4463 replies to this topic

[artcinco]

(CNN) Donald Trump is once again alone at the top of the Republican field, according to the latest CNN/ORC Poll, with 36% of registered Republicans and Republican-leaning independents behind him, while his nearest competitor trails by 20 points.

 

Three candidates cluster behind Trump in the mid-teens, including Texas Sen. Ted Cruz at 16%, former neurosurgeon Ben Carson at 14% and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio at 12%. All other candidates have the support of less than 5% of GOP voters in the race for the Republican Party's nomination for president.

 

Carson (down 8 points since October), former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (down 5 points to 3%) and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (down 4 points to 1%) have lost the most ground since the last CNN/ORC poll, conducted in mid-October.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2...onal/index.html

[freedom78]

(CNN) Donald Trump is once again alone at the top of the Republican field, according to the latest CNN/ORC Poll, with 36% of registered Republicans and Republican-leaning independents behind him, while his nearest competitor trails by 20 points.

 

Three candidates cluster behind Trump in the mid-teens, including Texas Sen. Ted Cruz at 16%, former neurosurgeon Ben Carson at 14% and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio at 12%. All other candidates have the support of less than 5% of GOP voters in the race for the Republican Party's nomination for president.

 

Carson (down 8 points since October), former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (down 5 points to 3%) and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (down 4 points to 1%) have lost the most ground since the last CNN/ORC poll, conducted in mid-October.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2...onal/index.html

 

At this point in 2008, Mccain was in fourth place behind Giuliani, Romney, and Huckabee.  Granted, nobody had over 30%, but there's still time for serious movement.

[artcinco]

This is hilarious. Serious anti-Trump butthurt from these political mercenaries.

 

Trump’s Rise Without Traditional Campaign Spending ‘Existential Threat’ to ‘Political Election Industry’

[freedom78]

This is hilarious. Serious anti-Trump butthurt from these political mercenaries.

 

Trump’s Rise Without Traditional Campaign Spending ‘Existential Threat’ to ‘Political Election Industry’

 

There is undoubtedly some very good stuff about Trump's candidacy.  I just wish it was coming from someone I could take seriously.

[Smoking Guns]

Trump is a clown

[Arminius]

Donald Trump would be the most American President ever. He checks all the stereotypes.

[artcinco]

Obama’s ISIS response stirs Democratic angst about 2016

[artcinco]

How Donald Trump Plays the Media

[artcinco]

Voters Like Trump’s Proposed Muslim Ban

[Adolf Hitler]

I'm not going to compare Trump to Hitler(Trump isn't smart enough) but this is how a Hitler type figure can rise to the world stage. Has an extreme rhetoric that the average person can relate to and when he gets in there, can do exactly what he talked about doing except it winds up being worse than people thought.

[Smoking Guns]

Trump is a clown and there are a lot of crazy Muslims that believe in jihad.

[freedom78]

But "jihad" against what?  This is one of those words that is incredibly overblown in the Western understanding of Islam.  Jihad simply means "struggle" and while some of those struggles undoubtedly take the form of extremist violence and terror, others may be a jihad of self-betterment or a jihad of (non-violent) religious commitment.  Even among the violent uses, the idea is too complex to narrow down to a shared meaning.  To argue that ISIS is like al Qaeda is like Hamas because they all engage in jihad is to assume a similarity across conflicts and is based in the belief that the dominant feature of each is terrorism.  As much as we like a simple, black and white, good vs. evil picture, it's much more complicated than that.  In that sense, I would imagine that most Muslims believe in jihad, perhaps even a political jihad, but not a violent jihad.  I have students with strong political beliefs connected back to the struggle for Palestine, for example, but at least one has argued for pacifism. 

 

As much as it's right to criticize Obama for refusing to pin down the extremist religious motives behind a lot of the terrorism relevant to the US, I would argue that it's similarly right to point out that the idea of a "global jihadi movement" is silly, simplistic, and that anyone who holds such a view and is not amenable to changing it when confronted with the real world complexity is leading us right back down the path of "Axis of Evil" and other such nonsense.  I would strongly argue that we need to distinguish between those things that are distinguishable.  ISIS or Al Qaeda represent one facet of the idea of jihad, which is to say that they have global ambitions and a willingness to use extreme violence.  Others, such as Hamas or Chechen groups, may be engaged in a regional or single-country struggle that could presumably lead to the ending of their jihad if the struggle is won or the conflict is ended in some fashion. 

[artcinco]

AN ESTABLISHMENT UNHINGED
Pat Buchanan: Are Japan and Israel fascistic for not allowing Muslim immigration?

[freedom78]

AN ESTABLISHMENT UNHINGED
Pat Buchanan: Are Japan and Israel fascistic for not allowing Muslim immigration?

 

Anyone who argues that any of this is facsistic doesn't know the definition of fascism.

 

However, I do think there's a stark difference in the level of refugee absorption and support we should expect from a country.  The goal of any refugee process should be repatriation in country of origin, if possible.  Until this civil war is over, that isn't a good option for Syrian refugees.  So, given that they essentially need to leave the country in order to be safe, it seems obvious that countries that are geographically closer will have to suffer the initial burden of a refugee crisis.  That would mean Turkey, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel/Palestinian Territories, and perhaps Saudi Arabia and Egypt.  If repatriation cannot be achieved in the short term, then resettlement in more distant countries may be an option; in the meantime, those countries that can, should provide financial support or at least support the UN doing so.

 

In other words, to speak to Buchanan's point, there's a vast difference between Japan and Israel in this regard.  This difference is made far greater when you consider the fact that upwards of 700,000 Palestinians were expelled by Israel during its 1948 "War of Independence", and that over 450,000 of these expelled Palestinians and their descendants are refugees in Syria.  The fact that Israel won't accept any refugees, despite its proximity to the conflict and despite the fact that some 450,000 people are in harm's way due to that earlier expulsion, is not fascist, but racist.  This is evident by the fact that Israel's population is about 20% Arab, in addition to a portion of the population that is both Jewish and Arab.  Compare that to Japan, which is like 99% ethnic Japanese, and it's clear the comparison is a miserable failure.  Additionally, the Palestinian Territories would be willing to accept these Palestinians, but because their borders are fully controlled by Israel, they are not permitted to do so.  In a very real way, Israel is not a neutral party looking on but is actively making the problem worse, by preventing refugees' migration into a land that would have them.

[artcinco]

Look at you, making a different point and bringing in facts different from pat's point. ;-)

 

There are so many competing interests and countries in this Syria mess...