|
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. |
On March 11 2016 06:04 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 05:58 kwizach wrote:
But they're not asking him to endorse anyone, they're asking him his position on the specific idea that Islam hates America. Any decent person should immediately respond with "I completely disagree, Joe", and probably add "it's a frankly insulting and bigoted position to hold". The question is bait for basically the reasons you just listed.
Is it really a complex answer?
“That is incorrect and overly broad. There are problems with violence in the middle east and at some level they are related to the predominant religion in that area. But it is not the sole cause of the violence, as economics and political turmoil also are large factors. But the claim that all 1.5 billion people who identify as members of Islam “hate the US” is completely false.”
|
The US and Canada declared they would help lead the transition to a low-carbon global economy on Thursday, in a dramatic role reversal for two countries once derided as climate change villains.
The shared vision unveiled by Barack Obama and Justin Trudeau ahead of a meeting at the White House commits the two countries to a range of actions to shore up the historic climate agreement reached in Paris last December.
The two leaders committed to rally G20 countries behind the accord, promote North American carbon markets, cap emissions from hundreds of thousands of existing oil and gas wells, and protect indigenous communities in a region which is warming beyond the point of no return, according to a statement from the White House.
The initiative announced on Thursday brings the US a big step closer to meeting its own Paris target by committing for the first time to cut emissions of methane - a powerful greenhouse gas responsible for about a quarter of warming - from existing oil and gas wells.
The biggest news however might be the final break with the policies of their predecessors who obstructed global efforts to fight climate change. In his seven years in the White House, Barack Obama has steadily transformed the US into a climate leader on the international level.
“The two leaders regard the Paris agreement as a turning point in global efforts to combat climate change and anchor economic growth in clean development,” the White House said in a statement. “They resolve that the United States and Canada must and will play a leadership role internationally in the low carbon global economy over the coming decades, including through science-based steps to protect the Arctic and its peoples.”
With Thursday’s announcement, Obama appeared to be passing the baton of climate leadership to Trudeau. Trudeau, just months into his prime ministership, has made clear he wants Canada to play a similar leadership role at home and on the global stage, White House officials told a conference call with reporters on Thursday.
Source
|
On March 11 2016 06:04 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 05:58 kwizach wrote:
But they're not asking him to endorse anyone, they're asking him his position on the specific idea that Islam hates America. Any decent person should immediately respond with "I completely disagree, Joe", and probably add "it's a frankly insulting and bigoted position to hold". The question is bait for basically the reasons you just listed.
Questions like that are no longer "bait" when the frontrunner of the Republican party endorses these views. It is perfectly legitimate to want to know where other members of the party stand on issues like that. That Scott dodged the question is very telling with regards to the kind of person that he is.
|
IDK why people just can't disavow dumb shit they (or themselves in the past) say/said.
|
On March 11 2016 06:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 06:04 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 05:58 kwizach wrote:
But they're not asking him to endorse anyone, they're asking him his position on the specific idea that Islam hates America. Any decent person should immediately respond with "I completely disagree, Joe", and probably add "it's a frankly insulting and bigoted position to hold". The question is bait for basically the reasons you just listed. Is it really a complex answer? “That is incorrect and overly broad. There are problems with violence in the middle east and at some level they are related to the predominant religion in that area. But it is not the sole cause of the violence, as economics and political turmoil also are large factors. But the claim that all 1.5 billion people who identify as members of Islam “hate the US” is completely false.”
That's not a claim that Trump has made, although that's apparently where the question is coming from in the context of endorsing a candidate. The fact that they have a governor on TV and spring a question like that (about an issue you clearly think is more nuanced), a question that's about a step away from asking someone "Are you a bigot?" and it's no surprise he didn't want to indulge their bait.
|
Sen. Rand Paul took a stand Thursday — and he wasn’t alone.
In his latest move to buck his party leadership on the floor, the Kentucky Republican invoked an obscure 1970s law to force the Senate to vote on selling $700 million worth of fighter jets to Pakistan. While Paul got his debate on the floor and a roll-call vote, the Senate scuttled his effort, 71-24, on a procedural vote.
“I can’t in good conscience look away as America crumbles at home and politicians tax us to send the money to corrupt and duplicitous regimes abroad,” Paul said on the Senate floor Thursday. “Pakistan is at best a frenemy. Part friend — and a lot of enemy.”
But just because the Senate voted against Paul doesn't mean he's standing alone. In fact, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) says he shares Paul's concerns about selling $700 million in F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan when the country has failed to root out the Haqqani network, the Taliban offshoot that's used Pakistan as a safe haven to launch attacks in Afghanistan, including against U.S. troops.
Corker says he’s allowing the F-16 sale to proceed, but he's blocking Pakistan’s request for U.S. help to finance the deal, which he can do single-handedly as Foreign Relations chairman. Still, he said bluntly on the Senate floor that he disagreed with Paul’s tactics, if not his overall aims.
Source
|
On March 11 2016 06:18 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 06:09 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2016 06:04 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 05:58 kwizach wrote:
But they're not asking him to endorse anyone, they're asking him his position on the specific idea that Islam hates America. Any decent person should immediately respond with "I completely disagree, Joe", and probably add "it's a frankly insulting and bigoted position to hold". The question is bait for basically the reasons you just listed. Is it really a complex answer? “That is incorrect and overly broad. There are problems with violence in the middle east and at some level they are related to the predominant religion in that area. But it is not the sole cause of the violence, as economics and political turmoil also are large factors. But the claim that all 1.5 billion people who identify as members of Islam “hate the US” is completely false.” That's not a claim that Trump has made, although that's apparently where the question is coming from in the context of endorsing a candidate. The fact that they have a governor on TV and spring a question like that (about an issue you clearly think is more nuanced), a question that's about a step away from asking someone "Are you a bigot?" and it's no surprise he didn't want to indulge their bait.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/donald-trump-islam-hates-us/
Washington (CNN)Donald Trump said Wednesday that he thinks "Islam hates us," drawing little distinction between the religion and radical Islamic terrorism.
"I think Islam hates us," Trump told CNN's Anderson Cooper, deploring the "tremendous hatred" that he said partly defined the religion. He maintained the war was against radical Islam, but said, "it's very hard to define. It's very hard to separate. Because you don't know who's who."
Yeah, it is a statement Trump made.
|
On March 11 2016 06:15 ticklishmusic wrote:
IDK why people just can't disavow dumb shit they (or themselves in the past) say/said.
Not being 100% self-consistent to the point of stubborn stupidity is a sign of weakness.
|
On March 11 2016 06:31 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 06:15 ticklishmusic wrote:
IDK why people just can't disavow dumb shit they (or themselves in the past) say/said. Not being 100% self-consistent to the point of stubborn stupidity is a sign of weakness.
Never saying sorry for idiotic stream of consciousness babble (i.e., "he speaks his mind") is Trump's whole appeal. If he starts thinking about what he says and recanting stuff that is obviously impossible, stupid, or hateful then his fans will abandon him. That he "speaks his mind" is the central thing packing those stands. "It is like he speaks for me, what I am trying to say" is a consistent thing you hear from the yahoos cheering him on. Trump must always babble forwards, never looking backwards, always saying something new and insane. If he stops and acknowledges contradictions and nuances, then he becomes a regular politician and would fall to earth like Wile. E. Coyote.
|
During a Thursday morning radio interview, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) candidly explained that Senate Republicans would take a different approach to a Supreme Court nominee if a Republican president were in office and replacing a conservative justice.
Johnson was asked on Wisconsin radio show "Morning Mess" about Senate Republicans' refusal to consider President Obama's forthcoming nomination to the Supreme Court. The host hypothesized that things would be different if Mitt Romney were in the White House.
"It’s a different situation," Johnson said. "Generally, and this is the way it works out politically, if you’re replacing — if a conservative president’s replacing a conservative justice, there’s a little more accommodation to it."
"But when you’re talking about a conservative justice now being replaced by a liberal president who would literally flip the court — you know, let’s face it, I don’t think anybody’s under any illusion — President Obama’s nominee would flip the court from a 5-4 conservative to a 5-4 liberal controlled court," the senator continued. "And that’s the concern, is that our Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms, our First Amendment rights to free speech and religious liberty, will be threatened. And so it’s an incredibly serious moment in terms of what’s the composition of the court going to be."
Johnson said that confirmation for a Supreme Court justice should wait until after the election.
Source
|
On March 11 2016 06:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 06:18 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 06:09 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2016 06:04 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 05:58 kwizach wrote:
But they're not asking him to endorse anyone, they're asking him his position on the specific idea that Islam hates America. Any decent person should immediately respond with "I completely disagree, Joe", and probably add "it's a frankly insulting and bigoted position to hold". The question is bait for basically the reasons you just listed. Is it really a complex answer? “That is incorrect and overly broad. There are problems with violence in the middle east and at some level they are related to the predominant religion in that area. But it is not the sole cause of the violence, as economics and political turmoil also are large factors. But the claim that all 1.5 billion people who identify as members of Islam “hate the US” is completely false.” That's not a claim that Trump has made, although that's apparently where the question is coming from in the context of endorsing a candidate. The fact that they have a governor on TV and spring a question like that (about an issue you clearly think is more nuanced), a question that's about a step away from asking someone "Are you a bigot?" and it's no surprise he didn't want to indulge their bait. http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/donald-trump-islam-hates-us/Show nested quote +Washington (CNN)Donald Trump said Wednesday that he thinks "Islam hates us," drawing little distinction between the religion and radical Islamic terrorism.
"I think Islam hates us," Trump told CNN's Anderson Cooper, deploring the "tremendous hatred" that he said partly defined the religion. He maintained the war was against radical Islam, but said, "it's very hard to define. It's very hard to separate. Because you don't know who's who." Yeah, it is a statement Trump made.
But the claim that all 1.5 billion people who identify as members of Islam “hate the US”
This interpretation by you (and MSNBC) aren't what the candidate said. If I were in Rick Scott's position, and I honestly have no knowledge of him or his views, I would not want to dignify someone baiting me with a strawman instead of honestly soliciting my view; nor, if I were in the position of a Democratic candidate two debates ago and a moderator was asking me to explain in what ways I was racist, would I care to bite. You can't give an honest answer to a dishonest question; that just invites more badgering.
|
On March 11 2016 06:47 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 06:30 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2016 06:18 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 06:09 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2016 06:04 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 05:58 kwizach wrote:
But they're not asking him to endorse anyone, they're asking him his position on the specific idea that Islam hates America. Any decent person should immediately respond with "I completely disagree, Joe", and probably add "it's a frankly insulting and bigoted position to hold". The question is bait for basically the reasons you just listed. Is it really a complex answer? “That is incorrect and overly broad. There are problems with violence in the middle east and at some level they are related to the predominant religion in that area. But it is not the sole cause of the violence, as economics and political turmoil also are large factors. But the claim that all 1.5 billion people who identify as members of Islam “hate the US” is completely false.” That's not a claim that Trump has made, although that's apparently where the question is coming from in the context of endorsing a candidate. The fact that they have a governor on TV and spring a question like that (about an issue you clearly think is more nuanced), a question that's about a step away from asking someone "Are you a bigot?" and it's no surprise he didn't want to indulge their bait. http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/donald-trump-islam-hates-us/Washington (CNN)Donald Trump said Wednesday that he thinks "Islam hates us," drawing little distinction between the religion and radical Islamic terrorism.
"I think Islam hates us," Trump told CNN's Anderson Cooper, deploring the "tremendous hatred" that he said partly defined the religion. He maintained the war was against radical Islam, but said, "it's very hard to define. It's very hard to separate. Because you don't know who's who." Yeah, it is a statement Trump made. Show nested quote +But the claim that all 1.5 billion people who identify as members of Islam “hate the US” This interpretation by you (and MSNBC) aren't what the candidate said. If I were in Rick Scott's position, and I honestly have no knowledge of him or his views, I would not want to dignify someone baiting me with a strawman instead of honestly soliciting my view; nor, if I were in the position of a Democratic candidate two debates ago and a moderator was asking me to explain in what ways I was racist, would I care to bite. You can't give an honest answer to a dishonest question; that just invites more badgering.
About the statement itself. They asked for his view on Trump statement, which has been widely published and the interview was about the upcoming primary in Florida. If he was not aware Trump made the statement, he should have said so. But he didn’t and I find it difficult to believe that he couldn’t have known unless his entire staff are complete idiots and shut off their phones, computers and email for an entire day before the interview.
|
On March 11 2016 06:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +During a Thursday morning radio interview, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) candidly explained that Senate Republicans would take a different approach to a Supreme Court nominee if a Republican president were in office and replacing a conservative justice.
Johnson was asked on Wisconsin radio show "Morning Mess" about Senate Republicans' refusal to consider President Obama's forthcoming nomination to the Supreme Court. The host hypothesized that things would be different if Mitt Romney were in the White House.
"It’s a different situation," Johnson said. "Generally, and this is the way it works out politically, if you’re replacing — if a conservative president’s replacing a conservative justice, there’s a little more accommodation to it."
"But when you’re talking about a conservative justice now being replaced by a liberal president who would literally flip the court — you know, let’s face it, I don’t think anybody’s under any illusion — President Obama’s nominee would flip the court from a 5-4 conservative to a 5-4 liberal controlled court," the senator continued. "And that’s the concern, is that our Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms, our First Amendment rights to free speech and religious liberty, will be threatened. And so it’s an incredibly serious moment in terms of what’s the composition of the court going to be."
Johnson said that confirmation for a Supreme Court justice should wait until after the election. Source
A statement that could have made an iota of sense if made after a liberal candidate was put forward.
A completely and utter lie if the Republican party said there would be no nomination before Scalia's body was cold.
I wonder which of those 2 happened.
|
On March 11 2016 06:47 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 06:30 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2016 06:18 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 06:09 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2016 06:04 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 05:58 kwizach wrote:
But they're not asking him to endorse anyone, they're asking him his position on the specific idea that Islam hates America. Any decent person should immediately respond with "I completely disagree, Joe", and probably add "it's a frankly insulting and bigoted position to hold". The question is bait for basically the reasons you just listed. Is it really a complex answer? “That is incorrect and overly broad. There are problems with violence in the middle east and at some level they are related to the predominant religion in that area. But it is not the sole cause of the violence, as economics and political turmoil also are large factors. But the claim that all 1.5 billion people who identify as members of Islam “hate the US” is completely false.” That's not a claim that Trump has made, although that's apparently where the question is coming from in the context of endorsing a candidate. The fact that they have a governor on TV and spring a question like that (about an issue you clearly think is more nuanced), a question that's about a step away from asking someone "Are you a bigot?" and it's no surprise he didn't want to indulge their bait. http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/donald-trump-islam-hates-us/Washington (CNN)Donald Trump said Wednesday that he thinks "Islam hates us," drawing little distinction between the religion and radical Islamic terrorism.
"I think Islam hates us," Trump told CNN's Anderson Cooper, deploring the "tremendous hatred" that he said partly defined the religion. He maintained the war was against radical Islam, but said, "it's very hard to define. It's very hard to separate. Because you don't know who's who." Yeah, it is a statement Trump made. Show nested quote +But the claim that all 1.5 billion people who identify as members of Islam “hate the US” This interpretation by you (and MSNBC) aren't what the candidate said. If I were in Rick Scott's position, and I honestly have no knowledge of him or his views, I would not want to dignify someone baiting me with a strawman instead of honestly soliciting my view; nor, if I were in the position of a Democratic candidate two debates ago and a moderator was asking me to explain in what ways I was racist, would I care to bite. You can't give an honest answer to a dishonest question; that just invites more badgering.
Trump said "I think Islam hates us". That's not an interpretation. That's what he said. It is a profoundly stupid and bigoted statement, and Scott was asked to give his position on that statement. Again, any decent person would instantly condemn it as ridiculously false and xenophobic.
|
There needs to be a new word for this. Trump isn't even lying, which is actively subverting truth I guess, he's just making random stuff up to the point where nobody including him even knows what he said anymore. I don't know why people even use this as an excuse as in "yeah he's actually reasonable he's just acting", how is someone like this fit for being the president?
|
On March 11 2016 06:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +During a Thursday morning radio interview, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) candidly explained that Senate Republicans would take a different approach to a Supreme Court nominee if a Republican president were in office and replacing a conservative justice.
Johnson was asked on Wisconsin radio show "Morning Mess" about Senate Republicans' refusal to consider President Obama's forthcoming nomination to the Supreme Court. The host hypothesized that things would be different if Mitt Romney were in the White House.
"It’s a different situation," Johnson said. "Generally, and this is the way it works out politically, if you’re replacing — if a conservative president’s replacing a conservative justice, there’s a little more accommodation to it."
"But when you’re talking about a conservative justice now being replaced by a liberal president who would literally flip the court — you know, let’s face it, I don’t think anybody’s under any illusion — President Obama’s nominee would flip the court from a 5-4 conservative to a 5-4 liberal controlled court," the senator continued. "And that’s the concern, is that our Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms, our First Amendment rights to free speech and religious liberty, will be threatened. And so it’s an incredibly serious moment in terms of what’s the composition of the court going to be."
Johnson said that confirmation for a Supreme Court justice should wait until after the election. Source
Basically saying that getting their way is more important then how the US government is supposed to work. Ok. For a party that thumps the most about the constitution they sure do love to shit on it when convenient.
|
On March 11 2016 06:53 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 06:47 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 06:30 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2016 06:18 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 06:09 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2016 06:04 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 05:58 kwizach wrote:
But they're not asking him to endorse anyone, they're asking him his position on the specific idea that Islam hates America. Any decent person should immediately respond with "I completely disagree, Joe", and probably add "it's a frankly insulting and bigoted position to hold". The question is bait for basically the reasons you just listed. Is it really a complex answer? “That is incorrect and overly broad. There are problems with violence in the middle east and at some level they are related to the predominant religion in that area. But it is not the sole cause of the violence, as economics and political turmoil also are large factors. But the claim that all 1.5 billion people who identify as members of Islam “hate the US” is completely false.” That's not a claim that Trump has made, although that's apparently where the question is coming from in the context of endorsing a candidate. The fact that they have a governor on TV and spring a question like that (about an issue you clearly think is more nuanced), a question that's about a step away from asking someone "Are you a bigot?" and it's no surprise he didn't want to indulge their bait. http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/donald-trump-islam-hates-us/Washington (CNN)Donald Trump said Wednesday that he thinks "Islam hates us," drawing little distinction between the religion and radical Islamic terrorism.
"I think Islam hates us," Trump told CNN's Anderson Cooper, deploring the "tremendous hatred" that he said partly defined the religion. He maintained the war was against radical Islam, but said, "it's very hard to define. It's very hard to separate. Because you don't know who's who." Yeah, it is a statement Trump made. But the claim that all 1.5 billion people who identify as members of Islam “hate the US” This interpretation by you (and MSNBC) aren't what the candidate said. If I were in Rick Scott's position, and I honestly have no knowledge of him or his views, I would not want to dignify someone baiting me with a strawman instead of honestly soliciting my view; nor, if I were in the position of a Democratic candidate two debates ago and a moderator was asking me to explain in what ways I was racist, would I care to bite. You can't give an honest answer to a dishonest question; that just invites more badgering. Trump said "I think Islam hates us". That's not an interpretation. That's what he said. It is a profoundly stupid and bigoted statement, and Scott was asked to give his position on that statement. Again, any decent person would instantly condemn that statement as ridiculous false and xenophobic.
Why is that bigoted? How about if Rick Scott sincerely said "Islam loves the US," how would your response change in that case?
Anyway, you're ignoring the actual MSNBC interview. Joe Scarsborough made the same mistake Plansix did (or rather, Plansix repeated it), which is that he asked whether Scott believed "all Muslims" hate the US and suggested that's what Trump said/meant (which he didn't if you actually listen to the source). That is a misinterpretation of the statement and the context where it originated. And it's probably deliberate. Once an interviewer says something like that, you can't erase it from memory. It poisons the rest of the discussion. There'd be no room for Rick Scott, whatever his views (again I have no idea), to represent an otherwise reasonable position - like taking a stance on the extent religion is a factor in radical Islam - because he'd just get pressed with more bait. There's nothing wrong with not answering a question like that, as we can see folks have already judged him guilty of some kind of bigotry-by-association as they love to do.
If someone said "Pakistan hates India" or "Turkey hates Kurdistan" or "Christianity hates paganism" or "There is a tremendous poverty in the black community," do you believe these are bigoted statements? Or can you at least see they're not synonymous with "All Pakistanis hate India" or "All Turks hate Kurdistan" or "All Christians hate paganism" or "All blacks in the US are poor" respectively, which is good, because those would all clearly not be true statements - am I missing anything?
|
Trump wasn't wrong to say that Islam hates US.
They certainly do.
User was warned for this post
|
On March 11 2016 07:11 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 06:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:During a Thursday morning radio interview, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) candidly explained that Senate Republicans would take a different approach to a Supreme Court nominee if a Republican president were in office and replacing a conservative justice.
Johnson was asked on Wisconsin radio show "Morning Mess" about Senate Republicans' refusal to consider President Obama's forthcoming nomination to the Supreme Court. The host hypothesized that things would be different if Mitt Romney were in the White House.
"It’s a different situation," Johnson said. "Generally, and this is the way it works out politically, if you’re replacing — if a conservative president’s replacing a conservative justice, there’s a little more accommodation to it."
"But when you’re talking about a conservative justice now being replaced by a liberal president who would literally flip the court — you know, let’s face it, I don’t think anybody’s under any illusion — President Obama’s nominee would flip the court from a 5-4 conservative to a 5-4 liberal controlled court," the senator continued. "And that’s the concern, is that our Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms, our First Amendment rights to free speech and religious liberty, will be threatened. And so it’s an incredibly serious moment in terms of what’s the composition of the court going to be."
Johnson said that confirmation for a Supreme Court justice should wait until after the election. Source Basically saying that getting their way is more important then how the US government is supposed to work. Ok. For a party that thumps the most about the constitution they sure do love to shit on it when convenient.
This reminds me of the time when one of the Republicans said they cut Obama’s margins in the general election by 5% through voter ID laws. Of course they don’t want an Obama nominee, because it will allow a new voters rights act and other similar laws to pass the court and prevent them from pulling their bullshit.
|
On March 11 2016 07:19 ErectedZenith wrote:
Trump wasn't wrong to say that Islam hates US.
They certainly do.
Who is this islam, where does he live and why does he hate the US again?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
