[US Election 2016] Republican Primary Megathread

[Ashmoria]

So if we can't actually DO anything about people with such beliefs until they actually start to plan and carry out violent acts based on those beliefs, why are we insisting on the use of a "war" metaphor?

As I understood it, the 'war' metaphor is largely just rhetoric outside the actual battlefields of Syria and Iraq (and Libya, etc), and the cover work of the intelligence agencies. It often that happens that things are framed in military language, since its easily to express.

and the drone attacks in countries we aren't at war with...

[Eol Sha]

As I understood it, the 'war' metaphor is largely just rhetoric outside the actual battlefields of Syria and Iraq (and Libya, etc), and the cover work of the intelligence agencies. It often that happens that things are framed in military language, since its easily to express.

and the drone attacks in countries we aren't at war with...

That's probably why Bush called it a war on terrorism. To keep it broad and open-ended.

[Valaran]

I think it would be an excellent thing to strip religion away from aq and isis. especially since they want to be the champions of islam while most of the people they kill with their terrorism are muslims. its time that the Islamic world and the disaffected Islamic "youth" of the non-Islamic world saw that utterly clearly. then they might not be quite so attracted to the idea of them. (not unlike the chapter of the first freakonomics book that discussed superman vs the kkk)

I assume that the right is going crazy over this particular attack because they cant allow themselves the space to see the general role of religion and guns in the "usual" mass killing in this country. the pent up anger and fear from the more than 300 freaking mass shootings this year alone are being expressed in outrage over this one. personally I don't find it more scary that a muslim couple did this.

and, to bring it back to the thread topic, the republican candidates are losing their minds over this because they want to distinguish themselves as being the bestest possible antidote to the president's calm but ...inadequate...response. (I doubt there IS an adequate response possible but that's not the point)

Pretty much complete agreement.

A few pedantic additions:

I would say that even with stripping away religion, we'd have to correct for several other attractions to IS and AQ. Mostly socio-eocomic factors (in Europe and the Middles East).

And on a personal note, I find it slightly more unnerving that it was an act of terror, even if I completely accept this to be an irrational response, and one born of circumstance.

Much of the GOP campaign seems to be a bidding war on outrageous stances (though not all of it is, and the Dems stray into this territory as well).

As I understood it, the 'war' metaphor is largely just rhetoric outside the actual battlefields of Syria and Iraq (and Libya, etc), and the cover work of the intelligence agencies. It often that happens that things are framed in military language, since its easily to express.

and the drone attacks in countries we aren't at war with...

Perhaps that would be a more pertinent place to use that word, but I imagine its a lot harder to frame it as 'wars on certain groups and peoples inside someone's borders' than on nations. Spin matters more than transparency and accountability, for some reason.

[The United Territories of Providence]

Taking over this thread from the original (CTE) poster immediately after the first Fox News debate, 7 August 2015. Here is the slate of candidates from that debate, in alphabetical order by last name:

Candidates:
Former Florida governor Jeb Bush
Neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson
New Jersey governor Chris Christie
Senator Ted Cruz
Former Hewlet Packard CEO Carly Fiorina
Former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore
South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham
Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee
Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal
Former Ohio governor John Kasich
Senator Rand Paul
Former New York governor George Pataki
Former Texas governor Rick Perry
Senator Marco Rubio
Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum
New York real estate mogul Donald Trump
Wisconsin governor Scott Walker

As always, keep to the rules of the forums, and keep the conversation civil. No slurs based on names or party affiliations will be tolerated.

Let the games begin!

Former Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal

Also John Kasich isn't the former Governor of Ohio, he's the Governor.

[Ashmoria]

Taking over this thread from the original (CTE) poster immediately after the first Fox News debate, 7 August 2015. Here is the slate of candidates from that debate, in alphabetical order by last name:

Candidates:
Former Florida governor Jeb Bush
Neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson
New Jersey governor Chris Christie
Senator Ted Cruz
Former Hewlet Packard CEO Carly Fiorina
Former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore
South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham
Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee
Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal
Former Ohio governor John Kasich
Senator Rand Paul
Former New York governor George Pataki
Former Texas governor Rick Perry
Senator Marco Rubio
Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum
New York real estate mogul Donald Trump
Wisconsin governor Scott Walker

As always, keep to the rules of the forums, and keep the conversation civil. No slurs based on names or party affiliations will be tolerated.

Let the games begin!

Former Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal

Also John Kasich isn't the former Governor of Ohio, he's the Governor.

lol

no one cared enough about Kasich to notice that he was mislabeled.

in 8 months.

[Eol Sha]

Former Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal

Also John Kasich isn't the former Governor of Ohio, he's the Governor.

lol

no one cared enough about Kasich to notice that he was mislabeled.

in 8 months.

I think it was mentioned last month or in October.

Edit: Nevermind.

[Ashmoria]

lol

no one cared enough about Kasich to notice that he was mislabeled.

in 8 months.

I think it was mentioned last month or in October.

Edit: Nevermind.

that's just as funny, eh?

[Geilinor]

As I understood it, the 'war' metaphor is largely just rhetoric outside the actual battlefields of Syria and Iraq (and Libya, etc), and the cover work of the intelligence agencies. It often that happens that things are framed in military language, since its easily to express.

and the drone attacks in countries we aren't at war with...

The only country we were at war with was Iraq, which was a distraction.

[Ashmoria]

and the drone attacks in countries we aren't at war with...

The only country we were at war with was Iraq, which was a distraction.

and afghanistan but we were and are drone killing people in Pakistan and yemen and .....I don't know where else.

[Trumpostan]

Trump: muslims shall no pasaran the borders of the USA

Donald Trump‘s campaign has released a statement announcing that he wants a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

The statement cites how there’s “great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population” and how a number of Muslims believe in Sharia law and think that any American Muslims ‘should have the choice of being governed” by it.

Trump himself said “the hatred is beyond comprehension” and wants to look into why anti-Muslim sentiment is so high, but said, “Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it posts, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in jihad, and have no sense of religion or respect for human life.”

Trump has previously proposed surveillance of mosques and at one point didn’t shut down the idea of registering all Muslims (before claiming he didn’t entertain the notion).

He’s also claimed, without the evidence to back it up, that “thousands” of Muslims in New Jersey cheered on 9/11.

And in case there’s any confusion about who this applies to, Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski said it applies to “everyone,” and that includes tourists.

But what about gun toting second amendment loving Mexican muslims willing to work for minimum wage for Trump construction companies?

[Constaniana]

Trump: muslims shall no pasaran the borders of the USA

Donald Trump‘s campaign has released a statement announcing that he wants a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

The statement cites how there’s “great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population” and how a number of Muslims believe in Sharia law and think that any American Muslims ‘should have the choice of being governed” by it.

Trump himself said “the hatred is beyond comprehension” and wants to look into why anti-Muslim sentiment is so high, but said, “Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it posts, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in jihad, and have no sense of religion or respect for human life.”

Trump has previously proposed surveillance of mosques and at one point didn’t shut down the idea of registering all Muslims (before claiming he didn’t entertain the notion).

He’s also claimed, without the evidence to back it up, that “thousands” of Muslims in New Jersey cheered on 9/11.

And in case there’s any confusion about who this applies to, Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski said it applies to “everyone,” and that includes tourists.

But what about gun toting second amendment loving Mexican muslims willing to work for minimum wage for Trump construction companies?

Not good enough. Only those he can pay below minimum wage are worthy of Trump Senpai's notice.

[The balkens]

Trump: muslims shall no pasaran the borders of the USA



But what about gun toting second amendment loving Mexican muslims willing to work for minimum wage for Trump construction companies?

Not good enough. Only those he can pay below minimum wage are worthy of Trump Senpai's notice.

Good luck actually even getting his Ego to notice you.

[Eol Sha]

Lol

[Xarchia (Ancient)]

Boy, I bet those posters who wrote off Trump back when this thread first started are eating crow now.

[The United Territories of Providence]

Boy, I bet those posters who wrote off Trump back when this thread first started are eating crow now.

Two Words. President Giuliani.

The National Polls aren't that significant. It's for a national election that will never happen. What matters is the state by state polls, and anyone who'd declare a victor a full 56 days before the Iowa Caucus is a fool. Rudy Giuliani had a bigger lead than Donald Trump exactly 56 days before Iowa in 2008. 2nd Place was the late Fred Thompson, and in a measly third was...oh yeah...Senator John McCain. That goes for your national polls. Specifically in Iowa, Mitt Romney was the leader up until the last 30 days when Mike Huckabee surged. 2012 is an even better example, there was an obvious leader until some no name ex-Pennsylvania Senator went from 2% support to winning the caucuses in way less than 56 days.

There is no crow to eat. Donald Trump is not inevitable. Most primary voters have not made up their minds yet, there are several undecideds and support will shift back and forth, even the night before the caucus. Last thing, even if Trump were to win a plurality of votes...the delegates at the RNC would block him from winning the nomination. The Party ultimately decides the nominee, the GOP wants to win an election. Nominating an inarticulate, xenophobic, quasi fascist, inexperienced moderate like Trump isn't the way the GOP wants to go.

If Donald Trump wins the Republican Nomination, Forget the Presidency, just the Nomination...I will eat my hat.

[Galloism]

Trump thinks Bill Gates needs to close certain parts of the Internet.

No. Srsly.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/7/98693 ... bill-gates

[Occupied Deutschland]

Trump thinks Bill Gates needs to close certain parts of the Internet.

No. Srsly.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/7/98693 ... bill-gates

Unplug the tubes, stop the terrorists.
Trump 2016.

[Shazbotdom]

Trump thinks Bill Gates needs to close certain parts of the Internet.

No. Srsly.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/7/98693 ... bill-gates

......

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Oh fucking hell. How much of a moron is this guy going to be?

[ErVaReAn rEpUbLiC]

Trump thinks Bill Gates needs to close certain parts of the Internet.

No. Srsly.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/7/98693 ... bill-gates

Billionaire vs a richer billionaire.

[Zurkerx]

Trump thinks Bill Gates needs to close certain parts of the Internet.

No. Srsly.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/7/98693 ... bill-gates

It's Donald Trump, what do you expect? He will spew anything to get attention and attract any of the racist/bigot groups out there. This though prevails in comparison to his comment that we shouldn't be accepting Muslims. God I hope he doesn't get the nomination.

[MERIZoC]

Trump thinks Bill Gates needs to close certain parts of the Internet.

No. Srsly.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/7/98693 ... bill-gates

What an idiot. He obviously needs Al Gore for that.

[Xarchia (Ancient)]

If Donald Trump wins the Republican Nomination, Forget the Presidency, just the Nomination...I will eat my hat.

I'll hold you to that.

[Xarchia (Ancient)]

Oh fucking hell. How much of a moron is this guy going to be?

However big of a moron he has to be to win the nomination.

[Saiwania]

Trump thinks Bill Gates needs to close certain parts of the Internet. No. Srsly.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/7/98693 ... bill-gates

Trump actually brings up a good point, the US had ICANN control up until recently. It should not have been relinquished to international organizations but they're in the process of doing so. ICANN could quite simply, revoke the DNS registrations of any ISIS websites so they'd be inaccessible, such intervention would affect most if not all of the root DNS servers. The IP addresses would be even easier to block on an ISP level.

[ErVaReAn rEpUbLiC]

Trump thinks Bill Gates needs to close certain parts of the Internet. No. Srsly.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/7/98693 ... bill-gates

Trump actually brings up a good point, the US had ICANN control up until recently. It should not have been relinquished to international organizations but they're in the process of doing so. ICANN could quite simply, revoke the DNS registrations of any ISIS websites so they'd be inaccessible, such intervention would affect most if not all of the root DNS servers. The IP addresses would be even easier to block on an ISP level.

I'd argue the state has no right to block extremist sites, though it might monitor those.