2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Dangerous is gonna happen either way. I'm not for it, but I will agree that not tracking refugees will lead to terror attacks and death...if not now, eventually. One good argument for being against it is saying that stopping terrorism is a fruitless endeavor.

I'm far more afraid of some American who owns a gun going off and killing me or someone I love than I am of a terrorist attack. But try mentioning a database to track all gun owners and see what kind of response one gets.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

It'd probably work like tracking sex offenders

Which is little more than security theatre.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

A database like that won't do anything to stop a terrorist attack, which is the only justifiable theoretical reason for such a database to exist. The only way a tracking database would be valuable for security purposes is to track people week to week or day to day or hour to hour. We do that for wiretaps for those individuals we're most concerned about, but we can't do that for millions of "foreigners." It would be either an incredible expansion of the security state or nothing more than security theatre, either explicitly contrary to our national values or unworkable.

I agree a database with relatively benign collection of data points of foreigners/immigrants/refugees etc. is unlikely to stop another terrorist attack. Therefore, it will logically need to store/track more information on "people of interest".

Some simple examples are:

1) I want to know who came from/went to Syria/Iran, length of stay, why etc.
2) Has someone studied at a Madras
3) Has someone called a phone number that may be of interest

Defining what those variables are and how to track them will be a challenge but not unworkable. I suspect much of these are already being done. The mistake Trump made was saying only for Muslims.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I'm far more afraid of some American who owns a gun going off and killing me or someone I love than I am of a terrorist attack. But try mentioning a database to track all gun owners and see what kind of response one gets.

So the homicide problem in America isn't enough, you want to add terrorism in to the mix as well?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Dutch

So the homicide problem in America isn't enough, you want to add terrorism in to the mix as well?

Are you seriously saying there has never been a terrorist attack in the US? What else could you mean by 'adding to the mix'?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I agree a database with relatively benign collection of data points of foreigners/immigrants/refugees etc. is unlikely to stop another terrorist attack. Therefore, it will logically need to store/track more information on "people of interest".

Some simple examples are:

1) I want to know who came from/went to Syria/Iran, length of stay, why etc.
2) Has someone studied at a Madras
3) Has someone called a phone number that may be of interest

Defining what those variables are and how to track them will be a challenge but not unworkable. I suspect much of these are already being done. The mistake Trump made was saying only for Muslims.

I expect something along those lines already exists. A targeted database of persons of interest makes sense. That's a far cry from your original intent to have a database for foreigners.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I expect something along those lines already exists. A targeted database of persons of interest makes sense. That's a far cry from your original intent to have a database for foreigners.

Sure it starts with collecting data on a large pool of foreigners/immigrants/refugees and then it gets further refined and enriched as needed. I wouldn't start with a blank database and add one by one "persons of interest".

[stevew]

I'm more worried about leaky borders and student visas than refugees. But if you look at the massive identification fraud perpetuated by Dominican baseball players, I suppose it makes me pause.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Sure it starts with collecting data on a large pool of foreigners/immigrants/refugees and then it gets further refined and enriched as needed. I wouldn't start with a blank database and add one by one "persons of interest".

How much time are you willing to waste on tens of millions of foreigners that aren't a threat?

This is why we work with other countries. We want to spend our time on high risk threats, not just anyone from another country. Rather than making us safer, targeting everyone will make us less safe.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

How much time are you willing to waste on tens of millions of foreigners that aren't a threat?

This is why we work with other countries. We want to spend our time on high risk threats, not just anyone from another country. Rather than making us safer, targeting everyone will make us less safe.

A database(s) on all/most foreigners/immigrants already exists, it has to as people apply for some sort of visa or go thru airport immigration.

I don't think you can (efficiently) identify high risk threats without database(s) of some sort. How else can we identify high risk threats?

I think we agree on some sort of database but differ on approach and how much to put into it?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Rand Paul needs to be banging this drum.

Would that be before he gets out of the way in the primary or after?

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Rand Paul needs to be banging this drum.

I'm not immune to taking the easy shot... could he make that another one of his 20-minute filibusters?

The guy talks a good game sometimes, but he's a paper lion.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cartman

Are you seriously saying there has never been a terrorist attack in the US? What else could you mean by 'adding to the mix'?

Of course not, Cartman. What I mean, is increasing the risk during a time when terror cells are increasing their global reach and their rhetoric is seemingly converting into an actual global Jihad.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Of course not, Cartman. What I mean, is increasing the risk during a time when terror cells are increasing their global reach and their rhetoric is seemingly converting into an actual global Jihad.

I think the increased risk would be minimal. That's just me.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

How much time are you willing to waste on tens of millions of foreigners that aren't a threat?.

None. Keep the stats quo on immigration and refugee numbers. We have enough Americans right now that need our support. When we learn to work with the people we have and the money we collect, then we can look at purchasing more population. And to be clear, we aren't letting refugees in for free....each one costs money. And for what? Have you ever been to a ghetto or a trailer park? Why add more people to this? Especially right now when ISIS is actively exporting Jihad fighters through the deportation of their poor people.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I think the increased risk would be minimal. That's just me.

And I dont, but that's just me.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Edward64

A database(s) on all/most foreigners/immigrants already exists, it has to as people apply for some sort of visa or go thru airport immigration.

I don't think you can (efficiently) identify high risk threats without database(s) of some sort. How else can we identify high risk threats?

I think we agree on some sort of database but differ on approach and how much to put into it?

*Known* terrorist databases exist. But we have no idea how good that DB even is and we sure dont know all the new recruits.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by stevew

I'm more worried about leaky borders ...

I'd be more concerned with a bunch of "brown people OMG!" coming over here thanking America and then the "southern white hicks OMG!" drive their trucks with their Confederate flags around the refugees and then the refugees just say, "Fuck it, I'm with ISIS."

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'd be more concerned with a bunch of "brown people OMG!" coming over here thanking America and then the "southern white hicks OMG!" drive their trucks with their Confederate flags around the refugees and then the refugees just say, "Fuck it, I'm with ISIS."

How about this: if we're concerned they'll go with ISIS for any reason then you don't let the scumbags in in the first place?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

How about this: if we're concerned they'll go with ISIS for any reason then you don't let the scumbags in in the first place?

Caveat: 95% or more are not scumbags.

...but yes, in a nutshell...bingo.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

None. Keep the stats quo on immigration and refugee numbers. We have enough Americans right now that need our support. When we learn to work with the people we have and the money we collect, then we can look at purchasing more population. And to be clear, we aren't letting refugees in for free....each one costs money. And for what? Have you ever been to a ghetto or a trailer park? Why add more people to this? Especially right now when ISIS is actively exporting Jihad fighters through the deportation of their poor people.

The database he's proposing is for all foreigners, not just refugees. We'll always have immigrants, work Visa holders, students, tourists, business travel, etc. The number of refugees is so small in comparison to the larger inflow of foreigners that it's insignificant.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Caveat: 95% or more are not scumbags.

Let's just agree to quibble about the percentages later.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The database he's proposing is for all foreigners, not just refugees. We'll always have immigrants, work Visa holders, students, tourists, business travel, etc. The number of refugees is so small in comparison to the larger inflow of foreigners that it's insignificant.

Except in this case, it's significant because the refugees are coming from the heart of hell itself.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Let's just agree to quibble about the percentages later.

Deal.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Except in this case, it's significant because the refugees are coming from the heart of hell itself.

We can agree to disagree on that, but in terms of Edward's proposal and my objection the refugees really don't matter.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

We can agree to disagree on that, but in terms of Edward's proposal and my objection the refugees really don't matter.

We can disagree, I agree....but we can also agree they aren't coming from France.

[JPhillips]

I wouldn't at all agree with that. EU nationals have committed more terrorist attacks than Syrian refugees.

[Dutch]

....fair....how about...10th generation or more French... (we're gonna find the sweet spot of agreement, JPhillips!)

[miked]

It's been said a thousand times, likely in this thread...you are more likely to be killed by somebody toting a gun they bought at a gun show without a background check than you are via a terrorist attack. The amount of silliness over there reinforces what Churchill may or may not have said about the electorate: The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by miked

It's been said a thousand times, likely in this thread...you are more likely to be killed by somebody toting a gun they bought at a gun show without a background check than you are via a terrorist attack. The amount of silliness over there reinforces what Churchill may or may not have said about the electorate: The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

What are the chances of being killed by somebody toting a gun they bought at a gunshow without a background check?

[Solecismic]

OK. We're really way, way off topic here.

Sign of the times? Edwards (D) defeats Vitter (R) rather easily in the Louisiana governor's race.

While Vitter was a flawed candidate, any kind of D win in the south these days is the anomaly.

Probably why Jindal dropped out of the presidential race. What does it say when you're so unpopular that your party can't hold your seat in an area where you should be winning?

[Dutch]

OK. We're really way, way off topic here.

So we are. Back to our regular scheduled broadcast.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I'm far more afraid of some American who owns a gun going off and killing me or someone I love than I am of a terrorist attack. But try mentioning a database to track all gun owners and see what kind of response one gets.

Originally Posted by Dutch

And for what? Have you ever been to a ghetto or a trailer park? Why add more people to this? Especially right now when ISIS is actively exporting Jihad fighters through the deportation of their poor people.

Actually: Why American Landlords Love Refugee Tenants - Bloomberg Business

“I’ve never had to evict a refugee family,” says Anderson, 36, who built his apartment portfolio after serving in the U.S. Marine Corps. “When they come here and get a quality house, they take care of the stuff that they’re provided.”
Keith Raynor, who has rented apartments in Utica, N.Y., for three decades, also prefers to sign leases with refugees. “There was less turnover, which helps with the bottom line,” he says. “I’m not doing this for charity.”

Originally Posted by Dutch

*Known* terrorist databases exist. But we have no idea how good that DB even is and we sure dont know all the new recruits.

So your solution is to increase the size of a data set that the government has already shown they can't properly assess (despite the billions we've thrown at the NSA for this very purpose)?

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'd be more concerned with a bunch of "brown people OMG!" coming over here thanking America and then the "southern white hicks OMG!" drive their trucks with their Confederate flags around the refugees and then the refugees just say, "Fuck it, I'm with ISIS."

Easy solution: get rid of the southern white hicks. Dumb Hicks Are America's Greatest Threat

Originally Posted by Solecismic

OK. We're really way, way off topic here.

No we're not. Refugees and keeping them out of America has become the GOP's top sound bite since Paris.

Sign of the times? Edwards (D) defeats Vitter (R) rather easily in the Louisiana governor's race.

While Vitter was a flawed candidate, any kind of D win in the south these days is the anomaly.

Probably why Jindal dropped out of the presidential race. What does it say when you're so unpopular that your party can't hold your seat in an area where you should be winning?

Turns out the GOP electorate finally decided to hold one of their elected officials accountable for their "family values" schtick.

[JPhillips]

Looks like the Carson bubble is busting. Iowa polls are showing his support collapsing and mostly going to Cruz, with Trump regaining the lead.

[Swaggs]

I think an interesting dynamic on the GOP side is that the Trump/Carson numbers are starting to close in on, and in some cases jump over, the 50% mark in many national and state polls. Conventional thinking is that the number of candidates has been preventing a consensus establishment candidate, but I'm getting less sure of that the longer these numbers hold and grow.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I think an interesting dynamic on the GOP side is that the Trump/Carson numbers are starting to close in on, and in some cases jump over, the 50% mark in many national and state polls. Conventional thinking is that the number of candidates has been preventing a consensus establishment candidate, but I'm getting less sure of that the longer these numbers hold and grow.

What a revelation that would be, that the party isn't actually dominated by pseudocons.

[flere-imsaho]

The size of the "Freedom Caucus" in the House should show you that, Jon.

[JPhillips]

The current frontrunner for the GOP spent the last week advocating a database for Muslims, encouraging protesters being beaten, retweeting bogus and racist crime stats, and falsely claiming that he saw Muslims in NJ celebrating 9/11.

He isn't funny at all, he's dangerous.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The current frontrunner for the GOP spent the last week advocating a database for Muslims, encouraging protesters being beaten, retweeting bogus and racist crime stats, and falsely claiming that he saw Muslims in NJ celebrating 9/11.

He isn't funny at all, he's dangerous.

+1

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The current frontrunner for the GOP spent the last week advocating a database for Muslims, encouraging protesters being beaten, retweeting bogus and racist crime stats, and falsely claiming that he saw Muslims in NJ celebrating 9/11.

He isn't funny at all, he's dangerous.

The 2016 campaign is largely fact-free. That’s a terrible thing for American democracy. - The Washington Post

[albionmoonlight]

dola:

Trump's harmful and crazy positions don't bother me. I hope he is not elected President, but he's not hiding what he believes.

The part that gets me, as that article notes, is the complete break from objective reality. I don't really care for post-modernism as a literary genre. I certainly don't like that its becoming the basis for political discourse.

[Arles]

Trump is in the Howard Dean, Ross Perot, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul and even Bernie Sanders "leading early" club. There was virtually no chance that any of these guys would ever win the nomination - but they all had either nice leads or a rabid/devoted following 1 year+ before the election. Once the party starts getting serious on a nominee, these guys start tapering off.

For those of you hoping/worried about a Trump/Sanders battle for the presidency, the smart money (and establishment) will be advocating a Rubio/Clinton matchup.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Arles

Trump is in the Howard Dean, Ross Perot, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul and even Bernie Sanders "leading early" club. There was virtually no chance that any of these guys would ever win the nomination - but they all had either nice leads or a rabid/devoted following 1 year+ before the election. Once the party starts getting serious on a nominee, these guys start tapering off.

For those of you hoping/worried about a Trump/Sanders battle for the presidency, the smart money (and establishment) will be advocating a Rubio/Clinton matchup.

I agree that Trump will not win the nomination. He's like the run-n-shoot in the 80s. It looked really unstoppable at times. It was new and refreshing. And, when the rubber hit the road, it had significant flaws and lost to more traditional approaches.

But NFL offenses all adopted and incorporated the parts of the run and shoot that worked. Tonight, you will see Tom Brady spread the field with 5 wide and hit someone on a 4 yard option route.

I am afraid that political campaigns in the future will look at Trump and see what works. They will look at the fact that he suffers no electoral penalty for refusing to acknowledge objective facts, and the next round of politicians will adopt that approach. And we will all be worse for it.

[Arles]

I guess the positive (if you are worried about Trump's tactics) is that "what works" is thumbing your nose at the establishment and going as non-PC as possible to capture the "in my day, we could [insert current PC reference] without everyone getting all upset" crowd from the right or the "we need to tax those ungrateful rich bastards to pay for all of our expenses" crew on the left. The problem is the establishment ends up playing a major role in the selection of a nominee - so it's doubtful it will support a rogue operative.

For better or worse, guys like Sanders, Trump and Howard Dean are destined to fail in this current system.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

...the complete break from objective reality.

I think there's some degree of cried-wolf syndrome here at work, which is insidious in a weird way.

The left, especially the intelligentsia left, has long suffered from an extra helping of the righteous indignation that shows up in politics. It's not just that the other guy has a bad idea, but goddammit the other guy has the wrong idea, which is far worse. It's hard to articulate, but this is a different flavor than just the run of the mill "we're right, they're wrong" stuff. Lots of political intellectuals (largely liberal sorts) effectively want to do the thinking for everyone across the political spectrum.

So here, I basically agree with CC's argument. I find this stuff repellent. But those of us who do have already invested a lot of breath making similar-sounding claims about a wide range of topics... maybe global warming being the latest such case, but that's not the point.

Anyway...yelling "that's false" sounds an awful lot like "that's wrong" and that sounds an awful lot like "I disagree with you" and everyone knows that doesn't mean a thing in politics. Especially when the source of the critique is already known for nose-up sneering at the rest of the little people with their mistaken ideas.

[JPhillips]

There's a hell of a lot of difference between Trump's more and more openly racist vitriol and Sanders calling for a higher top marginal tax rate.

The problem with Trump and he roughly one third of the GOP he currently represents is that he's George Wallace in 2015. That and no one has the guts to call him out because they're worried about the one third that supports him. The GOP is damn close to a full out white nationalism party ala some of the Euro far right. In a two party system, that should terrify everyone.

[spleen1015]

Is it possible that he's not a racist, but a guy pointing out problems that no one else has the guts to point out and he's labeled a racist because these problems involve non-whites?

[Arles]

I think a lot of moderates are "open" to the idea of the republican party right now. Democrats have had their 8-year run and people are looking for a new option. If the party "goes more right" as a result, they will lose. Based on what I've seen through the primaries, the republicans seem a lot more open to new ideas than the democrats. Rand Paul is talking about cutting defense spending (gasp!), Rubio is talking about increasing entitlements for families (double gasp!) and Kasich has already done the whole "I'd support a gay couple's marriage" (passes out!!!!). These are massive shifts from 8 years ago. Even Trump is pretty moderate on social issues.

I don't see any movement to the right from the democrats. Maybe a little in Webb, but Hillary and Sanders are outflanking Obama to the left right now.

[molson]

Gambling odds for the nomination graphed over the last year. Rubio the clear favorite, Trump gaining ground, Bush cratered, and those with money on the outcome have never taken Carson seriously. (Hillary is at about 93% odds of winning on the Dem side)

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

Is it possible that he's not a racist, but a guy pointing out problems that no one else has the guts to point out and he's labeled a racist because these problems involve non-whites?

I think that is what Quick is getting at too. I'm not sure it is possible for any political person to "pop off" and not be called something.

While most seem to say they are not blindly devoted to their political team, it seems that the first response by most is usually to discredit the messenger and ignore the message.