In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Trump explaining how he'll stop online radicalization.
"We're losing a lot of people because of the internet," Trump said. "We have to see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what's happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that internet up in some ways. Somebody will say, 'Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people."
First, he'll ask Bill Gates (and maybe others) what's really happening. Then he'll close the internet (maybe just in some ways). Then someone will complain about free speech and he'll insult them.
On December 08 2015 13:34 Introvert wrote: he says far more than Sanders, lol.
What?
What?
Are you gauging the length and depth of people's words based on their Tweets and the amount of 5-second sound-bites they generate?
I'm out! I'm out! America has lost its damned mind. None of this shit should need to be argued. Of course Bernie Sanders says more than an ex-reality-show whack-job. He is, in fact, an extremely knowledgeable person who has spent most of his life serving the public. Of course we shouldn't ignore the 1st Amendment and make religion the litmus-test for all immigrants.
But here we are. Millions of people want to argue this nonsense. This make-believe. This is what we were inevitably going to get from a political party that has spent the past 8 years offering nothing to make people's lives better, just demagoguery and hatred. Really. It's unbelievable, or at least it should be.
On December 08 2015 16:16 writer22816 wrote: Trump's blanket Muslim ban is ridiculous, but this is what happens when people on the left won't speak honestly about Islam. People are left (no pun intended) with no choice but to turn to bigots like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump.
Trumps ban is dumb and unconstitutional, but it would be a reasonable proposal if it didn't include American citizens and related to persons from a terrorist sponsor nation. Which should probably be the general rule anyways.
On December 08 2015 16:16 writer22816 wrote: Trump's blanket Muslim ban is ridiculous, but this is what happens when people on the left won't speak honestly about Islam. People are left (no pun intended) with no choice but to turn to bigots like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump.
Trumps ban is dumb and unconstitutional, but it would be a reasonable proposal if it didn't include American citizens and related to persons from a terrorist sponsor nation. Which should probably be the general rule anyways.
It's not unconstitutional, the US can allow and disallow immigration of whoever they want but he should've adopted Rand Paul's policy which is more sensible. Which is banning people from 30 blacklisted countries with widespread radical Islamic extremists and breeding grounds for radical Islam from immigrating to the US, at least for now.
Regardless, it sounds extreme to ban Muslim immigration to the US but it's also pretty extreme when a significant portion of Muslims living in the US want Sharia instead of the Constution, why any sane country would allow these kinds of people in makes no sense. Immigration policy should serve to benefit the people already in the US, clearly these kinds of people don't.
"We're losing a lot of people because of the internet," Trump said. "We have to see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what's happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that internet up in some ways. Somebody will say, 'Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people."
First, he'll ask Bill Gates (and maybe others) what's really happening. Then he'll close the internet (maybe just in some ways). Then someone will complain about free speech and he'll insult them.
Trump's three step plan people.
lmao Bill Gates. The guy just picked the richest guy in "computers" and thinks he will know about that internet thing, because we all know that Gates rules over all the interwebz.
But pretty much is what Trump does. Just says he will talk to or hire *good* people to fix shit.
Aren't the Republicans all about small government? Which part of Trump's policy has any hope of making government smaller. All I see are proposals to increase government size.
On December 08 2015 16:16 writer22816 wrote: Trump's blanket Muslim ban is ridiculous, but this is what happens when people on the left won't speak honestly about Islam. People are left (no pun intended) with no choice but to turn to bigots like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump.
Trumps ban is dumb and unconstitutional, but it would be a reasonable proposal if it didn't include American citizens and related to persons from a terrorist sponsor nation. Which should probably be the general rule anyways.
It's not unconstitutional, the US can allow and disallow immigration of whoever they want but he should've adopted Rand Paul's policy which is more sensible. Which is banning people from 30 blacklisted countries with widespread radical Islamic extremists and breeding grounds for radical Islam from immigrating to the US, at least for now.
Regardless, it sounds extreme to ban Muslim immigration to the US but it's also pretty extreme when a significant portion of Muslims living in the US want Sharia instead of the Constution, why any sane country would allow these kinds of people in makes no sense. Immigration policy should serve to benefit the people already in the US, clearly these kinds of people don't.
Looks like you still haven't read the actual results from the poll Trump quoted, and also haven't made the link to the fact that a whole bunch of people wanted their Christian religious beliefs to be superior to the Constitution just a few months ago. And also haven't apparently read that Trump explicitly wants at minimum "more vigilance" on overseas citizens and servicemen, which is 110% unconstitutional.
Hell, last February, 57% of Christians wanted to establish Christianity as the national religion.
On December 08 2015 20:19 DickMcFanny wrote: That hasn't stopped the NSA to be 'vigilant' about citizens overseas.
At first blush I don't think NSA flags people based on religion. Other things (that are probably not constitutional) like assembly, ethnicity, and country of origin, I know they do. Religion seems much hard to measure/quantify, and it has a lot less sensitivity and specificity than those for allocating resources effectively; it's also the easiest thing to hide for a potential terrorist. Then again, since when has terrible specificity and sensitivity of screening stopped anyone? So you're probably right.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled Monday that Canada and Mexico can slap more than $1 billion in tariffs on U.S. goods in retaliation for meat labeling rules it says discriminated against Mexican and Canadian livestock.
At issue were U.S. labels on packaged steaks and other cuts of meat that say where the animals were born, raised and slaughtered.
The WTO has previously found that the so-called "country of origin" labeling law put Canadian and Mexican livestock at a disadvantage. It ruled Monday that Canada could impose $780 million in retaliatory tariffs and Mexico could impose $228 million.
"We are disappointed with this decision and its potential impact on trade among vital North American partners," said Tim Reif, general counsel for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
The labels are supported by some U.S. ranchers and by consumer groups. They are opposed by meatpackers who say they require costly paperwork.
The WTO's decision shifts responsibility to Congress, which is considering working a repeal of the labeling law into a massive year-end spending bill.
Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, said Monday that he will look for "all legislative opportunities" to repeal the labeling law. "We must prevent retaliation, and we must do it now before these sanctions take effect," Roberts said.
More like get rekt consumers. Why shouldn't meat be labeled by country of origin? I want to know if my beef is american or foreign, especially if any of the processing is taking place in China.
are you for real? as long as the meat is objectively the same, labeling is simply protectionism using ridiculous 'consumer' bias.
Eskendereya keeps going on about the percentage of Muslims who hold certain beliefs (which I agree are ridiculous), but as someone pointed out, he makes no mention and presumably doesn't care that just as large portions of the Christian population here in the United States do ideologically similar things. Now I grant that Islam is more of a concern and the religion as a whole is in need of a reformation, but the fact that large portions of Muslims wan't to live by the laws outlined in their religion is no different than the large amount of Christians here in the US who only want to follow 'God's Law' and ignore our Constitution and laws.
That said, the fact that so many Muslims hold views and beliefs that are contrary to modern western values is concerning; but making it an 'us vs them' fight of the west vs all of Islam is not the way to combat the issue.
On December 08 2015 16:16 writer22816 wrote: Trump's blanket Muslim ban is ridiculous, but this is what happens when people on the left won't speak honestly about Islam. People are left (no pun intended) with no choice but to turn to bigots like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump.
Trumps ban is dumb and unconstitutional, but it would be a reasonable proposal if it didn't include American citizens and related to persons from a terrorist sponsor nation. Which should probably be the general rule anyways.
It's not unconstitutional, the US can allow and disallow immigration of whoever they want but he should've adopted Rand Paul's policy which is more sensible. Which is banning people from 30 blacklisted countries with widespread radical Islamic extremists and breeding grounds for radical Islam from immigrating to the US, at least for now.
Regardless, it sounds extreme to ban Muslim immigration to the US but it's also pretty extreme when a significant portion of Muslims living in the US want Sharia instead of the Constution, why any sane country would allow these kinds of people in makes no sense. Immigration policy should serve to benefit the people already in the US, clearly these kinds of people don't.
The ban is NOT on people applying for immigration. The ban for muslims to enter the country is about american citizens who were out of the country for holidays, because they served oversea for the military or something like that. Although he said, like pointed out, that if you're part of the military you should be allowed back in and just be put under high vigilance. Which also happens to be unconstitutional.
Jon Stewart is tired of Congress ignoring the men and women who rushed to help the people of New York after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
Stewart joined "Daily Show" host Trevor Noah to talk about the current state of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, a bill meant to help cover medical expenses for first responders now suffering from a spate of health problems. The act expired at the beginning of October, and major political hurdles -- greatest among them being Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) -- have kept it from being reauthorized.
"Sen. Mitch McConnell doesn't give a shit about anything but politics," Stewart said during a lengthy, scathing segment about the act on Monday's show. "He is the key to getting this done, and so far he has been an enormous obstacle -- unwilling to move the bill forward for purely political reasons."
The episode follows Stewart's visit to Capitol Hill last week, during which he and several first responders tried to speak with members of Congress who have yet to pledge their support for the act's renewal. He wasn't able to meet with anyone except Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who later added his signature.
On December 08 2015 22:55 Kickstart wrote: Eskendereya keeps going on about the percentage of Muslims who hold certain beliefs (which I agree are ridiculous), but as someone pointed out, he makes no mention and presumably doesn't care that just as large portions of the Christian population here in the United States do ideologically similar things. Now I grant that Islam is more of a concern and the religion as a whole is in need of a reformation, but the fact that large portions of Muslims wan't to live by the laws outlined in their religion is no different than the large amount of Christians here in the US who only want to follow 'God's Law' and ignore our Constitution and laws.
That said, the fact that so many Muslims hold views and beliefs that are contrary to modern western values is concerning; but making it an 'us vs them' fight of the west vs all of Islam is not the way to combat the issue.
The US vs Them argument only strengthens groups like ISIS who want to prove that “The West” will never accept Islam. Trump is ISIS’s greatest ally and recruiting tool. They couldn’t be feeding them better stuff if he tried. And the media eats it up because of ratings, while a protest by Muslims in the UK against terrorism and radical Islam is ignored.
Seriously, Trump said that and he got to call in to all four 24/7 news networks.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign is training its sights on Ted Cruz, knocking the Texas senator for holding a hearing attacking the theory of climate change and tying the rest of the presidential field to the conservative firebrand.
On Tuesday Cruz will chair a hearing about whether “data or dogma” backs current climate change theory, which says the planet is warming as a result of carbon emissions tied to human industry.
In a statement to POLITICO, Clinton campaign chair John Podesta criticized Cruz for using a congressional hearing to sow skepticism about climate change, particularly after Cruz won plaudits last week from the Koch-aligned American Energy Alliance as a “hero” for the oil and gas industry.
“There is nothing heroic about blocking measures that would keep our kids and communities healthy,” Podesta said. “The Clean Power Plan will prevent as many as 150,000 asthma attacks in children and 6,700 premature deaths a year, all while meaningfully reducing carbon pollution.”
The vast majority of scientists say the science of climate change is not in doubt but many Republicans remain skeptical.
Cruz, of course, is just one of many GOP opponents of President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan that attempts to reduce carbon emissions by circumventing a congressional GOP that has shown little interest in working with the president on the issue. But the Clinton campaign is seeking to link Cruz to the rest of the 2016 GOP presidential field, arguing that no matter who wins they are likely to tear up Obama’s work on combating climate change as soon as Republicans take the White House.
EPT
