Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - AI Wessex

Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30]
General Comments / Re: Duh Debates
« on: December 17, 2015, 01:42:48 PM »
I'm not saying Hillary claims to be close to them on NSA policy, I'm saying that I think in practice she would do exactly the same things most of the GOP candidates would. This is a prediction, and not me 'catching her' saying something bad.
The problem is that there are only a limited number of options unless someone wants to suggest something totally nutso.  Everyone talks about the same things with different levels of emphasis.  It's not clear that any combination will "fix" the problem, though.  Given that the GOPers are in a big scrum to see who is going to own the ball at the end of the convention next summer, they are talking out of their asses about the miraculous achievements they will make while trashing all of the measured efforts Clinton (and Obama) have tried to work through.  Since none of them have any real-world military or diplomatic experience to speak of, I'll say again that Clinton is working closer to their "ideas" and within the constraints of the actual Constitution, not the one the GOPers are all willing to destroy for the sake of a little safety and comfort.

General Comments / Re: Duh Debates
« on: December 17, 2015, 11:22:08 AM »
Carson seemed stoned as usual. I wonder what prescription medication he is on.
He had to do experiments to develop his new techniques on someone, you know...

General Comments / Re: Duh Debates
« on: December 17, 2015, 10:53:28 AM »
Paranoia and inference are linked when it comes to public (political) figures.  Clinton has been investigated more than practically any other person in history, and along with her husband far more than any other first couple.  But no charges, no convictions, only paranoia and inference.

General Comments / Re: Duh Debates
« on: December 16, 2015, 06:44:37 PM »
Don't forget his leaking classified information...

General Comments / Re: Duh Debates
« on: December 16, 2015, 05:58:03 PM »
And there's no way to tell if Hillary is "closer" to anyone's viewpoint, since she's absolutely demonstrated she'll say anything and take any position that's convenient to achieving her goals.
I like the non-partisan objectivity of that response, too :).  You've called her a criminal and worse, but I'm curious if you would extend the same condemnation to any of the GOPers. 

General Comments / Re: Duh Debates
« on: December 16, 2015, 02:07:13 PM »
The biggest theme in last night's debate was that the Obama Administration screwed up by not knowing about the posting history of the two SB shooters.  They all said that the US should have done a better job and should have access to more private communications.  I can't square that with their near unanimous calls for greater freedoms and protection from government intrusion into private lives.  But regarding the Administration's screwup in not catching the SB shooters' messaging:
On Dec. 12, the New York Times reported that San Bernardino, California, shooter Tasfheen Malik talked "openly on social media about her views on violent jihad" before being approved for visa entry into the United States. That would be a very big screw-up by the U.S., right? "Had the authorities found the posts years ago, they might have kept her out of the country," the paper wrote.

Well, on Monday new reports said that Malik's posts were "made under a pseudonym and with strict privacy settings that did not allow people outside a small group of friends to see them." And Wednesday, the director of the FBI said the jihadist sentiments in question were actually conveyed in "private direct messages"—in other words, that Malik's views weren't discussed openly at all and would not have been caught by any review process. From the Washington Post:

    The husband-and-wife duo were “showing signs in their communication of their joint commitment to jihad and to martyrdom” through private messages, rather than publicly visible postings, [FBI Director James] Comey said.

    “Those communications are direct, private messages,” Comey said during a news conference here. “So far, in this investigation we have found no evidence of posting on social media by either of them at that period in time and thereafter reflecting their commitment to jihad or to martyrdom. I’ve seen some reporting on that, and that’s a garble.”
In other words, those messages were beyond the reach of any legally responsible agency.

One earlier report that does seem to be true, per the Post, is that Malik posted a "pledge of allegiance" to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on Facebook "shortly after opening fire in San Bernardino."
  What could they have done if they had known of that post could have prevented the shootings?  Don't forget that the SB police were gathered only a few blocks away from the County building when the attack occurred.

This raises two thoughts.

About the shooters, they were not as secretive as first reports suggested.  They lived with at least one family member and other people knew about their political and religious interests and may have had some inkling or direct knowledge of their intentions.  They also apparently went to a shooting range at least once and bought their weapons and other munitions legally.  Should any of the people they were in contact with have reported them?  If you believe in total personal freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution, probably not.  But if so, none of the candidates you heard last night represent your views, since they all said that government should have more access to that information.  Hillary is closer to your viewpoint.

The other observation is that the people on the stage last night truly, truly have no idea what they're talking about, since all of the legal options that are available were followed and most of the things they complained weren't done are either illegal or would have turned up nothing helpful.  They should shut up, or better yet, stand down since if they believe their own words they are a threat to the safety of the country.  Worse, they are encouraging people who hear them to react with anger to their inflammatory messages.

What a disgrace.

General Comments / Re: Duh Debates
« on: December 16, 2015, 01:40:30 PM »
Missed this somehow:
    Rubio said that in transitioning to a system without bulk collection of phone metadata that existed under the Patriot Act, the intelligence community lost tools to prevent terrorist attacks. That prompted Cruz, a Texas Republican, to snap back.

    “What he knows is that the old program covered 20 percent to 30 percent of phone numbers to search for terrorists. The new program covers nearly 100 percent. That gives us greater ability to stop acts of terrorism, and he knows that that’s the case,” said Cruz, who supported the bipartisan bill that changed the program, known as the USA Freedom Act, that became law earlier this year.

    “Let me be very careful when answering this, because I don’t think national television in front of 15 million people is the place to discuss classified information,” Rubio responded. “So let me just be very clear. There is nothing that we are allowed to do under this bill that we could not do before.”

Looks like Cruz leapfrogged Clinton by releasing classified information on live TV.  So far, it hasn't been shown that Clinton did release any.

General Comments / Duh Debates
« on: December 16, 2015, 08:05:30 AM »
Too bad this thread has to be recreated.  Here's a link to the old one, but let's move on.  The Las Vegas debate featured the usual incoherence, lies and denials of obvious facts and truths, but there were some good-ish lines in the noisome bickering.  My take...

Bush scored a big (YUGE) stroke with a single word, chaos.  He's exactly right that Trump isn't talking about policies he could reasonably expect to put into effect, just one-liners that grab people by the emotions and pull them into a place where you can see that they are frozen like deer in the highlights.  This will signal the start of a slow rise in the polls for Bush.

Christie nailed Rubio and Cruz for letting Senate debate tactics spill over onto the stage where, as he said, nobody gives a *censored*.  They've never done anything consequential in their careers except talk about how great they would be if they were the most powerful person in the world.  He made them both seem like liars, which in politics is another word for what they are, political animals.  This won't help Christie, but it will hurt both Rubio and Cruz.

Carson's moment of silence in honor of the San Bernardino victims (about 3 seconds by my count) was his most coherent moment.  He's toast.

For the life of me, I cannot fathom who exactly Fiorina thinks she is, Churchill?  She's done nothing in her career except have one that sputtered out when she cratered one of the largest and previously most successful technology companies in the world.  She actually said all the "Silicon Valley" companies would pitch in to help fight ISIS and was then followed up by someone else who pointed out that those very companies have proudly announced that they implemented unbreakable encryption so that the government can't read any of their user's emails.

Overall, it was a combination food fight and game of liar's poker.  Every one of them is totally opposed to everything Obama thinks, says or does, but none of them really said they would do anything different other than ignore rational policy limits.  They all stand for individual freedoms but want to gather tons more information about ordinary citizens so they can assure the citizenry that they will stop the next attack and keep them safe.  It's apparently worth throwing out the Constitution in order to preserve it.  Other than Trump, they won't ban all Muslims but want a rigorous vetting process that will keep them out, despite and ignoring the two years it takes now for a refugee to get here.  Vetting Christians is much easier, just ask them if they are.

It's like watching yet another Chipmunks holiday (okay, Christmas) movie where the first one was hysterical and when the newest one arrives you were already dreading it, but your kids make you take them, anyway. 

Are you seriously suggesting that Bush is offering the same open arms to Muslims?  Orphans, maybe, but all you have to do to get past his guard is have a Christian name, birth certificate and say you're coming from a city or village that he identifies as Christian. If you can't *prove* it, then you'll have to work a little harder.  Nowhere in his position does he say that if you have a Muslim name, birth certificate and come from a Muslim city you'll be as welcome.  Get serious, Pete.

Pete, this is a better summary of statements from Jeb on his Christian immigration strategy, including his vetting process:
Republican presidential candidate and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said in a radio interview Tuesday that “you can tell when someone is a Christian in the Middle East” based on indicators such as their name and birth certificate.

“I can promise you that,” Bush told New Hampshire radio host Jack Heath. “By name, by where they’re born, their birth certificates. There are ample means by which to know this.”
Bush said last week that he would ultimately be willing to admit some refugees, such as orphans or Christians, to the U.S. When asked how to prove that someone is Christian, he said then, “You’re a Christian — I mean, you can prove you’re a Christian. You can’t prove it, then, you know, you err on the side of caution.”

On Tuesday, Bush also repeated that he feels the country has a “moral obligation” to support Syrian Christians.

“I’ve used the example of Syrian Christians that are — but for the United States and but for the world community, they’ll be slaughtered, beheaded, raped, pillaged, because of their faith,” Bush said. “I think we have a moral obligation to support them.”
Not Muslims?

Congress has specifically opened up spots for Jews to immigrate from the USSR and other lands. That's a religious test. 
The US also turned away at least one boatload of hundreds of Jews fleeing the Nazis in 1939.  The ship went back to Europe and many of those on board were subsequently killed in the holocaust.  Our country has no formal guidelines for accepting refugees.  We have abused the principles of humanitarian charity toward people seeking safety from tyranny at least as often as we have upheld them.

your link says: "The Republican presidential candidate says he thinks some Syrian refugees, such as orphans and Christians, should be allowed into the United States after they are vetted."
That's a follow-on comment.  He says before that they they can "prove it".  Not with the vetting process that we have.  His comment is at best muddled, but more likely an empty remark.

Rather shocking for Jeb to say take in only Christians (if that is what he said) when the Yazidis have been persecuted even more.

The truly good reason not to be comfortable with people's ideological statements is that they are tied to nothing.  Jeb Bush said only Christian refugees should be allowed into the US.  When asked how to know if someone is Christian he basically said, just ask them, we'll know.  How many people will goof up and admit that they are ISIS sympathizers and only realize their mistake later upon reflection after their application is denied? 

The only way to prevent anybody objectionable from entering the country is to deny entry to everybody.  But, since the husband in the San Bernardino shootings was a natural born citizen from Chicago, a hotbed of Democratic Party activism, lawlessness and insurrection in the US, we'll have to flush out undesirable citizens across the entire country, too.  If some on the right have their way, that could amount to about half of the adult population being escorted to the nearest doorway built into the new wall.  In a twist on a favorite Republican meme, first they came for your voting records, then for your donation history, then for ...

So in other words AI Wessex, exactly what I said it was.
It happens!

Carter sought (successfully) to deport Iranians who came to the US on student visas and overstayed the time allowed or dropped out of school.
Not going to say it was the same thing, but Carter also prohibited any Iranians from being issued visas and coming into the country (with exceptions).  Are you trying to imply otherwise?
Carter's visa policy was this:
Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires.
The visa ban was not complete and was confined specifically to Iranian citizens, with which country we were effectively in a very hostile government supported hostage crisis fueled by their internal revolution that used strong anti-American rhetoric.  Carter's action was a harsh non-military tactic taken for justifiable reasons aiming for a well-defined objective.  Trump's Muslim ban is a far cry from that kind of reasoned action, and is entirely a xenophobic over-reaction that will lead to crazies doing harm against Muslims already in the US and will advance the ISIS agenda abroad.

I don't see what the 1A has to do with immigration.  That is an executive function and can be constrained however the INS rules dictate.  If it can't be restrained, then quotas would also be in violation.  Nobody is claiming that what Trump is proposing technically breaks any laws, but that it violates the spirit of American principles.

I've heard FOX talking heads argue that what Trump did is no different from what Carter did during the Iran hostage crisis.  They were very different things.  Carter sought (successfully) to deport Iranians who came to the US on student visas and overstayed the time allowed or dropped out of school.

Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30]