situation the would get me away from a 3rd party.

[SunsetBengal]

Trump, for sure.  With Ted Cruz as Vice, or (chief of operations other than speaking on camera).

[BFritz21]

(12-08-2015, 08:27 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Hillary easily.  Trump has zero poltical experience, appears to be a non-compromiser, and his latest idiotic comment on banning muslims did it for me. He may be a smart businessman, but I simply dont trust him being leader of the free world.

 

Did you even listen to what he said or did you just take that the media said that he said to "ban Muslims" and run with it?
He didn't say to ban Muslims outright, her just said that we need to slow it until Congress gets the visa situation worked out and that they need to be screened, which is especially true because 25% of them said that they sympathize with ISIS and want to conduct violent acts in the US and Europe.
So he wants to protect the homeland, which ISIS becoming stronger makes even more important, and you think it's idiotic?

I'm brain damaged, so how am I the only one that looks into these things?

[GMDino]

(12-08-2015, 10:40 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Yeah I get what you are saying and I agree in spirit, but do we really want Trump to have access to the nuke launch codes? 

I don't think Trump could be trusted with the executive bathroom key.

[Belsnickel]

(12-09-2015, 09:58 AM)BFritz21 Wrote:  

Did you even listen to what he said or did you just take that the media said that he said to "ban Muslims" and run with it?
He didn't say to ban Muslims outright, her just said that we need to slow it until Congress gets the visa situation worked out and that they need to be screened, which is especially true because 25% of them said that they sympathize with ISIS and want to conduct violent acts in the US and Europe.
So he wants to protect the homeland, which ISIS becoming stronger makes even more important, and you think it's idiotic?

I'm brain damaged, so how am I the only one that looks into these things?

Source?

Also, whether he said ban or not, honestly I do not care, discrimination based upon religion is not something our government should be allowed to do. I'm not going to say it is unconstitutional because, quite frankly, it probably would be constitutional. But I'm against any discriminatory actions by our government. Not to even get into the fact it would violate international laws and agreements we have with other countries since, well, we know how some people feel about those around these parts.

Addendum: I found the quote: "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." Seems to be more than slowing it down.

[BFritz21]

(12-09-2015, 10:09 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Source?

Also, whether he said ban or not, honestly I do not care, discrimination based upon religion is not something our government should be allowed to do. I'm not going to say it is unconstitutional because, quite frankly, it probably would be constitutional. But I'm against any discriminatory actions by our government. Not to even get into the fact it would violate international laws and agreements we have with other countries since, well, we know how some people feel about those around these parts.

Addendum: I found the quote: "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." Seems to be more than slowing it down.

It's not discrimination where they're just hating on people because of ethnic background or origin, they're just trying to screen them better to keep the rest of the population safe.

So what happens when we let 100 muslims in, and three of them, who weren't screened to protect all hundred from discrimination, blow up a building and kill hundreds (maybe more) of Americans?  Wasn't the government violating citizens' Constitutional Rights by not guaranteeing them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

[Belsnickel]

(12-10-2015, 09:46 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: It's not discrimination where they're just hating on people because of ethnic background or origin, they're just trying to screen them better to keep the rest of the population safe.

Discrimination is just treating them differently because of an identifying characteristic, such as religion. Screening a Muslim in a different way than an Atheist, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, what have you, is discrimination.

(12-10-2015, 09:46 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: So what happens when we let 100 muslims in, and three of them, who weren't screened to protect all hundred from discrimination, blow up a building and kill hundreds (maybe more) of Americans?  Wasn't the government violating citizens' Constitutional Rights by not guaranteeing them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

And who said anything about not screening refugees or other immigrants? All immigrants should be screened, and they are. Hell, there is a, what, two year waiting period for screening refugees currently? It is discriminatory, however, to treat group A differently from group B because of their religious backgrounds. And again, not even getting into how doing so would violate agreements and laws we are beholden to, or are supposed to be.

Any word on that source for your figure of 25% being sympathetic to ISIS and wanting to conduct violent acts against the West?

[BFritz21]

(12-10-2015, 09:57 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Discrimination is just treating them differently because of an identifying characteristic, such as religion. Screening a Muslim in a different way than an Atheist, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, what have you, is discrimination.


And who said anything about not screening refugees or other immigrants? All immigrants should be screened, and they are. Hell, there is a, what, two year waiting period for screening refugees currently? It is discriminatory, however, to treat group A differently from group B because of their religious backgrounds. And again, not even getting into how doing so would violate agreements and laws we are beholden to, or are supposed to be.

Any word on that source for your figure of 25% being sympathetic to ISIS and wanting to conduct violent acts against the West?

Going back to bed, but the 25% was in the video I posted.

I'll respond to the rest later.

[Belsnickel]

(12-10-2015, 10:10 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Going back to bed, but the 25% was in the video I posted.

I'll respond to the rest later.

What video? I must have missed that. Also, I don't want to see someone's interpretation of the numbers, I want to see the actual data. You know, like when there is a poll/survey done and in the report there is the breakdown of the questions asked, the responses, as well as a description of the methodology used for the poll. Anyone can say whatever they want to about numbers they aren't giving any supporting documentation for.

[Mike M (the other one)]

If those two are my only choice, then I'm going to roll with Trump.

Matt,
Here's the poll that I think Brad is talking about.

https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/

[Belsnickel]

(12-10-2015, 01:42 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: If those two are my only choice, then I'm going to roll with Trump.

Matt,
Here's the poll that I think Brad is talking about.

https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/

An interesting read. I can see some inferences made from the data that I do not agree with, but not many. I didn't see the 25% sympathizing with ISIS in there, though. The only figure in there that really alarmed me was the 19% saying violence was justified to make Shariah the law of the land. Some of the other questions that would alarm many people reading it I can see being based more off of inferences about it than anything else. That one, though, was pretty cut and dry. I would like to know their calculated MOE on the Muslim poll since they didn't include that but included it on the overall poll they did. I'm suspecting it is a bit higher, especially given the likelihood that many Muslims in the US would not identify as such on the phone for something like this making the numbers be off more.

Edit to add: After reading about the organization that conducted this survey, I'd have a lot of other concerns regarding biases on top of those other concerns.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-10-2015, 01:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: An interesting read. I can see some inferences made from the data that I do not agree with, but not many. I didn't see the 25% sympathizing with ISIS in there, though. The only figure in there that really alarmed me was the 19% saying violence was justified to make Shariah the law of the land. Some of the other questions that would alarm many people reading it I can see being based more off of inferences about it than anything else. That one, though, was pretty cut and dry. I would like to know their calculated MOE on the Muslim poll since they didn't include that but included it on the overall poll they did. I'm suspecting it is a bit higher, especially given the likelihood that many Muslims in the US would not identify as such on the phone for something like this making the numbers be off more.

Edit to add: After reading about the organization that conducted this survey, I'd have a lot of other concerns regarding biases on top of those other concerns.

He might be getting his info from an interpretation of this line:

13. "Violence against Americans here in the United States can be justified as part of the Global Jihad."
25% TOTAL AGREE (NET)
13% STRONGLY AGREE
12% SOMEWHAT AGREE

64% TOTAL DISAGREE (NET)
 9% SOMEWHAT DISAGREE
55% STRONGLY DISAGREE

11% DO NOT KNOW/CANNOT JUDGE

Otherwise I'm not sure.

And by the way, is islam a religion or a political ideology?

[Benton]

(12-10-2015, 02:27 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: He might be getting his info from an interpretation of this line:

13. "Violence against Americans here in the United States can be justified as part of the Global Jihad."
25% TOTAL AGREE (NET)
13% STRONGLY AGREE
12% SOMEWHAT AGREE

64% TOTAL DISAGREE (NET)
 9% SOMEWHAT DISAGREE
55% STRONGLY DISAGREE

11% DO NOT KNOW/CANNOT JUDGE

Otherwise I'm not sure.

And by the way, is islam a religion or a political ideology?

Seems like a bad poll. 128% of people say no, 50% say yes and 11% don't care. So 189% of people responded.



Plus, the question is worded awkwardly. It doesn't ask if the respondent would commit violence, only if violence could be justified. Just judging by the stuff people post on Facebook, if you ask the majority of people if it's understandable to bomb another country to defend the U.S./Christianity/funny cat videos... they'd say yes. That doesn't mean they would do it, only that they understand why someone would. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-10-2015, 02:40 PM)Benton Wrote: Seems like a bad poll. 128% of people say no, 50% say yes and 11% don't care. So 189% of people responded.



Plus, the question is worded awkwardly. It doesn't ask if the respondent would commit violence, only if violence could be justified. Just judging by the stuff people post on Facebook, if you ask the majority of people if it's understandable to bomb another country to defend the U.S./Christianity/funny cat videos... they'd say yes. That doesn't mean they would do it, only that they understand why someone would. 

You aren't reading the %'s correctly, pay attention to the word "NET".