US Election 2016

[watt price tully]

[watt price tully]

A lot of water to go under the bridge & while Trump is grabbing headlines, Clinton is improving her lead: An average of polls shows Clinton with a 6.7 lead:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

[think positive]

[stui magpie]

^

Look at what the system threw up.

The democrats had an over the hill socialist vs an establishment figure trading on gender who's as crooked as a dogs hind leg.

The Republicans had a swathe of far righters, an establishment figure trading on his last name, a handful of mixed nuts and a populist wildcard running an utterly unconventional campaign which proved successful.

Collectively they would have spent a metric shitpile of money.

Our system has it's flaws and throws up some duds sometimes, but I prefer it to theirs.

[think positive]

there is always Arnie!!

[David]

[stui magpie]

[David]

Has he? Do you have a source for that? Even if it is true, the fact that he let that promise sit around unchallenged for the better part of nine months really shows his deep commitment to countering oppression of minorities.

[stui magpie]

Google is wonderful.

[David]

This is the latest article:

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/14/politics/donald-trump-isis-fight/

Anyway, you're doing better than me if you can look at this as anything other than just another exercise in cynical rhetoric. This'll do:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mr-trumps-gibberish-on-muslims/2016/06/29/99c34798-3d7a-11e6-a66f-aa6c1883b6b1_story.html?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.aa7f6d9bcdd6

[stui magpie]

You really are on the "protector of Muslims" bandwagon aren't you.

Firstly he originally said a temporary ban until we work out to do, never a permanent ban on all Muslims, that was the SJW's interpretation.

He's pulled that back to a temporary ban on Muslims from the most dangerous areas. He did that a while ago but I expect you won't see much about it in the media you tend to read.

Now he's qualified that to be in place until they get their "extreme vetting" process in place.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/16/politics/how-us-vets-immigrants-donald-trump-extreme-vetting/index.html

That will sell well if he can stay consistent with it. Shit, it would sell well here's it's only a small extension of what we're already doing.

Welcome aboard, come on in, just remember that this country has it's own values and laws and you'll be expected to abide by them. If you don't like them and/or you want to be under Sharia Law you should go to a country that operates under Sharia law, not here.

Tying it to the endemic Islamic attitude toward Women and Gays etc works well.

[David]

I don't see myself as a 'protector' of anyone. American Muslims have been perfectly competent at expressing their own concern over Trump's xenophobic proposals, so I'm hardly 'speaking for them'. But if they were the only people protesting, speaking out against and talking about this issue, then their likelihood of getting screwed over would be much higher. Which is why I'm not aware of many Muslim Americans asking white Americans to shut up and leave the fight to them.

Solidarity means fighting against injustice together. Sorry if that's all a bit uncool and 'SJW' for you, but last time I checked the best way to counter injustice is to actively oppose it, not sit around sneering at people who do.

Let me ask you this: do you care about justice? Are there rights for, say, Muslims that you would stand up and fight for?

[stui magpie]

I knew that pic would get up your nose.

I assume then you agree with the content of my post.

[David]

On Trump, nothing he will ever say or do will erase the fact that he stood in front of crowds and promised that he would place an indefinite ban on Muslim immigration. If it had been a gaffe that he'd apologised for the day after, or something that he had had a profound change of heart over, then that might be a different story. But he won a major party nomination on that promise, FFS, and is only (ever so slightly) walking it back now because he's trying to get more moderate Republicans to vote for him.

Frankly, I don't see how any thinking person could be impressed by this or think that it's some argument against the virulent xenophobia of the Trump campaign. At any rate, his 'new' proposal is still illiberal and regressive and, if it were enacted, would lead to substantial profiling and discrimination.

[stui magpie]

Since he won a nomination on the back of it as you say (I don't agree but it's your story) then that would be a hell of a lot of people who were impressed by it.

Unless of course you're prepared to dismiss all of them as not thinking people