Official 2016 GOP thread: Is it really going to be Donald Trump?? (2 Viewers)

[timschochet]

Tim might want to rethink his position that Rubio is a preferred alternative to Trump:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/11/20/3724509/rubio-trump-shut-down-mosques/

Rubio Trumps Trump: Shut Down Any Place Muslims Gather To Be 'Inspired' - Not Just Mosques

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) seems to be going further than even Republican frontrunner Donald Trump in advocating the crackdown of U.S. Muslims. He doesnt just want to consider shutting down mosques, as Trump says, but wants to shut down any place where radicals are being inspired.

"Its not about closing down mosques. Its about closing down any place whether its a cafe, a diner, an internet site any place where radicals are being inspired," Rubio said on Fox News The Kelly File on Thursday night when asked if he agreed with Trump. "The bigger problem we have is our inability to find out where these places are, because weve crippled our intelligence programs, both through unauthorized disclosures by a traitor, in Edward Snowden, or by some of the things this president has put in place with the support even of some from my own party to diminish our intelligence capabilities."

"So whatever facility is being used its not just a mosque any facility thats being used to radicalize and inspire attacks against the United States, should be a place that we look at," he continued.

What is wrong with this part..." any facility thats being used to radicalize and inspire attacks against the United States, should be a place that we look at"?

Nothing. It's the closing down part that's troublesome.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Tim might want to rethink his position that Rubio is a preferred alternative to Trump:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/11/20/3724509/rubio-trump-shut-down-mosques/

Rubio Trumps Trump: Shut Down Any Place Muslims Gather To Be 'Inspired' - Not Just Mosques

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) seems to be going further than even Republican frontrunner Donald Trump in advocating the crackdown of U.S. Muslims. He doesnt just want to consider shutting down mosques, as Trump says, but wants to shut down any place where radicals are being inspired.

"Its not about closing down mosques. Its about closing down any place whether its a cafe, a diner, an internet site any place where radicals are being inspired," Rubio said on Fox News The Kelly File on Thursday night when asked if he agreed with Trump. "The bigger problem we have is our inability to find out where these places are, because weve crippled our intelligence programs, both through unauthorized disclosures by a traitor, in Edward Snowden, or by some of the things this president has put in place with the support even of some from my own party to diminish our intelligence capabilities."

"So whatever facility is being used its not just a mosque any facility thats being used to radicalize and inspire attacks against the United States, should be a place that we look at," he continued.

What is wrong with this part..." any facility thats being used to radicalize and inspire attacks against the United States, should be a place that we look at"?

Nothing. It's the closing down part that's troublesome.

Why? If it's proven that people are being radicalized and inspired for attacks against the US why shouldn't they be shut closed? You want those places to continue to operate so they can continue to do that?

 

[timschochet]

Tim might want to rethink his position that Rubio is a preferred alternative to Trump:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/11/20/3724509/rubio-trump-shut-down-mosques/

Rubio Trumps Trump: Shut Down Any Place Muslims Gather To Be 'Inspired' - Not Just Mosques

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) seems to be going further than even Republican frontrunner Donald Trump in advocating the crackdown of U.S. Muslims. He doesnt just want to consider shutting down mosques, as Trump says, but wants to shut down any place where radicals are being inspired.

"Its not about closing down mosques. Its about closing down any place whether its a cafe, a diner, an internet site any place where radicals are being inspired," Rubio said on Fox News The Kelly File on Thursday night when asked if he agreed with Trump. "The bigger problem we have is our inability to find out where these places are, because weve crippled our intelligence programs, both through unauthorized disclosures by a traitor, in Edward Snowden, or by some of the things this president has put in place with the support even of some from my own party to diminish our intelligence capabilities."

"So whatever facility is being used its not just a mosque any facility thats being used to radicalize and inspire attacks against the United States, should be a place that we look at," he continued.

What is wrong with this part..." any facility thats being used to radicalize and inspire attacks against the United States, should be a place that we look at"?

Nothing. It's the closing down part that's troublesome.

Why? If it's proven that people are being radicalized and inspired for attacks against the US why shouldn't they be shut closed? You want those places to continue to operate so they can continue to do that?

What do you mean by "inspired"? Do you believe in freedom of speech and assembly?

 

[Joe Summer]

Terrorists should start telling people that they were inspired by Trump hotels.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Tim might want to rethink his position that Rubio is a preferred alternative to Trump:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/11/20/3724509/rubio-trump-shut-down-mosques/

Rubio Trumps Trump: Shut Down Any Place Muslims Gather To Be 'Inspired' - Not Just Mosques

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) seems to be going further than even Republican frontrunner Donald Trump in advocating the crackdown of U.S. Muslims. He doesnt just want to consider shutting down mosques, as Trump says, but wants to shut down any place where radicals are being inspired.

"Its not about closing down mosques. Its about closing down any place whether its a cafe, a diner, an internet site any place where radicals are being inspired," Rubio said on Fox News The Kelly File on Thursday night when asked if he agreed with Trump. "The bigger problem we have is our inability to find out where these places are, because weve crippled our intelligence programs, both through unauthorized disclosures by a traitor, in Edward Snowden, or by some of the things this president has put in place with the support even of some from my own party to diminish our intelligence capabilities."

"So whatever facility is being used its not just a mosque any facility thats being used to radicalize and inspire attacks against the United States, should be a place that we look at," he continued.

What is wrong with this part..." any facility thats being used to radicalize and inspire attacks against the United States, should be a place that we look at"?

Nothing. It's the closing down part that's troublesome.

Why? If it's proven that people are being radicalized and inspired for attacks against the US why shouldn't they be shut closed? You want those places to continue to operate so they can continue to do that?

What do you mean by "inspired"? Do you believe in freedom of speech and assembly?

Seriously Tim? You know what I am talking about and you didn't answer my question. What part of "radicalized and inspired for attacks against the US" don't you understand? The Muslim religion doesn't preach that.

 

[timschochet]

The problem, Ookie Pringle, ia the words "radicalized" and "inspired", because these words are extremely subjective. If you could prove to me that there is some mosque or meeting place somewhere where a guy is saying, "We need to blow up City Hall next week; who's with me?" then yeah, I could see shutting that place down. But if we're taliking about somebody saying "The American way of life is evil; we must fight to bring it down and impose traditional Islamic values", etc., well that's freedom of speech, as far as I'm concerned. And the problem with passing a law is that it will be up to our authorities to decide which speech is inflammatory and which isn't, and that's not something I'm comfortable with them doing.

Just yesterday at my daughter's school district in Huntington Beach some parent tried to get a teacher in trouble because she taught the kids a Muslim poem. This was part of a curriculum to teach different cultures. It disturbs me that this parent made a huge fuss about it, and that the teacher and the district are now in hot water.

So I believe that if we go down this path, it is very dangerous. Just as we did in the 50s with Communism, we will be creating great suspicion and fear within our society.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

The problem, Ookie Pringle, ia the words "radicalized" and "inspired", because these words are extremely subjective. If you could prove to me that there is some mosque or meeting place somewhere where a guy is saying, "We need to blow up City Hall next week; who's with me?" then yeah, I could see shutting that place down. But if we're taliking about somebody saying "The American way of life is evil; we must fight to bring it down and impose traditional Islamic values", etc., well that's freedom of speech, as far as I'm concerned. And the problem with passing a law is that it will be up to our authorities to decide which speech is inflammatory and which isn't, and that's not something I'm comfortable with them doing.

Just yesterday at my daughter's school district in Huntington Beach some parent tried to get a teacher in trouble because she taught the kids a Muslim poem. This was part of a curriculum to teach different cultures. It disturbs me that this parent made a huge fuss about it, and that the teacher and the district are now in hot water.

So I believe that if we go down this path, it is very dangerous. Just as we did in the 50s with Communism, we will be creating great suspicion and fear within our society.

Yes Tim...that example of your daughter's school is just like our intelligence community trying to find potential terrorists in the US.

 

[Mister CIA]

Terrorists should start telling people that they were inspired by Trump hotels.

I was going to suggest they gather on the steps of Congress, but I like the way you are thinking.

 

[squistion]

Tim might want to rethink his position that Rubio is a preferred alternative to Trump:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/11/20/3724509/rubio-trump-shut-down-mosques/

Rubio Trumps Trump: Shut Down Any Place Muslims Gather To Be 'Inspired' - Not Just Mosques

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) seems to be going further than even Republican frontrunner Donald Trump in advocating the crackdown of U.S. Muslims. He doesnt just want to consider shutting down mosques, as Trump says, but wants to shut down any place where radicals are being inspired.

"Its not about closing down mosques. Its about closing down any place whether its a cafe, a diner, an internet site any place where radicals are being inspired," Rubio said on Fox News The Kelly File on Thursday night when asked if he agreed with Trump. "The bigger problem we have is our inability to find out where these places are, because weve crippled our intelligence programs, both through unauthorized disclosures by a traitor, in Edward Snowden, or by some of the things this president has put in place with the support even of some from my own party to diminish our intelligence capabilities."

"So whatever facility is being used its not just a mosque any facility thats being used to radicalize and inspire attacks against the United States, should be a place that we look at," he continued.

What is wrong with this part..." any facility thats being used to radicalize and inspire attacks against the United States, should be a place that we look at"?

Nothing. It's the closing down part that's troublesome.

And I would question if it could withstand a court challenge, as it would seem to also have a "chilling effect" on the freedom of association, besides the freedom of speech issues.

 

[sho nuff]

And I would question if it could withstand a court challenge, as it would seem to also have a "chilling effect" on the freedom of association, besides the freedom of speech issues.

That and the complaints about what is getting shut down as far as intelligence gathering leads me to believe get ready to take it on the chin as far as rights to privacy are concerned.

 

[Dickies]

Tim might want to rethink his position that Rubio is a preferred alternative to Trump:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/11/20/3724509/rubio-trump-shut-down-mosques/

Rubio Trumps Trump: Shut Down Any Place Muslims Gather To Be 'Inspired' - Not Just Mosques

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) seems to be going further than even Republican frontrunner Donald Trump in advocating the crackdown of U.S. Muslims. He doesnt just want to consider shutting down mosques, as Trump says, but wants to shut down any place where radicals are being inspired.

"Its not about closing down mosques. Its about closing down any place whether its a cafe, a diner, an internet site any place where radicals are being inspired," Rubio said on Fox News The Kelly File on Thursday night when asked if he agreed with Trump. "The bigger problem we have is our inability to find out where these places are, because weve crippled our intelligence programs, both through unauthorized disclosures by a traitor, in Edward Snowden, or by some of the things this president has put in place with the support even of some from my own party to diminish our intelligence capabilities."

"So whatever facility is being used its not just a mosque any facility thats being used to radicalize and inspire attacks against the United States, should be a place that we look at," he continued.

He was on Hannity's radio show earlier this week and was saying that if we let the Syrian refugees into this country it will put this country in danger of being subjected to Sharia Law. He always comes off hawkish to me, and Hannity was baiting him a bit, but I was surprised he would go there. Syria is one of the more western-cultured countries in the Middle East, and the insinuations made were just pure fear mongering. Now it appears he is doubling down.

 

[Sand]

hey

how about we address this

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2-000-terror-suspects-bought-guns-legally-report-article-1.2437868

Wait, are you kidding me with this? They want to block all refugees supposedly on the off chance that one might be a terrorist, yet they oppose a bill that would restrict anyone on the government's terrorist watchlist from buying a gun?

So on the basis of no indictments, no convictions, you're going to abrogate a Constitutional right? What country do you think you live in Tim? Pretty horrible.

The hypocrisy of this is people will defend this because "innocent until proven guilty" and can't wrongfully take away someone's rights. Then many of those same people will defend the NSA's warrantless data collection by saying "we need to be safe, if that means giving up some rights then I'm all for it".

Ah yes, the strawman that never existed, certainly not among those people who have read and understand our bill of rights. Absurd statement.

You can't just put in place actions like this based on being on some nebulous list. There have been many examples of these lists being incorrect (the no-fly list has caught many by mistake). Of officials being incorrect (see: Richard Jewell).

 

[Sand]

Rubio Trumps Trump: Shut Down Any Place Muslims Gather To Be 'Inspired' - Not Just Mosques

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) seems to be going further than even Republican frontrunner Donald Trump in advocating the crackdown of U.S. Muslims. He doesnt just want to consider shutting down mosques, as Trump says, but wants to shut down any place where radicals are being inspired.

"Its not about closing down mosques. Its about closing down any place whether its a cafe, a diner, an internet site any place where radicals are being inspired," Rubio said on Fox News The Kelly File on Thursday night when asked if he agreed with Trump. "The bigger problem we have is our inability to find out where these places are, because weve crippled our intelligence programs, both through unauthorized disclosures by a traitor, in Edward Snowden, or by some of the things this president has put in place with the support even of some from my own party to diminish our intelligence capabilities."

"So whatever facility is being used its not just a mosque any facility thats being used to radicalize and inspire attacks against the United States, should be a place that we look at," he continued.

Equally ridiculous. This can't be done and he knows that. Pure pandering for pandering's sake. Sad, as he's got a lot better head on his shoulders than this.

 

[Amused to Death]

hey

how about we address this

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2-000-terror-suspects-bought-guns-legally-report-article-1.2437868

Wait, are you kidding me with this? They want to block all refugees supposedly on the off chance that one might be a terrorist, yet they oppose a bill that would restrict anyone on the government's terrorist watchlist from buying a gun?

So on the basis of no indictments, no convictions, you're going to abrogate a Constitutional right? What country do you think you live in Tim? Pretty horrible.

The hypocrisy of this is people will defend this because "innocent until proven guilty" and can't wrongfully take away someone's rights. Then many of those same people will defend the NSA's warrantless data collection by saying "we need to be safe, if that means giving up some rights then I'm all for it".

Ah yes, the strawman that never existed, certainly not among those people who have read and understand our bill of rights. Absurd statement.

You can't just put in place actions like this based on being on some nebulous list. There have been many examples of these lists being incorrect (the no-fly list has caught many by mistake). Of officials being incorrect (see: Richard Jewell).

So why are there some who defend the warrantless data collection, even after being ruled illegal? 4th amendment not as important?

 

[RnR]

Rubio Trumps Trump: Shut Down Any Place Muslims Gather To Be 'Inspired' - Not Just Mosques

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) seems to be going further than even Republican frontrunner Donald Trump in advocating the crackdown of U.S. Muslims. He doesnt just want to consider shutting down mosques, as Trump says, but wants to shut down any place where radicals are being inspired.

"Its not about closing down mosques. Its about closing down any place whether its a cafe, a diner, an internet site any place where radicals are being inspired," Rubio said on Fox News The Kelly File on Thursday night when asked if he agreed with Trump. "The bigger problem we have is our inability to find out where these places are, because weve crippled our intelligence programs, both through unauthorized disclosures by a traitor, in Edward Snowden, or by some of the things this president has put in place with the support even of some from my own party to diminish our intelligence capabilities."

"So whatever facility is being used its not just a mosque any facility thats being used to radicalize and inspire attacks against the United States, should be a place that we look at," he continued.

Equally ridiculous. This can't be done and he knows that. Pure pandering for pandering's sake. Sad, as he's got a lot better head on his shoulders than this.

The most ridiculous part of this story is the headline. Funny what an agenda can do to a headline.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

How can the GOP explain away their inconsistent approach between their opinion on gun control and allowing refugees in. They are literally the exact same concept; there is a small chance of someone not being vetted properly and killing innocent people. They have infinite tolerance for children to get gunned down in school, but the hypothetically situation that a refugee might do the same thing is suddenly where the line is drawn? Either be fearful babies scared of your own shadow or not, but at least be internally consistent.

The right to own a gun is a Constitutional right for U.S. citizens. Entry to the country is not a right for any foreigner, refugee or otherwise. Accepting the risk in exercising a citizens right is not inconsistent with, or related to in any way, the objections of accepting refugees.

 

[RnR]

How can the GOP explain away their inconsistent approach between their opinion on gun control and allowing refugees in. They are literally the exact same concept; there is a small chance of someone not being vetted properly and killing innocent people. They have infinite tolerance for children to get gunned down in school, but the hypothetically situation that a refugee might do the same thing is suddenly where the line is drawn? Either be fearful babies scared of your own shadow or not, but at least be internally consistent.

The right to own a gun is a Constitutional right for U.S. citizens. Entry to the country is not a right for any foreigner, refugee or otherwise. Accepting the risk in exercising a citizens right is not inconsistent with, or related to in any way, the objections of accepting refugees.

No matter where you stand on these two entirely separate issues, it is important to keep that distinction.

 

[bakes]

Rubio Trumps Trump: Shut Down Any Place Muslims Gather To Be 'Inspired' - Not Just Mosques

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) seems to be going further than even Republican frontrunner Donald Trump in advocating the crackdown of U.S. Muslims. He doesnt just want to consider shutting down mosques, as Trump says, but wants to shut down any place where radicals are being inspired.

"Its not about closing down mosques. Its about closing down any place whether its a cafe, a diner, an internet site any place where radicals are being inspired," Rubio said on Fox News The Kelly File on Thursday night when asked if he agreed with Trump. "The bigger problem we have is our inability to find out where these places are, because weve crippled our intelligence programs, both through unauthorized disclosures by a traitor, in Edward Snowden, or by some of the things this president has put in place with the support even of some from my own party to diminish our intelligence capabilities."

"So whatever facility is being used its not just a mosque any facility thats being used to radicalize and inspire attacks against the United States, should be a place that we look at," he continued.

Equally ridiculous. This can't be done and he knows that. Pure pandering for pandering's sake. Sad, as he's got a lot better head on his shoulders than this.

The most ridiculous part of this story is the headline. Funny what an agenda can do to a headline.

Considering the abject idiocy of what Rubio is proposing, if the headline is inflammatorially exagerrative to draw attention to his stupidity, go for it.

 

[RnR]

Rubio Trumps Trump: Shut Down Any Place Muslims Gather To Be 'Inspired' - Not Just Mosques

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) seems to be going further than even Republican frontrunner Donald Trump in advocating the crackdown of U.S. Muslims. He doesnt just want to consider shutting down mosques, as Trump says, but wants to shut down any place where radicals are being inspired.

"Its not about closing down mosques. Its about closing down any place whether its a cafe, a diner, an internet site any place where radicals are being inspired," Rubio said on Fox News The Kelly File on Thursday night when asked if he agreed with Trump. "The bigger problem we have is our inability to find out where these places are, because weve crippled our intelligence programs, both through unauthorized disclosures by a traitor, in Edward Snowden, or by some of the things this president has put in place with the support even of some from my own party to diminish our intelligence capabilities."

"So whatever facility is being used its not just a mosque any facility thats being used to radicalize and inspire attacks against the United States, should be a place that we look at," he continued.

Equally ridiculous. This can't be done and he knows that. Pure pandering for pandering's sake. Sad, as he's got a lot better head on his shoulders than this.

The most ridiculous part of this story is the headline. Funny what an agenda can do to a headline.

Considering the abject idiocy of what Rubio is proposing, if the headline is inflammatorially exagerrative to draw attention to his stupidity, go for it.

Hey, whatever gets the job done, right?

Here's my headline: "Bakes calls Cuban immigrant's child an 'idiot', okays misleading headlines to further perpetuate the idea of his 'stupidity'"

This game is fun.

 

[squistion]

The most ridiculous part of this story is the headline. Funny what an agenda can do to a headline.

I don't see any problem with the headline.

Rubio Trumps Trump: Shut Down Any Place Muslims Gather To Be 'Inspired' - Not Just Mosques

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) seems to be going further than even Republican frontrunner Donald Trump in advocating the crackdown of U.S. Muslims. He doesnt just want to consider shutting down mosques, as Trump says, but wants to shut down any place where radicals are being inspired.

"Its not about closing down mosques. Its about closing down any place whether its a cafe, a diner, an internet site any place where radicals are being inspired," Rubio said on Fox News The Kelly File on Thursday night when asked if he agreed with Trump.

He said "radicals" instead of Muslims, but outside of that it practically his exact words (unless you want to quibble about the use of "gather"). And this was in response to what Trump said (who was referring specifically to Muslims) and I doubt anyone thinks Rubio was speaking about any other group or that he was including Christians and Christian churches.

 

[RnR]

The most ridiculous part of this story is the headline. Funny what an agenda can do to a headline.

I don't see any problem with the headline.

Rubio Trumps Trump: Shut Down Any Place Muslims Gather To Be 'Inspired' - Not Just Mosques

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) seems to be going further than even Republican frontrunner Donald Trump in advocating the crackdown of U.S. Muslims. He doesnt just want to consider shutting down mosques, as Trump says, but wants to shut down any place where radicals are being inspired.

"Its not about closing down mosques. Its about closing down any place whether its a cafe, a diner, an internet site any place where radicals are being inspired," Rubio said on Fox News The Kelly File on Thursday night when asked if he agreed with Trump.

He said "radicals" instead of Muslims, but outside of that it practically his exact words (unless you want to quibble about the use of "gather"). And this was in response to what Trump said (who was referring specifically to Muslims) and I doubt anyone thinks Rubio was speaking about any other group or that he was including Christians and Christian churches.

You really don't see how using the term "Muslims" in the context of that headline could be inflammatory and disingenuous?

 

[RBM]

The most ridiculous part of this story is the headline. Funny what an agenda can do to a headline.

I don't see any problem with the headline.

Rubio Trumps Trump: Shut Down Any Place Muslims Gather To Be 'Inspired' - Not Just MosquesSen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) seems to be going further than even Republican frontrunner Donald Trump in advocating the crackdown of U.S. Muslims. He doesnt just want to consider shutting down mosques, as Trump says, but wants to shut down any place where radicals are being inspired."Its not about closing down mosques. Its about closing down any place whether its a cafe, a diner, an internet site any place where radicals are being inspired," Rubio said on Fox News The Kelly File on Thursday night when asked if he agreed with Trump.

He said "radicals" instead of Muslims, but outside of that it practically his exact words (unless you want to quibble about the use of "gather"). And this was in response to what Trump said (who was referring specifically to Muslims) and I doubt anyone thinks Rubio was speaking about any other group or that he was including Christians and Christian churches.

You're a big fan of radicals?

 

[squistion]

The most ridiculous part of this story is the headline. Funny what an agenda can do to a headline.

I don't see any problem with the headline.

Rubio Trumps Trump: Shut Down Any Place Muslims Gather To Be 'Inspired' - Not Just Mosques

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) seems to be going further than even Republican frontrunner Donald Trump in advocating the crackdown of U.S. Muslims. He doesnt just want to consider shutting down mosques, as Trump says, but wants to shut down any place where radicals are being inspired.

"Its not about closing down mosques. Its about closing down any place whether its a cafe, a diner, an internet site any place where radicals are being inspired," Rubio said on Fox News The Kelly File on Thursday night when asked if he agreed with Trump.

He said "radicals" instead of Muslims, but outside of that it practically his exact words (unless you want to quibble about the use of "gather"). And this was in response to what Trump said (who was referring specifically to Muslims) and I doubt anyone thinks Rubio was speaking about any other group or that he was including Christians and Christian churches.

You really don't see how using the term "Muslims" in the context of that headline could be inflammatory and disingenuous?

And just so we're clear: All of you freedom fighters are against monitoring radical groups of any kind, right?

No Trump was referring specifically to Muslims (who else worships in a Mosque?) Rubio was commenting in response to what Trump said. So obviously, he was talking about Muslims too. Who else could he be talking about? What would be disingenuous is to claim he wasn't referring to Muslims.

And no one is against monitoring radical groups of any kind. Clumsy Straw Man.

 

[RnR]

There's no straw man here. Just making sure your position is clear.

Carry on, I guess. You and I both know that's twisting words to mean things they don't mean, but I don't have the will to iFight with you.

 

[squistion]

The most ridiculous part of this story is the headline. Funny what an agenda can do to a headline.

I don't see any problem with the headline.

Rubio Trumps Trump: Shut Down Any Place Muslims Gather To Be 'Inspired' - Not Just Mosques

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) seems to be going further than even Republican frontrunner Donald Trump in advocating the crackdown of U.S. Muslims. He doesnt just want to consider shutting down mosques, as Trump says, but wants to shut down any place where radicals are being inspired.

"Its not about closing down mosques. Its about closing down any place whether its a cafe, a diner, an internet site any place where radicals are being inspired," Rubio said on Fox News The Kelly File on Thursday night when asked if he agreed with Trump.

He said "radicals" instead of Muslims, but outside of that it practically his exact words (unless you want to quibble about the use of "gather"). And this was in response to what Trump said (who was referring specifically to Muslims) and I doubt anyone thinks Rubio was speaking about any other group or that he was including Christians and Christian churches.

You're a big fan of radicals?

 

[timschochet]

This is just silly. We all agree that radical Muslims should be monitored. Should ALL Muslims be monitored? If Rubio or Trump says no then fine I'll give each the benefit of the doubt. If either say yes then I would suggest that no reasonable person should support that candidate.

But even if I do give Rubio the benefit of the doubt on that, I still find his comments about shutting down radical mosques to be problematic because I'm worried as to how we define that.

 

[RnR]

This is just silly. We all agree that radical Muslims should be monitored. Should ALL Muslims be monitored? If Rubio or Trump says no then fine I'll give each the benefit of the doubt. If either say yes then I would suggest that no reasonable person should support that candidate.

But even if I do give Rubio the benefit of the doubt on that, I still find his comments about shutting down radical mosques to be problematic because I'm worried as to how we define that.

Rubio made it pretty clear in his statement. That's the whole point I was trying to make. Not sure why there are folks around here interested in spinning this into something it is not.

Like you said, most all of us are probably close to being on the same page here. Trying to bend words to make Rubio seem like he's planning to take down every mosque seems like a huge stretch to make out of that statement. It's dumb when GOP folks do it with Obama, and it's dumb when people are doing it to Rubio here.

It may be hard to define on paper, but I'd say that we should have enough faith in our officials to "know it when they see it." They are highly trained professionals. If for some reason they don't follow through correctly and start hassling innocent folks, you and I both know it will be a controversial news topic for the next six months. And rightfully so.

 

[skol asylum]

Question 2)finish this sentence: "Allah ________."

Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.

 

[Stinger Ray]

This is just silly. We all agree that radical Muslims should be monitored. Should ALL Muslims be monitored? If Rubio or Trump says no then fine I'll give each the benefit of the doubt. If either say yes then I would suggest that no reasonable person should support that candidate.

But even if I do give Rubio the benefit of the doubt on that, I still find his comments about shutting down radical mosques to be problematic because I'm worried as to how we define that.

He was talking about if the intelligence showed people in those radical places were inspiring others which leads to attacks against the US. Why is that a bad thing?

 

[Sand]

hey

how about we address this

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2-000-terror-suspects-bought-guns-legally-report-article-1.2437868

Wait, are you kidding me with this? They want to block all refugees supposedly on the off chance that one might be a terrorist, yet they oppose a bill that would restrict anyone on the government's terrorist watchlist from buying a gun?

So on the basis of no indictments, no convictions, you're going to abrogate a Constitutional right? What country do you think you live in Tim? Pretty horrible.

The hypocrisy of this is people will defend this because "innocent until proven guilty" and can't wrongfully take away someone's rights. Then many of those same people will defend the NSA's warrantless data collection by saying "we need to be safe, if that means giving up some rights then I'm all for it".

Ah yes, the strawman that never existed, certainly not among those people who have read and understand our bill of rights. Absurd statement.

You can't just put in place actions like this based on being on some nebulous list. There have been many examples of these lists being incorrect (the no-fly list has caught many by mistake). Of officials being incorrect (see: Richard Jewell).

So why are there some who defend the warrantless data collection, even after being ruled illegal? 4th amendment not as important?

Warrantless data collection is highly unpopular - you know that. There will always be "some" that support the other side. We could just as easily ask why there are some that defend third trimester abortions.

 

[timschochet]

This is just silly. We all agree that radical Muslims should be monitored. Should ALL Muslims be monitored? If Rubio or Trump says no then fine I'll give each the benefit of the doubt. If either say yes then I would suggest that no reasonable person should support that candidate.

But even if I do give Rubio the benefit of the doubt on that, I still find his comments about shutting down radical mosques to be problematic because I'm worried as to how we define that.

He was talking about if the intelligence showed people in those radical places were inspiring others which leads to attacks against the US.Why is that a bad thing?

I explained my objection earlier. You're welcome to disagree.

 

[RCon]

This is just silly. We all agree that radical Muslims should be monitored. Should ALL Muslims be monitored? If Rubio or Trump says no then fine I'll give each the benefit of the doubt. If either say yes then I would suggest that no reasonable person should support that candidate.

But even if I do give Rubio the benefit of the doubt on that, I still find his comments about shutting down radical mosques to be problematic because I'm worried as to how we define that.

You're in favor of all Muslims being monitored, given that all Muslims are a subset of everyone, and you're in favor of monitoring everyone. You don't get to criticize others on this score.

 

[timschochet]

This is just silly. We all agree that radical Muslims should be monitored. Should ALL Muslims be monitored? If Rubio or Trump says no then fine I'll give each the benefit of the doubt. If either say yes then I would suggest that no reasonable person should support that candidate.

But even if I do give Rubio the benefit of the doubt on that, I still find his comments about shutting down radical mosques to be problematic because I'm worried as to how we define that.

You're in favor of all Muslims being monitored, given that all Muslims are a subset of everyone, and you're in favor of monitoring everyone. You don't get to criticize others on this score.

As I've stated numerous times, I don't agree with your interpretation of my views on the NSA. And of course I can criticize, and I will.

 

[bakes]

Question 2)finish this sentence: "Allah ________."

Your base belong to us.

 

[RCon]

This is just silly. We all agree that radical Muslims should be monitored. Should ALL Muslims be monitored? If Rubio or Trump says no then fine I'll give each the benefit of the doubt. If either say yes then I would suggest that no reasonable person should support that candidate.

But even if I do give Rubio the benefit of the doubt on that, I still find his comments about shutting down radical mosques to be problematic because I'm worried as to how we define that.

You're in favor of all Muslims being monitored, given that all Muslims are a subset of everyone, and you're in favor of monitoring everyone. You don't get to criticize others on this score.

As I've stated numerous times, I don't agree with your interpretation of my views on the NSA. And of course I can criticize, and I will.

It's not an interpretation, it's literally your own words. You want the NSA to keep a copy of everyone's electronic records.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Question 2)finish this sentence: "Allah ________."

Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.

Beautiful reference. Post of the year material IMO.

-QG

 

[RnR]

For those of you freaking out about Trump/Carson, here's some perspective from Washington Post:

On November 21 of the prior year —

2004 CYCLE

Howard Dean and Wesley Clark are tied and will be for 16 more days.

2008 CYCLE

Hillary Clinton leads the Democratic field by 19.7 points. She'll lead for 84 more days.

Rudy Giuliani leads the Republican field by 13.2 points. He'll lead for 47 more days.

2012 CYCLE

Newt Gingrich leads the Republican field by 1.8 points. He'll lead for 44 more days.

 

[The Commish]

I don't know where to put this question, so I just picked this thread of the million other Tim threads. Question to those who are fit to be tied with Trump.

Where are you on Cruz? Where's the outrage? Where's the fear? Where's the discussion?

I ask these questions because from where I stand and what I've observed and read, he's Trump wrapped in a nice little politically correct package. Their differences on immigration aren't significant enough to matter. It's clear his position on Muslims in general. What gives?

I've heard a few sensible people say they'd actually vote for Trump over Cruz, but other than that he's taken his anti-immigration and bigotry and flown completely under the radar. Who do you think is going to benefit most when Trump bails?

 

[skol asylum]

Cruz will benefit and he would also be a terrible POTUS.

 

[timschochet]

Good question Commish.

Personally, if forced, I would vote for Cruz over Trump, only because Cruz by the slightest of margins is IMO more of a believer in our system of government.

But I would very much like to avoid ever having to make such a choice.

 

[joffer]

I don't know where to put this question, so I just picked this thread of the million other Tim threads. Question to those who are fit to be tied with Trump.

Where are you on Cruz? Where's the outrage? Where's the fear? Where's the discussion?

I ask these questions because from where I stand and what I've observed and read, he's Trump wrapped in a nice little politically correct package. Their differences on immigration aren't significant enough to matter. It's clear his position on Muslims in general. What gives?

I've heard a few sensible people say they'd actually vote for Trump over Cruz, but other than that he's taken his anti-immigration and bigotry and flown completely under the radar. Who do you think is going to benefit most when Trump bails?

Cruz is far more dangerous than Trump. I don't think Trump actually believes half of the verbal diarrhea that comes out of his mouth. He'll say anything to bump his poll numbers, including that he's a conservative. I think Cruz believes everything he says. And he's a LOT smarter.

 

[The Commish]

I don't know where to put this question, so I just picked this thread of the million other Tim threads. Question to those who are fit to be tied with Trump.

Where are you on Cruz? Where's the outrage? Where's the fear? Where's the discussion?

I ask these questions because from where I stand and what I've observed and read, he's Trump wrapped in a nice little politically correct package. Their differences on immigration aren't significant enough to matter. It's clear his position on Muslims in general. What gives?

I've heard a few sensible people say they'd actually vote for Trump over Cruz, but other than that he's taken his anti-immigration and bigotry and flown completely under the radar. Who do you think is going to benefit most when Trump bails?

Cruz is far more dangerous than Trump. I don't think Trump actually believes half of the verbal diarrhea that comes out of his mouth. He'll say anything to bump his poll numbers, including that he's a conservative. I think Cruz believes everything he says. And he's a LOT smarter.

Couldn't agree more...except with the "smarter" part. They have different smarts in different areas. Where Cruz has more smarts over Trump makes him more dangerous IMO.

 

[saintfool]

This is just silly. We all agree that radical Muslims should be monitored. Should ALL Muslims be monitored? If Rubio or Trump says no then fine I'll give each the benefit of the doubt. If either say yes then I would suggest that no reasonable person should support that candidate.

But even if I do give Rubio the benefit of the doubt on that, I still find his comments about shutting down radical mosques to be problematic because I'm worried as to how we define that.

radical anyone should be monitored: Christian Identity, Sovereign Citizens, Aryan Nation, KKK, Earth first, et al are radical too. They advocate violent change and have acted on it.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I couldn't find an Official Ted Cruz thread, but this is kind of unflattering.

 

[The Commish]

I couldn't find an Official Ted Cruz thread, but this is kind of unflattering.

Goes back to my questions a couple posts up. If there was ever a bug to be squashed out of the next round of GOP cuts, it's this guy and I have no idea why he isn't getting the attention that Trump's getting. He's run a brilliant campaign thus far essentially making Trump his trojan horse. I am almost certain when Trump drops out, 90+% of his supporters will flock to Cruz. Then what? Not shocking I guess, but people are missing the forest for the trees yet again.

 

[RBM]

I couldn't find an Official Ted Cruz thread, but this is kind of unflattering.

They grant him all of the virtues that you’ve observed, but tell you that he’s the antithesis of a team player. His thirst for the spotlight is unquenchable. His arrogance is unalloyed. He actually takes pride in being abrasive, as if a person’s tally of detractors measures his fearlessness, not his obnoxiousness

Really can describe Obama the same exact way.

 

[John Bender]

I couldn't find an Official Ted Cruz thread, but this is kind of unflattering.

Goes back to my questions a couple posts up. If there was ever a bug to be squashed out of the next round of GOP cuts, it's this guy and I have no idea why he isn't getting the attention that Trump's getting. He's run a brilliant campaign thus far essentially making Trump his trojan horse. I am almost certain when Trump drops out, 90+% of his supporters will flock to Cruz. Then what? Not shocking I guess, but people are missing the forest for the trees yet again.

Very interesting take. Hard to disagree with you.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I couldn't find an Official Ted Cruz thread, but this is kind of unflattering.

They grant him all of the virtues that you’ve observed, but tell you that he’s the antithesis of a team player. His thirst for the spotlight is unquenchable. His arrogance is unalloyed. He actually takes pride in being abrasive, as if a person’s tally of detractors measures his fearlessness, not his obnoxiousness

Really can describe Obama the same exact way.

Obama was also a first-term Senator when he ran for President, and it seems that he was pretty well-liked by his colleagues. He got critical endorsements from Ted Kennedy and John Kerry over Hillary Clinton and John Edwards (both of whom were current or former Senators). I don't think your comparison is a good one.

 

[The Commish]

I couldn't find an Official Ted Cruz thread, but this is kind of unflattering.

They grant him all of the virtues that you’ve observed, but tell you that he’s the antithesis of a team player. His thirst for the spotlight is unquenchable. His arrogance is unalloyed. He actually takes pride in being abrasive, as if a person’s tally of detractors measures his fearlessness, not his obnoxiousness

Really can describe Obama the same exact way.

Other than people liking Obama Granted, those people were choosing between him and Clinton so......

 

[joffer]

I couldn't find an Official Ted Cruz thread, but this is kind of unflattering.

They grant him all of the virtues that you’ve observed, but tell you that he’s the antithesis of a team player. His thirst for the spotlight is unquenchable. His arrogance is unalloyed. He actually takes pride in being abrasive, as if a person’s tally of detractors measures his fearlessness, not his obnoxiousness

Really can describe Obama the same exact way.

it's like a Pavlovian response