Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

In summary, the top contenders for the 2016 US Presidential Election are Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Bernie Sanders. The major issues that are being discussed are the lack of qualifications of the contenders, their stances on jailing all of the other candidates, and the stances of each candidate on various issues.
  • #141
Astronuc said:
Chris Collins explains his support for Trump’s candidacy - What!?
Heh heh! Just one more piece of writing on the wall that Trump - like it or not - is nearly certain to be the Republican nominee and quite possibly the next US president. We all need to wrap our heads around that.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #142
Dotini said:
Heh heh! Just one more piece of writing on the wall that Trump - like it or not - is nearly certain to be the Republican nominee and quite possibly the next US president. We all need to wrap our heads around that.

I have always conceded that Trump may win the nomination, but I don't think he will ever actually elected president (there's a big difference between winning the nomination and winning the general presidential election). But if in the (unlikely) event that Trump actually gets elected, I am considering renouncing my US citizenship.

On that note, there have been various posts on Twitter from Americans who have stated they will move to Canada in the event that Trump is elected President. I don't know how serious any of these posts are (I suspect that many people say they will move to Canada to vent, without actually following through), but here is a link from the Huffington Post below discussing this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/robert-waite/donald-trump-president_b_8828978.html
 
  • #143
StatGuy2000 said:
I have always conceded that Trump may win the nomination, but I don't think he will ever actually elected president (there's a big difference between winning the nomination and winning the general presidential election). But if in the (unlikely) event that Trump actually gets elected, I am considering renouncing my US citizenship.

On that note, there have been various posts on Twitter from Americans who have stated they will move to Canada in the event that Trump is elected President. I don't know how serious any of these posts are (I suspect that many people say they will move to Canada to vent, without actually following through), but here is a link from the Huffington Post below discussing this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/robert-waite/donald-trump-president_b_8828978.html
If Trump is elected, I won't leave the US. But I will be very, very distressed.
 
  • Like
Likes StatGuy2000
  • #144
lisab said:
If Trump is elected, I won't leave the US. But I will be very, very distressed.

As will I -- it was bad enough that the US was stuck with George W. Bush as president for 2 terms. ?:) The thought of a ******* (word censored) clown & carnival barker like Trump as president makes me shudder!

Now as it happens, I live in Canada, and hence will not have to leave the US.
 
  • #145
lisab said:
If Trump is elected, I won't leave the US. But I will be very, very distressed.
As an outsider, I believe it is all just political dramas mainly to filter all citizens'ideas to understand their desires ranging from those for basic needs or life support to many more for advanced levels of higher social development.
They are kind of mental challenges to all citizens particularly patriots but then everyone would be more considerate of their own votes and for the one they opt to choose as the next president. Don't be silly (:DD)
 
  • #146
We do not know the future - it is not set in stone. Perhaps a Trump presidency will have silver linings we cannot presently imagine?

My good friend John, a prominent Seattle bookseller, came down with shingles the very day GW won his second election. IMO, It's bad to take politics too seriously. I have friends, family, property and deep roots that are not worth abandoning, and I expect you might, too.

FWIW, I expect we will get Trump due to the poor choices we have made in the past.
 
  • Like
Likes Greg Bernhardt
  • #147
Chris Collins' 2013 campaign vision statement similar to Trumps "make America great again" promise, “The United States of America will reclaim its past glory as the Land of Opportunity, restoring the promise of the American Dream, for our children and grandchildren.”

Does anyone have any clue to which period in our history either might be referring ?
 
  • #148
Astronuc said:
It appears there are a number of sites, which portray Sanders as a Marxist.

Sanders in his own words: "I don’t believe government should own the means of production, ..".

So he says; he may think otherwise. Few leftist politicians outside of the like of Venezuela talk any more about nationalizing companies given the failed history of state companies. Instead, they can propose seizing a large chunk of the company's profits and regulating it's every move. Why go to the trouble of keeping a firm on the national books when it can be controlled in detail by other means, and then, should the firm fail, lay blame on the foibles of private enterprise.

Sanders windfall profits tax:
https://votesmart.org/public-statem...ig-oils-big-profits&speechType=4#.Vs9iPahOmf0
 
Last edited:
  • #149
lisab said:
I will be very, very distressed.
As distressed as I at Obama's re-election?
 
  • #150
Op-Ed (LA Times) A presidential run by Michael Bloomberg could plunge the country into a constitutional crisis
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-e...-12th-amendment-bloomberg-20160225-story.html

In the next couple of weeks, Michael R. Bloomberg will decide whether to launch an independent bid for the presidency. That's an enticing prospect, since the continuing strength of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders threatens to force a radical choice between two extremes. Nevertheless, before succumbing to centrist temptation, the former New York City mayor should take a hard look at the Constitution. He will find that his run for the White House could precipitate one of the worst constitutional crises in American history.

The problem is the 12th Amendment. Enacted in 1804, it establishes the rules for presidential selection if no candidate secures a majority of 270 electoral votes — a distinct possibility should Bloomberg enter the race. The sphere of competition will then move from the states to the House of Representatives, . . . .
Even without Bloomberg, it could still move into the House of Representatives if neither GOP or Dem candidate obtains 270 electoral votes.
 
  • #151
Astronuc said:
Op-Ed (LA Times) A presidential run by Michael Bloomberg could plunge the country into a constitutional crisis
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-e...-12th-amendment-bloomberg-20160225-story.html

Even without Bloomberg, it could still move into the House of Representatives if neither GOP or Dem candidate obtains 270 electoral votes.
Someone mentioned this in another thread, but I don't see how it is actually a realistic possibility: most states are winner take all pluralities in the electoral college. Do people forget Ross Perot and his 18% of the popular vote in 1992? He won precisely zero electoral votes, making Clinton's substantially less than a majority victory look like a landslide.
 
  • #152
Clinton criticizes Obama’s Supreme Court strategy
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/in-south-carolina-clinton-distances-herself-from-192655901.html
KINGSTREE, S.C. — Hillary Clinton took a few moments at a town hall in rural South Carolina to criticize President Obama’s reported decision to vet Republican Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval for Antonin Scalia’s vacant seat on the Supreme Court.
. . .
She added that she’s sure Sandoval, a former federal judge, has done “some good things,” but that he’s not liberal enough for the job.
 
  • #153
Dotini said:
We do not know the future - it is not set in stone. Perhaps a Trump presidency will have silver linings we cannot presently imagine?
Probably. First I want to reiterate that I won't vote for him because I don't think he's a real person. But that said, I think if people actually look at his positions on issues (with the caveat that because he isn't real, they may not be either), they will be hard pressed to find any that fit with their apocalyptic vision of where Trump might take us. My perception is that both the love and hate for Trump are similarly void of content: both are based on emotional reactions to his circus act of provocative statements.

For example, people seethed at his "...blood coming out of her whatevrer" comment, but how does that actually translate into a bad action as President?

As with the anti-Bush and pro-Obama passions, I find a disappointing lack of rationality in peoples' judgement of Trump. Yes, I know both examples are (my perception of) Democrats' irrational passions. But the Democratic party is, historically, the passion party. Maybe the fact that that shoe is on the other foot for once may wake them up to the reality that while effective at getting votes, passion is a poor basis for picking a President. That could be a silver lining.

[edit]
Maybe we should have a companion thread to the "Why is Trump Popular" thread, where the challenge is to find rational reasons for disliking him?
 
Last edited:
  • #155
russ_watters said:
Probably. First I want to reiterate that I won't vote for him because I don't think he's a real person. But that said, I think if people actually look at his positions on issues (with the caveat that because he isn't real, they may not be either), they will be hard pressed to find any that fit with their apocalyptic vision of where Trump might take us. My perception is that both the love and hate for Trump are similarly void of content: both are based on emotional reactions to his circus act of provocative statements.

For example, people seethed at his "...blood coming out of her whatevrer" comment, but how does that actually translate into a bad action as President?

As with the anti-Bush and pro-Obama passions, I find a disappointing lack of rationality in peoples' judgement of Trump. Yes, I know both examples are (my perception of) Democrats' irrational passions. But the Democratic party is, historically, the passion party. Maybe the fact that that shoe is on the other foot for once may wake them up to the reality that while effective at getting votes, passion is a poor basis for picking a President. That could be a silver lining.

[edit]
Maybe we should have a companion thread to the "Why is Trump Popular" thread, where the challenge is to find rational reasons for disliking him?

The problem with trying to assess Trump's positions on the issues is that at no point has he or his campaign been at all clear what his actual positions are on any issues -- from what I can see, his entire campaign consist of his circus act of provocative statements (precisely because, as you said yourself, because he's not a "real person" or a "serious person"). The few positions that he has been consistent on throughout the campaign are as follows (and which I've also touched on in the other thread on "Why is Trump Popular"):

1. Build a giant wall on the US/Mexico border, and have Mexico pay for it.
2. Abolish birth-right citizenship.
3. Deport all illegal migrants and their US-born children (note: these US-born children are US citizens, by the principle of juris sanguinis)
4. Ban all Muslims from entering the country or immigrating to the country.

Please note that all 4 positions above are direct statements coming from Trump. I can provide references for them in a separate post.

I think the 4 above positions are ample justification to provide rational reasons to dislike him.

On Position #1: (1) Building such a wall is a tremendous waste of resources, (2) There is no realistic way that the US can force or make Mexico pay for any of it, (3) The number of illegal immigrants has levelled off, with a fall in the number of Mexicans coming into the US (please see the following link from the Pew Research Centre: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/)

On Position #2: This is a non-starter, since birth-right citizenship is enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. Anyone seriously proposing to abolish this is, in my books, un-American (thus making Trump un-American).

On Position #3: As appealing as "kick out all illegals" may be, trying to find and deport all such illegals is simply too costly. As for deporting the children of such immigrants, see my response to Position #2.

On Position #4: This position flies smack in the face of the view of the Founding Fathers that there is to be no religious test to determine who is allowed into the US, or can become citizens to the US.
 
  • #156
StatGuy2000 said:
The problem with trying to assess Trump's positions on the issues is that at no point has he or his campaign been at all clear what his actual positions are on any issues -- from what I can see, his entire campaign consist of his circus act of provocative statements (precisely because, as you said yourself, because he's not a "real person" or a "serious person"). The few positions that he has been consistent on throughout the campaign are as follows (and which I've also touched on in the other thread on "Why is Trump Popular"):

He is more specific if you go to his official website.

However from what I have read most of Trump's plans are unworkable, ill conceived, or do not fulfill their desired intent. He could hardly deport 11 million illegals is 18 months even if they where lined up at the border ready to walk across. Critic say eliminating even for a week 11 M immigrants will leave millions of job unfilled in the agriculture, service and construction industries crippling them. He also fails to realize that they spend money and support local economies. His tax plan will not support his budget cuts increasing the deficit. His trade plan which include tariffs and embargoes will raise prices for Americans and may close markets to American goods.
 
  • #157
Astronuc said:
Op-Ed (LA Times) A presidential run by Michael Bloomberg could plunge the country into a constitutional crisis...
Law professor or no, I think Ackerman confuses "constitutional crises" with a crisis of the status quo. I suppose a status quo crisis is unlikely to grab many column inches in the LA Times.

Lawrence Tribe in the Atlantic:
"Two presidential elections have been decided in the House of Representatives and four others, including the elections of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and John F. Kennedy in 1960, have come within 30,000 votes of requiring a decision by the House. Three others, in 1912, 1924, and 1968, came close. In 1980, a victory by independent candidate John Anderson in just a few key states could throw the election into the House"

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/80oct/deadlock.htm

Carrying out the instructions of the Constitution for closely decided events anticipated in the document is not a crisis. I reserve the term for Constitutional officers who ignore the document regarding actions that are not gray, that is, issues where the SCOTUS votes unanimously a dozen times against.
 
  • #158
gleem said:
He could hardly deport 11 million illegals is 18 months even if they where lined up at the border ready to walk across.

Sure he could. The question is should he. The US deported a couple million Mexicans under Truman/Eisenhower, with a tiny fraction of the manpower employed by the government today.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/2010_FactCheck_Immigration.htm

In my view, the longer the discussion addresses only the positive benefits of illegal immigration, ignoring the harm to communities or to entry level and blue collar wages, the more likely some radical action is going to become.
 
Last edited:
  • #160
StatGuy2000 said:
1. Build a giant wall on the US/Mexico border, and have Mexico pay for it...

I think the 4 above positions are ample justification to provide rational reasons to dislike him.

On Position #1: (1) Building such a wall is a tremendous waste of resources...
It is certainly reasonable to disagree with him based on that, but most people who don't like him think he's crazy. Heck, *I* think he's crazy, but I still recognize that that opinion is actually pretty reasonable. In principle it is supported by most Americans and most candidates, across party lines.
 
  • #161
It seems for over eighty years (maybe longer) we have had an illegal immigrant problem. Over 14 different administrations of both parties and still nothing was done to curb the influx. What does that suggest? Maybe these people are needed? Even Trump said that after deporting them he would let most back.
 
  • #162
StatGuy2000 said:
On Position #1: (1) Building such a wall is a tremendous waste of resources,
The relevant sections might be built for $6 billion. The payoff lies with improved blue collar and entry level employment which is terrible. One can argue the trade offs, but fence benefits are not zero.
(2) There is no realistic way that the US can force or make Mexico pay for any of it,
Closing the legal portals across the S. border for a few hours has a good chance of forcing Mexican attention. More likely just the threat could be enough. Given that 83% of Mexican exports go to the US, which US Customs can grind to a halt, they're in no position to refuse. The Saudis and Kuwaitis paid some $80 B for US efforts in the Gulf War.
(3) The number of illegal immigrants has levelled off, with a fall in the number of Mexicans coming into the US (please see the following link from the Pew Research Centre: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/)

Yes, largely caused by the recent US recession, slowly declining Central American birthrates, and a reasonable Mexican economy in recent years. As in the past, have another American boom, a Mexican economic stumble, and up goes the US illegal population by several more million.

On Position #2: This is a non-starter, since birth-right citizenship is enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. Anyone seriously proposing to abolish this is, in my books, un-American (thus making Trump un-American).

The modifying 14th amendment phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is not thrown-in boiler plate meant to be ignored. The American spirit of the 14th's birthright clause was bound up in making American born former slaves citizens for all time, ending contrary treatment. Americans may well decide to continue birthright as it is, but putting an end to the current 300,000/yr born in the US to illegal residents does not defacto qualify as un-American in my view.

Agree with your number 4 on Trump's Moslem ban, though here again this has been a radical reaction brought on by years of absurd negligence on the part of the government's immigration arm, the latter being the far more important issue than Trump's podium bravado. Why not say instead, "I as President will improve the competence of US immigration"? Because the public would not believe it at this point, and rationally so.
 
Last edited:
  • #163
russ_watters said:
As with the anti-Bush and anti-Obama passions, I find a disappointing lack of rationality in peoples' judgement of Trump.
Fixed that for you :biggrin:

russ_watters said:
But the Democratic party is, historically, the passion party.
There's a saying: "Democrats fall in love; Republicans fall in line."
 
  • #164
  • Like
Likes billy_joule and Greg Bernhardt
  • #166
mheslep said:
Agree with your number 4 on Trump's Moslem ban, though here again this has been a radical reaction...
Is it radical? May want to ask that question of a European...

http://www.debatingeurope.eu/2015/0...to-only-want-christian-refugees/#.VtMKXvkrK00
[jeez, it is tough to find now with all the anti-Trump backlash! I thought it was being debated in some of the bigger countries...]

How's that for irony?

As with much of the other rhetoric, if you rephrase it, it becomes much more reasonable. What Trump does is put the worst possible spin on it, which leaves nothing for his enemies to do to spin it!

Let's say we have a decision to make about taking in Syrian refugees. They can't come here easily (like they can walk or take a small, overcrowded boat to Europe), we pretty much have to go get them, so there wouldn't be any need to "ban" them. But what we can do is preferentially bring in people most at risk due to the violence in Syria/Iraq. And the group of people most at risk is Christians -- or broader, anyone who isn't Muslim.
 
Last edited:
  • #167
lisab said:
Fixed that for you :biggrin:
Naa, I liked it better the way I had it. :-p
There's a saying: "Democrats fall in love; Republicans fall in line."
Naa, I like it the other way: "Democrats vote with their hearts, Republicans vote with their heads." :biggrin:
 
  • #168
russ_watters said:
And the group of people most at risk is Christians -- or broader, anyone who isn't Muslim.

If that's intended as a general rule then it's quite inaccurate. Who's most at risk depends on the specifics of each case. A Shia Muslim in Raqqah or Mosul governed by ISIS or a Sunni Muslim besieged by Assad's forces in the Homs area is in a much graver danger than a Christian in, say, central Damascus. Even when you fix a city it's not always clear. Christians under ISIS were forced to flee in many cases, and many of them were killed. Some of them were offered a peaceful treatment if they pay the Jizzya and thus were not asked to join ISIS. Many Sunni Muslims were regarded as dissenters when they refuse to join, and those who at any point posted online a critical opinion of ISIS or used to work with the "apostate" government are in at least equal danger as the Christians.

Now of course most of those fleeing to Europe are doing so not from Syria but from camps in Turkey/Lebanon/Jordan. Both Muslims and Christians in those camps aren't in an immediate danger, but they're fleeing because they both don't have anything that resembles what you'd call a life. Those who are relatively better off/able to make the journey attempt to make it to Europe. Others have to make due with their chances outside the camps in places like Jordan and Egypt.
russ_watters said:
Is it radical? May want to ask that question of a European...

http://www.debatingeurope.eu/2015/0...to-only-want-christian-refugees/#.VtMKXvkrK00
Trump's original 'ban proposal' wasn't in the context of discussing Syrian refugees (I believe Cruz was the one who explicitly proposed to accept only Christian Syrians, but it didn't receive much attention). It was a general ban for Muslims who want to enter the US, which includes tourists, international students, academics, spouses of American citizens who happen to be Muslim, etc...

So yes, I'd say it's quite radical, but also vague and impractical.

Even though such a ban might technically affect me personally as I'm applying for postdocs including in the US (I'm an atheist, but I have an Arabic name and an Arabic ID that states I'm Muslim. Nothing I can do about either). I'm not worried about the implementation of such a ban. If Trump wins the general election (a big if IMO) I don't think he'll be able to implement it. Heck, I don't even think he'll propose it again as a president. Trump doesn't strike me as a real person, I think he just says whatever he thinks is going to increase his popularity.

As with his "They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people". I'm not concerned about the actual ban (nor the Mexican wall, which in itself is not xenophobic at all and may or may not be a good idea). I'm much more concerned about the rhetoric, which I think is very harmful.

IMO Trump is an unpleasant bloke. He may not be a fascist, but he's certainly flirting with fascist language.
 
  • Like
Likes billy_joule, mheslep, lisab and 1 other person
  • #169
russ_watters said:
And the group of people most at risk is Christians -- or broader, anyone who isn't Muslim.
-- or broader, anyone who isn't Daesh. Shia are perhaps most at risk, followed closely by Yazidi. The Sunni Daesh consider Shia to be apostates, and hence Shia tend to be killed (although women may be taken as wives or sex slaves).

http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/rm/2015/240533.htm
 
  • Like
Likes HossamCFD and lisab
  • #170
Interesting that a former CIA Director would chime in. When asked about Trump's statement that he would order the killing of terrorists' family members:
“God, no!” Hayden replied. “Let me give you a punchline: If he were to order that once in government, the American armed forces would refuse to act.”

“That’s quite a statement, sir,” Maher said.

“You are required not to follow an unlawful order,” Hayden added. “That would be in violation of all the international laws of armed conflict.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...follow-trumps-orders-if-he-becomes-president/
 
  • Like
Likes HossamCFD
  • #171
HossamCFD said:
If that's intended as a general rule then it's quite inaccurate. Who's most at risk depends on the specifics of each case.
You're talking anecdotes and I'm talking broad generalities. They aren't mutually exclusive -- though you stated it as a self-contradiction.
Trump's original 'ban proposal' wasn't in the context of discussing Syrian refugees (I believe Cruz was the one who explicitly proposed to accept only Christian Syrians, but it didn't receive much attention). It was a general ban for Muslims who want to enter the US, which includes tourists, international students, academics, spouses of American citizens who happen to be Muslim, etc...

So yes, I'd say it's quite radical, but also vague and impractical.
If this is the original, it was posted the day after the San Bernadino shooting, by ISIS sympathizers:
""Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," a campaign press release said."

So, a temporary emergency response to a terrorist act. Excessive reaction? Maybe, but in context I don't think I'd go so far as to call it "quite radical".
 
  • #172
lisab said:
Interesting that a former CIA Director would chime in. When asked about Trump's statement that he would order the killing of terrorists' family members:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...follow-trumps-orders-if-he-becomes-president/
Yeah, that one's pretty wrong and can be judged at face value for what he actually said, unlike a lot of other things that are posted as interpretations, not actual quotes. That's probably the clearest bad thing I've seen that Trump has said.
 
  • #173
russ_watters said:
You're talking anecdotes and I'm talking broad generalities. They aren't mutually exclusive -- though you stated it as a self-contradiction.
Not anecdotes. The point is that there are factors that really affect the level of risk a person is in, being Muslim or Christian doesn't seem to be one of them (unless we define Muslims the same way ISIS does). I'd regard ANYONE fleeing ISIS as someone in imminent danger, regardless of their faith. I've never seen any statistical evidence that Muslims are safer under ISIS than Christians, let alone a difference that's significant enough to justify prioritising Christian refugees. Slovakia's stated reason for taking in only Christian refugees was not that they're in more danger, but that Muslims won't fit in their culture.

In any case this point is moot now since you seem to acknowledge that Trump's proposal had nothing to do with refugees and was in fact a general ban for all Muslims in response to a terrorist attack.
russ_watters said:
So, a temporary emergency response to a terrorist act. Excessive reaction? Maybe, but in context I don't think I'd go so far as to call it "quite radical".

Fair enough. I suppose what's quite radical and what's an excessive reaction is sort of a matter of personal judgment.

EDIT: I use 'quite' in the British sense, as in 'fairly' or 'to some degree'. I suspect it carries a lot more weight in American.
 
Last edited:
  • #174
It looks like Clinton is winning by large margins in the South, Sanders won Vermont and seems to be winning Oklahoma, and they were tied in Massachusetts, but the scales seemed to have tipped toward Clinton.

Ted Cruz won (with Trump second) in Texas and Oklahoma, but Trump is pretty much leading in the other states.Super Tuesday: Clinton, Trump Notch Big Southern Wins; Texas And Okla. Go For Cruz
http://www.npr.org/2016/03/01/468792843/super-tuesday-trump-and-clinton-eye-big-wins
 
  • #175
HossamCFD said:
Not anecdotes.
You said "specifics of each case" - while not "anecdotes" per se, it is the same issue: individual cases are not necessarily representative of the average/typical. However:
The point is that there are factors that really affect the level of risk a person is in, being Muslim or Christian doesn't seem to be one of them (unless we define Muslims the same way ISIS does). I'd regard ANYONE fleeing ISIS as someone in imminent danger, regardless of their faith. I've never seen any statistical evidence that Muslims are safer under ISIS than Christians, let alone a difference that's significant enough to justify prioritising Christian refugees.
I must acknowledge not seeing any statistics of any kind regarding this and largely basing this on the logic that the further the religion is from Islam the more "wrong", the bigger the threat should be. Following that logic, CNN lists a small religion I'd never heard of as being the most at risk due to it not being in the same family as Judaism/Christianity/Islam:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/08/world/meast/iraq-ethnic-groups-under-threat-isis/
In any case this point is moot now since you seem to acknowledge that Trump's proposal had nothing to do with refugees and was in fact a general ban for all Muslims in response to a terrorist attack.
I think you may have missed the point: it should be clear that proposing it in response to an ISIS inspired attack is a reflection of fear of refugees being infiltrated by ISIS like they were with some of the Paris attackers.

The qualifiers in the statement also matter: "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on". Besides informing to my above interpretation this also clearly indicates that it is intended to be temporary and refined better/more specifically than just being a permanent general ban. Like many of the other examples, stripping the qualifiers from the non-quote posted earlier in the thread changes the meaning substantially, both in intent and severity.

Note that general travel bans of everyone coming from a number of African countries were proposed/discussed during the Ebola outbreak. Those probably would have been excessive too, but it should be ok to discuss them without judging someone as crazy or racist for responding excessively to a real threat. Over-reactions to actual threats are human.
Fair enough. I suppose what's quite radical and what's an excessive reaction is sort of a matter of personal judgment.

EDIT: I use 'quite' in the British sense, as in 'fairly' or 'to some degree'. I suspect it carries a lot more weight in American.
The clarification on your definition of "quite" helps -- yes, there is a bit of a language barrier there. "Quite" in Americanese means "very" or even "extremely". The British version looks like dry irony to me. "Somewhat extreme" would be (a self contradiction, but still...) more in line with what I'm thinking.

[edit]
The reality is that if we give the statement a fair shake, it is an understandable over-reaction, but would be ineffective and problematic in almost any form. But extreme circumstances tend to result in extreme reactions that don't prove effective. For example, on 9/11 the US government banned all civilian air travel for 2+days. That's an element of martial law and a violation of the Constitution in normal circumstances.

But the threat is too broad and diverse and it sleeps, so a temporary ban on religious grounds wouldn't work. But increased scrutiny of immigrants from terrorist hotbed countries is prudent IMO.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes HossamCFD

Similar threads

News Donald Trump: What Do the Scientists Say?
Replies
16
Views
3K
The Imprecision of Modeling Real World Events
Replies
1
Views
1K
News Does 'pack journalism' shape the science news we read?
Replies
15
Views
2K
My list of the top five heavyweight boxers of all time
2
Replies
35
Views
875
  • Poll
News Who will win the Republican nomination?
Replies
10
Views
6K
Chemical Forums down, or how I learned what slowloris is
Replies
8
Views
641
Your view on rat race and sustained progress
Replies
4
Views
2K
News Do You Know Why Trump is Popular?
10
Replies
340
Views
28K
Sars-Cov2, RSV declining; Human Metapneumovirus increased
Replies
7
Views
3K
Shoot-Through on Synchronous Buck Converter
Replies
13
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top