US Presidential Candidates

Taking nothing away from Mr. Khan's loss or the bravery of his son, but how does requiring all immigrants to go through exactly what he and his family went through make Trump a villain? Immigrants should not be allowed entry unless they are vetted. The Khans as well as my family went through a vetting process in our application for permanent residency status.

Nico wrote:Did anyone watch Khizr Khan's speech at the DNC? I'm not even an American anc it made me cry. More, it was an absolute indictment of Trump's policy proposals, his character and his suitability to lead the greatest nation on Earth.

PeterZ wrote:Taking nothing away from Mr. Khan's loss or the bravery of his son, but how does requiring all immigrants to go through exactly what he and his family went through make Trump a villain? Immigrants should not be allowed entry unless they are vetted.

Which is now and has always been done. So don't pretend that has a damn thing to do with Trumps calls to ban Muslim immigration. Those immigrants are already being vetted so what the hell is the ban for?

That's not what Trump was wanting to do however.
He wanted to ban them all, no vetting allowed.
For an undisclosed period of time.
Also, wikileaks just publishes information passed on to them, they don't do any hacking etc.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

No, they are not. Most of the refugees don't have any documentation at all. There is no way to vet them as Mr. Khan's and my family were vetted. The ban is for finding a workable vetting process. I have no problems using the non-refugee application process for all refugees. Use the same requirements Mr. Khan and I had to meet.

Don't meet the requirements, don't come in.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Taking nothing away from Mr. Khan's loss or the bravery of his son, but how does requiring all immigrants to go through exactly what he and his family went through make Trump a villain? Immigrants should not be allowed entry unless they are vetted.

Which is now and has always been done. So don't pretend that has a damn thing to do with Trumps calls to ban Muslim immigration. Those immigrants are already being vetted so what the hell is the ban for?

Do get you facts right. I believe he said....until we know what's going on.
Using common parlance and not proggy code speech, that means until they can be vetted.

Annachie wrote:That's not what Trump was wanting to do however.
He wanted to ban them all, no vetting allowed.
For an undisclosed period of time.
Also, wikileaks just publishes information passed on to them, they don't do any hacking etc.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

PeterZ wrote:No, they are not. Most of the refugees don't have any documentation at all. There is no way to vet them as Mr. Khan's and my family were vetted.

Yes they damn well are. There is no "oh we can't vet you so you get a free plane ticket to America" exception. If they can't be vetted THEY DON'T GET IN. Any refugees getting in are doing so only after 1.5 to 2 YEARS of fucking screening by like 9 different agencies. It is incredibly hard for any Syrian refugee to make it to the US. Refugees from conflict zones are the single most scrutinized class of immigrants that exist. All this "we need to stop letting anyone in until we figure out how to handle this" talk is a bullshit smokescreen for nothing more than pure bigotry.

Trump isn't saying stop them from coming in because they aren't vetted. He's saying to stop them from coming in because he knows that's what his target audience wants to hear. "Keep them Muslims of "our" country."


The only part of what you said that is correct is that they aren't vetted like your family. They're Vetted Way Harder.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/11/20/syrian-refugees-in-desperation-obama-offers-statistics-and-lies.html

Sorry, but your assertion requires a greater level of trust in the system than facts would suggest is warranted. Unsupportable stats and claims from anonymous sources aren't anything to risk American lives on.

So until the vetting process is transparent and effective, slow down immigration of refugees. Any refugee that passes the standard immigration process is fine with me and I suspect fine with Trump.

As for my only hearing what I want to hear, the same accusation can be used on you. You hear what you want and ignore anything else.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:No, they are not. Most of the refugees don't have any documentation at all. There is no way to vet them as Mr. Khan's and my family were vetted.

Yes they damn well are. There is no "oh we can't vet you so you get a free plane ticket to America" exception. If they can't be vetted THEY DON'T GET IN. Any refugees getting in are doing so only after 1.5 to 2 YEARS of fucking screening by like 9 different agencies. It is incredibly hard for any Syrian refugee to make it to the US. Refugees from conflict zones are the single most scrutinized class of immigrants that exist. All this "we need to stop letting anyone in until we figure out how to handle this" talk is a bullshit smokescreen for nothing more than pure bigotry.

Trump isn't saying stop them from coming in because they aren't vetted. He's saying to stop them from coming in because he knows that's what his target audience wants to hear. "Keep them Muslims of "our" country."


The only part of what you said that is correct is that they aren't vetted like your family. They're Vetted Way Harder.

Peter, you know, Trump only came out with 'until we know what's going on' AFTER the huge backlash against his proposed ban. His original remarks are all over the internet. He made no qualifications, no exceptions. He simply proposed a blanket ban on Muslim immigration.

Just as he accused Mexican immigrants - both legal and illegal, as a group - of being rapists and murderers. Just as he ignored the fact that illegal immigrants commit far less crimes than their percentage of the total American population would suppose.

Just as he tweeted a Star of David on a backfield of dollar notes and when criticized claimed it was a Sheriff's star. When the source of that image was a white supremacist website, and when that image reflected the Nazi accusations against Jews exactly.

Just as, on stage and over the airwaves, he made fun of a disabled journalist.

Just as he's been spending his entire adult life demeaning and objectifying women.

And THAT animal is the man you want as your nation's leader and commander-in-chief?

From:

unnamed subscriber in Stansberry mailbag

The trouble with not voting is that 'they' think that you do not care, and assume that whomever it is that wins the election has a much larger mandate than he/she really does. The other approach is to vote 'against' a candidate by voting for the lesser of two evils. The trouble with this approach is that much like the not voting example, the vote you cast is taken to be what you actually want, and this gives the machine the assumption that you approve of whomever it is for whom you voted. It is for this reason that I vote in EVERY election, and I vote for the candidate that I actually want in office.

Interesting points there


A thought: given voters who take the trouble to vet the politicians before voting, the politicos have a clue as to when they should back off before the harassed citizens revolt. I wonder if enough of them have the sense to pay attention


Jerry Pournelle developed one of several two dimensional politics analysis graphs. AFAIK, it was the first one. His axes are: State worship vs anarchy, and rational basis vs emotional basis. Most people are are more central, of course.

The current election suggests making use of this to clarify the candidate's positions (not just the presidential ones, either). The Democrats and Republicans both have some people who are statists, and some libertarians; some on emotional basis, and some on rational basis. Using Pournelle's chart may improve our comprehension.

If

Elizabeth Warren's unstated view is that government control is the default, and that liberty is something handed out by the state.

from:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/eliza ... le/2597724

is correct, Warren is a strong statist. Could anyone clarify whether the basis is rational, emotional, or mixed


Also, the same chart can be used to clarify party positions

Sorry Nico, but the guy has been too much in the limelight for too long to not have any racist beliefs not show up already. His son in law is jewish. The guy shoots off his mouth when he shouldn't. He acts and speaks off the cuff before thinking things through. He's a boor. All granted.

The alternative is supporting someone who protects a serial rapist. Not just someone who "objectifies" women, but protects someone who assaults them. Rapes them.

The choice sucks but I draw the line well before I come close to reaching the Empress of Corruption. Supporting her is acquiescing to this continued corruption. No and HELL NO!

Nico wrote:Peter, you know, Trump only came out with 'until we know what's going on' AFTER the huge backlash against his proposed ban. His original remarks are all over the internet. He made no qualifications, no exceptions. He simply proposed a blanket ban on Muslim immigration.

Just as he accused Mexican immigrants - both legal and illegal, as a group - of being rapists and murderers. Just as he ignored the fact that illegal immigrants commit far less crimes than their percentage of the total American population would suppose.

Just as he tweeted a Star of David on a backfield of dollar notes and when criticized claimed it was a Sheriff's star. When the source of that image was a white supremacist website, and when that image reflected the Nazi accusations against Jews exactly.

Just as, on stage and over the airwaves, he made fun of a disabled journalist.

Just as he's been spending his entire adult life demeaning and objectifying women.

And THAT animal is the man you want as your nation's leader and commander-in-chief?