"It’s either Trump or the Republican Party. Not both."

[bripat9643]

Do you believe you have the right to move to Bermuda to live there regardless of the wishes of the local citizens?

No, of course not. I'm a naturalized American citizen, so I know more about the US immigration system than most people here.

But Trump did originally say that American citizens should be denied entry into the country based on their religion.

Then the confusion of the OP, Jake and the entire Political Class on this issue should be fairly obvious to you.

DO you agree that comparing the Interment of Japanese Americans and the barring of entry of Alien Muslims is an Act of Madness on their part?

The internment of Japanese Americans was way worse than barring Muslims. But barring Muslims simply based on religion is still bad and makes us look small, intolerant and xenophobic.

So,

a. YOu agree, the OP, Jake and the Political Class are insane to equate the two.

and

B. What about the certainty that deadly enemies will be included in the immigrants?

No, I don't think it's "insane" to compare the two because both make negative assumptions about general characteristics of a group of people, whom you are assuming are guilty and need to prove their innocence. That one is unconstitutional and one may not be, and one might be worse than another, does not make both odious.

As for B, that's an argument to end all immigration.

You can't make assumptions about the general characteristics of Muslims? Can you "assume" they are Muslim? Furthermore, we don't assume a damn thing. We know from numerous polls exactly what these people believe. Given that knowledge, it's stupid to import any of them.

 

[Toro]

No, of course not. I'm a naturalized American citizen, so I know more about the US immigration system than most people here.

But Trump did originally say that American citizens should be denied entry into the country based on their religion.

Then the confusion of the OP, Jake and the entire Political Class on this issue should be fairly obvious to you.

DO you agree that comparing the Interment of Japanese Americans and the barring of entry of Alien Muslims is an Act of Madness on their part?

The internment of Japanese Americans was way worse than barring Muslims. But barring Muslims simply based on religion is still bad and makes us look small, intolerant and xenophobic.

So,

a. YOu agree, the OP, Jake and the Political Class are insane to equate the two.

and

B. What about the certainty that deadly enemies will be included in the immigrants?

No, I don't think it's "insane" to compare the two because both make negative assumptions about general characteristics of a group of people, whom you are assuming are guilty and need to prove their innocence. That one is unconstitutional and one may not be, and one might be worse than another, does not make both odious.

As for B, that's an argument to end all immigration.

1. There were no sabotage before the Internments. The government of the time just made negative assumptions about the general characteristics of the Japanese Americans.

2. There have been multiple deadly attacks by Muslims who have entered the United States. This is not an unwarranted negative assumptions, it is documented recent historical fact.

3 That our political class can't tell the difference between Citizen and NOn-citizen is crazy.

It is an unwarranted negative assumption because almost all Muslims who enter the United States have nothing to do with terrorism. In fact, Muslims are the primary victims of terrorism.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't screen immigrants. I went through the system. I was screened. But we shouldn't be banning people because of their religion. As Dick Cheney said, it's unAmerican.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Oh, and Jake, there is nothing funny about my Bermuda question.

If it is completely horrifically wrong for Trump to want to bar Muslims from immigrating to the US, is it also completely horrifically wrong for the Bermudians to bar you from immigrating there?

Do you feel you have a Right to move to Bermuda and live there?

You can move to Bermuda and live there. Half the population is expats.

 

[Toro]

No, of course not. I'm a naturalized American citizen, so I know more about the US immigration system than most people here.

But Trump did originally say that American citizens should be denied entry into the country based on their religion.

Then the confusion of the OP, Jake and the entire Political Class on this issue should be fairly obvious to you.

DO you agree that comparing the Interment of Japanese Americans and the barring of entry of Alien Muslims is an Act of Madness on their part?

The internment of Japanese Americans was way worse than barring Muslims. But barring Muslims simply based on religion is still bad and makes us look small, intolerant and xenophobic.

So,

a. YOu agree, the OP, Jake and the Political Class are insane to equate the two.

and

B. What about the certainty that deadly enemies will be included in the immigrants?

No, I don't think it's "insane" to compare the two because both make negative assumptions about general characteristics of a group of people, whom you are assuming are guilty and need to prove their innocence. That one is unconstitutional and one may not be, and one might be worse than another, does not make both odious.

As for B, that's an argument to end all immigration.

You can't make assumptions about the general characteristics of Muslims? Can you "assume" they are Muslim? Furthermore, we don't assume a damn thing. We know from numerous polls exactly what these people believe. Given that knowledge, it's stupid to import any of them.

You don't know what the people who come to this country believe.

Almost all people who come to America are law-abiding citizens, regardless of their religion.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Trump consistently polls worse against Clinton than the other GOP candidates. He won't have the support of much of the infrastructure. It's hard seeing him winning.

That's fine. I have no great use fir Trump. I can't trust hin to do what he claims, but he's been a huge help in exposing the Liberal underbelly of the Republican Party for whst it is.

The greatest benefit of that is the hope that after Conservatives and Republicans twar each other apart in the next 11 months and get HC elected, Conservatives decide to exercise our Constitutional Duty and overthrow the Government in open Revolurion...... taking BOTH parties down in the process.

Only a psycho would want a govt overthrow.
Only a psycho would want to hurt the entire nation over political butthurt.
I have no doubt you are on someone's watch list.

 

[bendog]

If Trump becomes the nominee, the Party stalwarts will run an Independent Republican.

The far right would rather have a HRC than a moderate Republican.

No. There's all this bs about "no more Rinos. we'll never win with a rino."

The gop should let it go, and let them have what they want. They won't, and really can't, simply because of all the gop senators up for re-election. The Donald v. Hill would flip the senate and maybe even the House

Trump may get the nomination, I don't think he will win, and the secular Constitution will be used to keep him in line if he does win.

Unless Trump has the pledged delegates to win on a first ballot, I think whoever comes in second will be the nominee. We're two months from Iowa, and first with the wall and Mexican's are rapists, and now this, the Donald has defined himself. This shite storm just isn't gonna die down overnight. The Donald started out as a outsider who was fun, if not funny. It's turned. So, turning on Donald is not so much as the establishment denying an outsider. Now, they'd gladly give the superdelegates to Cruz. I suspect they're hoping it'll be Rubio. But Cruz still has the maj of tea party support (NO the Donald does not), and he can appeal to religious conservatives, and Rain Man has shown he's not playing with a full deck. And Cruz has the money and the ground game to get it done.

If the Rs nominate a flake like kasich, I could definitely see the senate flipping to the dems.

Kasich is not going anywhere. We got the Iowa caucus, NH, SC and the Nev caucus all in one month starting in less than two months. It's really too early to predict....

but Cruz is surging in Iowa ... and Rain Man imploded, so Cruz's got a pool of voters whom he can attract. Rubio will probably finish in the first three. I think it's a Donald Cruz toss up. But, delegates are awarded proportionally. And it looks pretty close.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus

On to NH. Trump is leading there, and I'm not sure what there is that will really change much. But, again, delegates are awarded proportionally to those getting 10% or more.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...re_republican_presidential_primary-3350.html\

On to SC. I'm not totally sure, but it seems to be a winner take all, but there's some allocation within congressional districts. But Trump is way ahead. Is that a knockout punch? Not for Cruz or Rubio, so long as their fundraising doesn't tank, and I think Cruz has the money already.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary

I don't see polls for Nevada's caucus, but again delegates are awarded proportionally.

Then there's the SEC primary on Mar1 . 565 bound delegates all awarded proportionally, to at least the top three.

Mar 5. Another 145 bound delegates awarded proportionally.

Mar 8 and 9. Another 159 awarded proportionally.

And on to Super Tues, and the beginning of winner take all. But not all primaries are winner take all. A minority remain proportional.

EXCLUSIVE: TIME Guide to Official 2016 Republican Nomination Calendar

So, up until we start winner take all, we've got just north of 1000 pledged delegates. The Donald is not going to get anywhere near 50% of them. There are about 2500 delegates in all. If the Donald runs the table on the winner take all states, it seems to me he can win on the first ballot. But, if he can't, and he may not because there are superdelegates (non pledged) in play, and we get to a second ballot .... then everybody's free to switch sides. If there's ANY way the gop can throw the nomination to whomever is in second place ... I think they do it in a heartbeat.

And Cruz is still the tea party darling.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

If Trump becomes the nominee, the Party stalwarts will run an Independent Republican.

The far right would rather have a HRC than a moderate Republican.

No. There's all this bs about "no more Rinos. we'll never win with a rino."

The gop should let it go, and let them have what they want. They won't, and really can't, simply because of all the gop senators up for re-election. The Donald v. Hill would flip the senate and maybe even the House

Trump may get the nomination, I don't think he will win, and the secular Constitution will be used to keep him in line if he does win.

Unless Trump has the pledged delegates to win on a first ballot, I think whoever comes in second will be the nominee. We're two months from Iowa, and first with the wall and Mexican's are rapists, and now this, the Donald has defined himself. This shite storm just isn't gonna die down overnight. The Donald started out as a outsider who was fun, if not funny. It's turned. So, turning on Donald is not so much as the establishment denying an outsider. Now, they'd gladly give the superdelegates to Cruz. I suspect they're hoping it'll be Rubio. But Cruz still has the maj of tea party support (NO the Donald does not), and he can appeal to religious conservatives, and Rain Man has shown he's not playing with a full deck. And Cruz has the money and the ground game to get it done.

If the Rs nominate a flake like kasich, I could definitely see the senate flipping to the dems.

Kasich is not going anywhere. We got the Iowa caucus, NH, SC and the Nev caucus all in one month starting in less than two months. It's really too early to predict....

but Cruz is surging in Iowa ... and Rain Man imploded, so Cruz's got a pool of voters whom he can attract. Rubio will probably finish in the first three. I think it's a Donald Cruz toss up. But, delegates are awarded proportionally. And it looks pretty close.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus

On to NH. Trump is leading there, and I'm not sure what there is that will really change much. But, again, delegates are awarded proportionally to those getting 10% or more.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...re_republican_presidential_primary-3350.html\

On to SC. I'm not totally sure, but it seems to be a winner take all, but there's some allocation within congressional districts. But Trump is way ahead. Is that a knockout punch. Not for Cruz or Rubio, so long as their fundraising doesn't tank, and I think Cruz has the money already.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary

I don't see polls for Nevada's caucus, but again delegates are awarded proportionally.

Then there's the SEC primary on Mar1 . 565 bound delegates all awarded proportionally, to at least the top three.

Mar 5. Another 145 bound delegates awarded proportionally.

Mar 8 and 9. Another 159 awarded proportionally.

And on to Super Tues, and the beginning of winner take all. But not all primaries are winner take all. A minority remain proportional.

EXCLUSIVE: TIME Guide to Official 2016 Republican Nomination Calendar

So, up until we start winner take all, we've got just north of 1000 pledged delegates. The Donald is not going to get anywhere near 50% of them. There are about 2500 delegates in all. If the Donald runs the table on the winner take all states, it seems to me he can win on the first ballot. But, if he can't, and he may not because there are superdelegates (non pledged) in play, and we get to a second ballot .... then everybody's free to switch sides. If there's ANY way the gop can throw the nomination to whomever is in second place ... I think they do it in a heartbeat.

And Cruz is still the tea party darling.

Thx for that data ben.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Hey Fakey, if Trump ends up destroying the Republican party, will you shed a tear?

Jake's the Kind of Republican I used to vote for on occasion. Haven't been many around for a while now. I don't think Jake's left the party. The party left him.

The legal, actual Party will not recognize Trump and run an Independent Republican candidate instead. The national and state GOPs will reconstitute in December 2016 and exclude every Trump official, supporter, and financier. They can start their own party.

More reason to abandon the GOP.. let the lefty loons like yourself have them.

 

[Anathema]

Only a psycho would want a govt overthrow.
Only a psycho would want to hurt the entire nation over political butthurt.
I have no doubt you are on someone's watch list.

Several, actually. That's what happens wgen you refuse to conform to the modern Socialist philosophical standard this,country now uses for political correctness.

 

[Anathema]

>>That's fine. I have no great use fir Trump. I can't trust hin to do what he claims<<

Historically, which presidential candidate has done what he claims during a campaign?

So why single out Trump?

What has the republican held senate and house done since they took over in Nov 2014? Except shock and embarrass some of us by their cowardly non-action?

And exactly what good is a media that supports a lying phony coward traitor like Obama for 7 years?

I hope trump wins and let the chips fall as they may. The risk of remaining like we have been for a score of years is far worse.

I singled out Trump for a couple reasons: Furst, its well known that none of the establishment candidates in either paty would live up to their promises, ao there's no need to include them in the conversation. Secindly, the majority of his supporters are so because they believe he will do what he says.

My exoectation is that we WILL see a split un the Republican Party and a third party candidate will end up on the ballot in many olaces, ensuring a Clinton victory. That SHOULD be enough to prove to Conservatives that there is no means,to correct Government policy except Revolution.

 

[konradv]

Rats are abandoning the sinking ship!

Ben Carson joins Donald Trump in threatening to leave GOP - CNNPolitics.com

 

[JakeStarkey]

Good.

 

[Correll]

Then the confusion of the OP, Jake and the entire Political Class on this issue should be fairly obvious to you.

DO you agree that comparing the Interment of Japanese Americans and the barring of entry of Alien Muslims is an Act of Madness on their part?

The internment of Japanese Americans was way worse than barring Muslims. But barring Muslims simply based on religion is still bad and makes us look small, intolerant and xenophobic.

So,

a. YOu agree, the OP, Jake and the Political Class are insane to equate the two.

and

B. What about the certainty that deadly enemies will be included in the immigrants?

No, I don't think it's "insane" to compare the two because both make negative assumptions about general characteristics of a group of people, whom you are assuming are guilty and need to prove their innocence. That one is unconstitutional and one may not be, and one might be worse than another, does not make both odious.

As for B, that's an argument to end all immigration.

1. There were no sabotage before the Internments. The government of the time just made negative assumptions about the general characteristics of the Japanese Americans.

2. There have been multiple deadly attacks by Muslims who have entered the United States. This is not an unwarranted negative assumptions, it is documented recent historical fact.

3 That our political class can't tell the difference between Citizen and NOn-citizen is crazy.

It is an unwarranted negative assumption because almost all Muslims who enter the United States have nothing to do with terrorism. In fact, Muslims are the primary victims of terrorism.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't screen immigrants. I went through the system. I was screened. But we shouldn't be banning people because of their religion. As Dick Cheney said, it's unAmerican.

Where are you from?

 

[Correll]

Oh, and Jake, there is nothing funny about my Bermuda question.

If it is completely horrifically wrong for Trump to want to bar Muslims from immigrating to the US, is it also completely horrifically wrong for the Bermudians to bar you from immigrating there?

Do you feel you have a Right to move to Bermuda and live there?

You can move to Bermuda and live there. Half the population is expats.

I forget the details, but on a recent visit to the place I was informed that they have very strict rules to severely limit people from moving there because they don't want to be swamped with rich people who would ruin the island for Bermudians.

I was impressed and jealous of the way they were crafting laws to benefit their citizens, instead of some bullshit ideological nonsense.

 

[Correll]

Then the confusion of the OP, Jake and the entire Political Class on this issue should be fairly obvious to you.

DO you agree that comparing the Interment of Japanese Americans and the barring of entry of Alien Muslims is an Act of Madness on their part?

The internment of Japanese Americans was way worse than barring Muslims. But barring Muslims simply based on religion is still bad and makes us look small, intolerant and xenophobic.

So,

a. YOu agree, the OP, Jake and the Political Class are insane to equate the two.

and

B. What about the certainty that deadly enemies will be included in the immigrants?

No, I don't think it's "insane" to compare the two because both make negative assumptions about general characteristics of a group of people, whom you are assuming are guilty and need to prove their innocence. That one is unconstitutional and one may not be, and one might be worse than another, does not make both odious.

As for B, that's an argument to end all immigration.

1. There were no sabotage before the Internments. The government of the time just made negative assumptions about the general characteristics of the Japanese Americans.

2. There have been multiple deadly attacks by Muslims who have entered the United States. This is not an unwarranted negative assumptions, it is documented recent historical fact.

3 That our political class can't tell the difference between Citizen and NOn-citizen is crazy.

It is an unwarranted negative assumption because almost all Muslims who enter the United States have nothing to do with terrorism. In fact, Muslims are the primary victims of terrorism.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't screen immigrants. I went through the system. I was screened. But we shouldn't be banning people because of their religion. As Dick Cheney said, it's unAmerican.

No one is saying that all the muslims coming are terrorists. They are saying that some of them will be.

This is borne out by recent events.

Dick Cheney needs to have more empathy with people who don't have armed guards 24/7.

 

[gipper]

The left media tells lefties Trump's plan is unconstitutional. They stupidily believe.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Oh, and Jake, there is nothing funny about my Bermuda question.

If it is completely horrifically wrong for Trump to want to bar Muslims from immigrating to the US, is it also completely horrifically wrong for the Bermudians to bar you from immigrating there?

Do you feel you have a Right to move to Bermuda and live there?

You can move to Bermuda and live there. Half the population is expats.

I forget the details, but on a recent visit to the place I was informed that they have very strict rules to severely limit people from moving there because they don't want to be swamped with rich people who would ruin the island for Bermudians.

I was impressed and jealous of the way they were crafting laws to benefit their citizens, instead of some bullshit ideological nonsense.

You are correct. But it is a relatively small island. Not really comparable to the US. I just spent 10 days there this summer. The wife and I loved it. Gonna be our winter home.

 

[gipper]

Hey Fakey, if Trump ends up destroying the Republican party, will you shed a tear?

Jake's the Kind of Republican I used to vote for on occasion. Haven't been many around for a while now. I don't think Jake's left the party. The party left him.

The legal, actual Party will not recognize Trump and run an Independent Republican candidate instead. The national and state GOPs will reconstitute in December 2016 and exclude every Trump official, supporter, and financier. They can start their own party.

If only the Rs would listen to you and nominate a W clone...then you would be happy.

 

[bendog]

I don't think anyone not related to the Bush clan wants Jeb. And, even P may be considering jumping ship.

 

[Correll]

Oh, and Jake, there is nothing funny about my Bermuda question.

If it is completely horrifically wrong for Trump to want to bar Muslims from immigrating to the US, is it also completely horrifically wrong for the Bermudians to bar you from immigrating there?

Do you feel you have a Right to move to Bermuda and live there?

You can move to Bermuda and live there. Half the population is expats.

I forget the details, but on a recent visit to the place I was informed that they have very strict rules to severely limit people from moving there because they don't want to be swamped with rich people who would ruin the island for Bermudians.

I was impressed and jealous of the way they were crafting laws to benefit their citizens, instead of some bullshit ideological nonsense.

You are correct. But it is a relatively small island. Not really comparable to the US. I just spent 10 days there this summer. The wife and I loved it. Gonna be our winter home.

Size doesn't matter.

What matters is they have the right to craft Immigration Policy based on what benefits their citizens, not the interests of the want to be Immigrants, who have no right to move there.

If the fine people of Bermuda have the right, then so do Americans.