Pretending it was some fringe group is part of what has the GOP getting whooped by birther in chief Donald Trump now.
Republicans who say "I believe Obama was born in the US" are actually a minority in the party.
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. 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. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23603 Posts
January 07 2016 05:54 GMT
#54421
Pretending it was some fringe group is part of what has the GOP getting whooped by birther in chief Donald Trump now. Republicans who say "I believe Obama was born in the US" are actually a minority in the party. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
January 07 2016 18:31 GMT
#54422
| ||
|
zeo
Serbia6334 Posts
January 07 2016 18:31 GMT
#54423
On January 07 2016 14:54 GreenHorizons wrote: More Republicans think Cruz was born in the US (wasn't) than Obama (was). Pretending it was some fringe group is part of what has the GOP getting whooped by birther in chief Donald Trump now. Republicans who say "I believe Obama was born in the US" are actually a minority in the party. If Trump becomes president and finds out (CIA/FBI) Obama wasn't born in the US and members of the Obama government knew about it and swept it under the rug... what happens then? | ||
|
JW_DTLA
242 Posts
January 07 2016 18:44 GMT
#54424
On January 08 2016 03:31 zeo wrote: Show nested quote + On January 07 2016 14:54 GreenHorizons wrote: More Republicans think Cruz was born in the US (wasn't) than Obama (was). Pretending it was some fringe group is part of what has the GOP getting whooped by birther in chief Donald Trump now. Republicans who say "I believe Obama was born in the US" are actually a minority in the party. If Trump becomes president and finds out (CIA/FBI) Obama wasn't born in the US and members of the Obama government knew about it and swept it under the rug... what happens then? This is all a moot issue for Obama and Cruz. If your mother was a citizen, then you are a citizen. It doesn't matter that your mother was a on a trip somewhere. http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-parents | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
January 07 2016 18:45 GMT
#54425
On January 08 2016 03:31 zeo wrote: Show nested quote + On January 07 2016 14:54 GreenHorizons wrote: More Republicans think Cruz was born in the US (wasn't) than Obama (was). Pretending it was some fringe group is part of what has the GOP getting whooped by birther in chief Donald Trump now. Republicans who say "I believe Obama was born in the US" are actually a minority in the party. If Trump becomes president and finds out (CIA/FBI) Obama wasn't born in the US and members of the Obama government knew about it and swept it under the rug... what happens then? Then we know they fabricated the evidence because there are like people alive now who can testify he was born in the US. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45242 Posts
January 07 2016 18:47 GMT
#54426
On January 08 2016 03:31 oneofthem wrote: id consider media that avoid analyzing cruz as a maniac irresponsible. if the republicans are indeed choosing a guy with serious derangement alin to hitler it is of course fair to point it out. guy is insane Out of curiosity, how is Cruz akin to Hitler? | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6334 Posts
January 07 2016 18:48 GMT
#54427
On January 08 2016 03:45 Plansix wrote: Show nested quote + On January 08 2016 03:31 zeo wrote: On January 07 2016 14:54 GreenHorizons wrote: More Republicans think Cruz was born in the US (wasn't) than Obama (was). Pretending it was some fringe group is part of what has the GOP getting whooped by birther in chief Donald Trump now. Republicans who say "I believe Obama was born in the US" are actually a minority in the party. If Trump becomes president and finds out (CIA/FBI) Obama wasn't born in the US and members of the Obama government knew about it and swept it under the rug... what happens then? Then we know they fabricated the evidence because there are like people alive now who can testify he was born in the US. I'm asking what would be the repercussions if it can be 100% proven Obama isn't US born. Can everything signed by Obama during his term be voided? Jail time? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
January 07 2016 18:53 GMT
#54428
On January 08 2016 03:48 zeo wrote: Show nested quote + On January 08 2016 03:45 Plansix wrote: On January 08 2016 03:31 zeo wrote: On January 07 2016 14:54 GreenHorizons wrote: More Republicans think Cruz was born in the US (wasn't) than Obama (was). Pretending it was some fringe group is part of what has the GOP getting whooped by birther in chief Donald Trump now. Republicans who say "I believe Obama was born in the US" are actually a minority in the party. If Trump becomes president and finds out (CIA/FBI) Obama wasn't born in the US and members of the Obama government knew about it and swept it under the rug... what happens then? Then we know they fabricated the evidence because there are like people alive now who can testify he was born in the US. I'm asking what would be the repercussions if it can be 100% proven Obama isn't US born. Can everything signed by Obama during his term be voided? Jail time? It might get some headlines, but I don't think anyone testified before congress or under oath on the subject. He could have been born at the south pole and he could still run for president. I am sure people would make a big deal about it and use the phrase public trust a lot. If we wasn't a citizen would be another matter and we have no rules in place for a "false president". But that is tin foil hat shit. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28736 Posts
January 07 2016 19:28 GMT
#54429
Hitler however, attempted to exterminate all the jews. He wasn't trying to block them from entering Germany for security reasons, he wasn't trying to monitor them for security reasons. He considered them a plague upon humanity and he tried to exterminate them, and he succeeded in killing something like one third of all living Jews. This, the racial genocide component, that's why Hitler is remembered as one of the very worst people the world has ever seen. Taking one parallel, like view on propaganda or morality vs strength and doing a generalized equivocation of the people based on these similarities, to me is disingenious, polarizing - and easy to deflect. Like, the comparison to comparing Obama or other leading democrats with Stalin or Mao or whatever for whatever dumb interpretation of socialism or gun control or whatever with comparing Trump or Cruz with Hitler, it's fairly apt I think. The thing is just, the Obama -StalinMao is so obviously stupid that it really doesn't work as an argument for doing something similar to that. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
January 07 2016 19:45 GMT
#54430
Toby Ziegler: No, sir. Nobody ever looks like Joe McCarthy. That's how they get in the door in the first place. Before they put the Jews in camps, they talked about a registry. I don't agree that the analogies should be applied to Cruz, but I didn't see him bending over backwards to denounce Trump when he threw out the Muslim registry idea either. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
January 07 2016 20:09 GMT
#54431
On January 08 2016 04:45 Plansix wrote: Although I agree that the Nazi analogies are over used, it is also good to remember that is was a slow roll to the full blown Nazis we know from the history books. Years in the making. To quote one of my favorite shows: Show nested quote + Toby Ziegler: No, sir. Nobody ever looks like Joe McCarthy. That's how they get in the door in the first place. Before they put the Jews in camps, they talked about a registry. I don't agree that the analogies should be applied to Cruz, but I didn't see him bending over backwards to denounce Trump when he threw out the Muslim registry idea either. This will likely be the only time I defend Cruz, but I don't think it should really be a responsibility (right now) for him to denounce the nonsense any other candidate should put out there. If it comes down to him and Trump for the primary in a month or 2, yea, I should expect something along those lines to some extent, but I still wouldn't fault him unless he hints at something akin to Trump's plan or adopts the anti-Muslim rhetoric. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
January 07 2016 20:12 GMT
#54432
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22069 Posts
January 07 2016 20:17 GMT
#54433
On January 08 2016 05:12 Plansix wrote: I was specifically talking about the closing down mosques and the registry. I am of the opinion that both parties should have denounced that instantly. And the GOP did. Cruz didn’t really address it. He wants to avoid addressing it for as long as he can because a part of his base is for those things and having to come out against them would hurt their opinion of him. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
January 07 2016 20:19 GMT
#54434
On January 08 2016 05:17 Gorsameth wrote: Show nested quote + On January 08 2016 05:12 Plansix wrote: I was specifically talking about the closing down mosques and the registry. I am of the opinion that both parties should have denounced that instantly. And the GOP did. Cruz didn’t really address it. He wants to avoid addressing it for as long as he can because a part of his base is for those things and having to come out against them would hurt their opinion of him. Yes. So I don’t feel like the people throwing around the Nazi photos are completely off base. Cruz is courting some of the most xenophobic people in our country and empowering them by doing so. He gets what he gets for doing it. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
January 07 2016 21:15 GMT
#54435
The Obama administration unveiled new dietary guidelines on Thursday that urged Americans to limit their sugar intake, called on men and boys to eat less protein, but eased previous recommendations on cholesterol and sodium. The guidelines, which are released every five years by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services, echoed recommendations from past years that Americans should curb their sugar and saturated fat intake, especially in the form of sugar-laden sodas and sports drinks. But unlike the 2010 guidelines, the government set a specific limit for added sugars: 10 percent of total daily calories, about the amount in a single can of soda. The recommendation mirrors calls from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the World Health Organization, made last year. The average U.S. diet is made up of closer to 13 percent of added sugars, with children and teens consuming as much as 17 percent. The new guidelines recommend that Americans limit their intake of saturated fats — often found in butter, whole milk and some meats and oils — to less than 10 percent of their total daily calories, which echoes suggestions from previous years. However, the government dropped a recommendation from 2010 that Americans at risk of heart disease limit sodium intake to less than 1,500 milligrams a day, instead offering the broader recommendation that those older than 14 consume less than 2,300 milligrams of sodium daily, or about a single teaspoon. About 90 percent of Americans consume too much sodium, an average of 3,400 milligrams daily, the report said. The guidelines also backed off a longstanding recommendation that Americans should consume less than 300 milligrams of cholesterol daily, a little less than the amount found in two eggs. The government, however, said that people should “eat as little dietary cholesterol as possible” to stave off cardiovascular disease. The report also singled out boys and men. “Some individuals, especially teen boys and adult men, also need to reduce overall intake of protein foods by decreasing intakes of meats, poultry, and eggs and increasing amounts of vegetables or other underconsumed food groups,” the report said. The report’s primary message repeated those of previous years: focus on eating plenty of fruits and vegetables, whole grains, low-fat dairy and proteins including lean meats, eggs, legumes and nuts. Source | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
January 07 2016 21:28 GMT
#54436
Two years before the public learned of Hillary Clinton’s private server, the State Department gave an “inaccurate and incomplete” response about her email use when it told an outside group that it had no documents about Clinton’s email accounts beyond her government address, according to a report from the State Department’s inspector general to be released Thursday. Washington PostThe State Department made its statement in response to a 2012 records request from the independent watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). The response came even though Clinton’s chief of staff, who knew about the secretary’s private account, was aware of the inquiry, the report says. In addition, the IG review found that agency staffers had not searched Clinton’s office for emails. The incident was one of four cases that the report highlights as examples of flawed responses to public-records requests made while Clinton was in office. The report found it was part of a long-standing problem stretching back through previous administrations. Clinton’s exclusive use of a private email system, which became public in March 2015, led to an FBI investigation into whether her unusual arrangement had compromised national secrets. After a firestorm of controversy, Clinton’s email practice has become more muted as a campaign issue in recent months as she has maintained her status as the Democratic presidential front-runner. But the new report demonstrates the potential peril Clinton still faces over the issue. In addition to the FBI probe, the State Department inspector general, Steve Linick, indicated that his work is not done. His office is preparing an additional report that could touch even more directly on Clinton’s conduct — examining the use of personal email and its effect on the department’s compliance with its duty to preserve records. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
January 07 2016 21:54 GMT
#54437
On January 08 2016 05:19 Plansix wrote: Show nested quote + On January 08 2016 05:17 Gorsameth wrote: On January 08 2016 05:12 Plansix wrote: I was specifically talking about the closing down mosques and the registry. I am of the opinion that both parties should have denounced that instantly. And the GOP did. Cruz didn’t really address it. He wants to avoid addressing it for as long as he can because a part of his base is for those things and having to come out against them would hurt their opinion of him. Yes. So I don’t feel like the people throwing around the Nazi photos are completely off base. Cruz is courting some of the most xenophobic people in our country and empowering them by doing so. He gets what he gets for doing it. Good to know your thoughts. On January 08 2016 03:48 zeo wrote: Show nested quote + On January 08 2016 03:45 Plansix wrote: On January 08 2016 03:31 zeo wrote: On January 07 2016 14:54 GreenHorizons wrote: More Republicans think Cruz was born in the US (wasn't) than Obama (was). Pretending it was some fringe group is part of what has the GOP getting whooped by birther in chief Donald Trump now. Republicans who say "I believe Obama was born in the US" are actually a minority in the party. If Trump becomes president and finds out (CIA/FBI) Obama wasn't born in the US and members of the Obama government knew about it and swept it under the rug... what happens then? Then we know they fabricated the evidence because there are like people alive now who can testify he was born in the US. I'm asking what would be the repercussions if it can be 100% proven Obama isn't US born. Can everything signed by Obama during his term be voided? Jail time? That's the wet dream of wackos. Something like the US Marshals rolling up to the White House and taking him away in handcuffs. Isn't going to happen. Everything stands. He'll retire his seat next January and go to whatever's next. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45242 Posts
January 07 2016 21:58 GMT
#54438
On January 08 2016 06:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Show nested quote + The Obama administration unveiled new dietary guidelines on Thursday that urged Americans to limit their sugar intake, called on men and boys to eat less protein, but eased previous recommendations on cholesterol and sodium. The guidelines, which are released every five years by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services, echoed recommendations from past years that Americans should curb their sugar and saturated fat intake, especially in the form of sugar-laden sodas and sports drinks. But unlike the 2010 guidelines, the government set a specific limit for added sugars: 10 percent of total daily calories, about the amount in a single can of soda. The recommendation mirrors calls from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the World Health Organization, made last year. The average U.S. diet is made up of closer to 13 percent of added sugars, with children and teens consuming as much as 17 percent. The new guidelines recommend that Americans limit their intake of saturated fats — often found in butter, whole milk and some meats and oils — to less than 10 percent of their total daily calories, which echoes suggestions from previous years. However, the government dropped a recommendation from 2010 that Americans at risk of heart disease limit sodium intake to less than 1,500 milligrams a day, instead offering the broader recommendation that those older than 14 consume less than 2,300 milligrams of sodium daily, or about a single teaspoon. About 90 percent of Americans consume too much sodium, an average of 3,400 milligrams daily, the report said. The guidelines also backed off a longstanding recommendation that Americans should consume less than 300 milligrams of cholesterol daily, a little less than the amount found in two eggs. The government, however, said that people should “eat as little dietary cholesterol as possible” to stave off cardiovascular disease. The report also singled out boys and men. “Some individuals, especially teen boys and adult men, also need to reduce overall intake of protein foods by decreasing intakes of meats, poultry, and eggs and increasing amounts of vegetables or other underconsumed food groups,” the report said. The report’s primary message repeated those of previous years: focus on eating plenty of fruits and vegetables, whole grains, low-fat dairy and proteins including lean meats, eggs, legumes and nuts. Source On a related note, some vegans have already thrown a hissy fit: Somebody’s Already Suing the Government Over New Dietary Guidelines Issued Just Hours Ago ~ http://gizmodo.com/somebody-s-already-suing-the-government-over-new-dietar-1751584644?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_facebook&utm_source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow This morning, the USDA and the Department of Health and Human services finally issued a new set of American dietary guidelines. Just a few hours later, the first lawsuit over those same dietary recommendations was announced. So, what’s in these new guidelines that has people so upset less than 24 hours in? Really, not that much—in fact, quite a bit less than was expected. The dietary guidelines were supposed to be out before the end of last year, but kept getting delayed as the committee tried to figure out just what exactly they were going to put in them. It was widely rumored that, when they finally did drop, the new edition would prompt a showdown between the meat industry and the feds over recommendations that Americans eat less meat. It didn’t happen—largely because those recommendations never showed up in the final draft. In fact, meat-eating barely even comes up, besides a recommendation that Americans eat “lean meats” when they can and cut down on saturated fats. The other major change in this new edition is a hard limit on sugar intake. While not eating too much sugar has long been recommended, people were mostly left to themselves to decide what “too much” meant—and unsurprisingly, people were quite generous with their interpretations. Now, the sugar cap is set at 10% of a person’s total daily calories, whatever that amount may be. The guidelines also draw a distinction between sugar and fructose (the natural sugar found in fruit). The latter isn’t included in the final count. But it’s neither sugar or meat that prompted the lawsuit; it’s a question over egg recommendations. U.S. dietary guidelines have long included a provision suggesting Americans keep cholesterol consumption under 300 milligrams. If you were unaware of it, don’t feel bad: Almost no one else was either—except for the egg industry, who hated it. In these new guidelines, that daily cholesterol limit was mysteriously dropped and replaced with the cheerful but decidedly vague suggestion that Americans eat “a variety of protein foods, including seafood, lean meats and poultry, eggs, legumes (beans and peas), soy products, and nuts and seeds,” coupled with a suggestion that men in particular may be eating too much protein without realizing it. A vegan advocacy group, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, is filing a suit over the change, and suggested to the New York Times that the egg industry, and their long-standing dislike over the limit, may have been behind it. This new set of guidelines is set to take us through 2020, so there’s plenty of time to hash out just what they mean — or even to make some changes. But so far, these new guidelines seem a lot like the old ones. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11730 Posts
January 07 2016 22:03 GMT
#54439
| ||
|
zf
231 Posts
January 07 2016 22:12 GMT
#54440
On January 08 2016 03:48 zeo wrote: I'm asking what would be the repercussions if it can be 100% proven Obama isn't US born. Can everything signed by Obama during his term be voided? Jail time? In theory, adversely affected parties could challenge presidential actions, just as they do in the case of invalid appointments. In practice, it would be too disruptive to wipe out eight years of government, and we'd find some way to ignore most of those claims. There would be some national soul searching, but we've survived wars, depressions, and presidential assassinations. We'd survive. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Calm Dota 2Rain GuemChi Shuttle Larva Mini EffOrt Soma Light Snow [ Show more ] firebathero BeSt hero Dewaltoss Mong Hyun Rush sorry [sc1f]eonzerg Free Hm[arnc] soO Rock Terrorterran SilentControl NaDa Counter-Strike Other Games gofns6522 B2W.Neo1195 Grubby1081 FrodaN990 hiko884 DeMusliM496 crisheroes312 Mew2King100 QueenE99 ArmadaUGS95 Organizations
StarCraft 2 • poizon28 StarCraft: Brood War• AfreecaTV YouTube • intothetv • Kozan • IndyKCrew • LaughNgamezSOOP • Migwel • sooper7s League of Legends |
|
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
RongYI Cup
herO vs Solar
TriGGeR vs Maru
WardiTV Invitational
The PondCast
HomeStory Cup
Korean StarCraft League
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
[ Show More ] Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
|
|
|