[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

The party nominees are named. Now who do you support?

  • Total voters
    278
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Carbonox
Perfectly OK. Nothing should be allowed to remain a taboo.
Click to expand...

I wasn't suggesting otherwise. My point was to illustrate that anti-Muslim sentiment is indeed a strong force in the US, and we shouldn't just dismiss out of hand the idea that being falsely labeled as a Muslim could damage a politician's public image and popularity.
 
Swagger897
What difference does it make if it's towards an individual or towards the most populous religion?
Click to expand...
In this case, context. Slander is a false statement designed to damage someone's (including a group) reputation. The person at the Trump rally falsely accused President Obama of being something he isn't in a way to make it sound like negative aspect of Obama.

Ben Carson simply stated his opinion on a Muslim becoming president. He did not give a statement with a true or false aspect about Muslims.


Both statements were anti-Muslim and should be looked down upon, but by definition, one was used as a form of slander (even if unintentionally) and the other was not. Whether it is technically slander does not make one better or worse than the other.
 
Last edited:
FoolKiller
In this case, context. Slander is a false statement designed to damage someone's (including a group) reputation. The person at the Trump rally falsely accused President Obama of being something her isn't in a way to make it sound like negative aspect of Obama.

Ben Carson simply stated his opinion on a Muslim becoming president. He did not give a statement with a true or false aspect about Muslims.


Both statements were anti-Muslim and should be looked down upon, but by definition, one was used as a form of slander (even if unintentionally) and the other was not. Whether it is technically slander does not make one better or worse than the other.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Making no effort to correct the man at the Trump rally does not equal support in any sense of the word. If anything, the fact that Trump made no effort to throw the man out like he did Jorge Ramos for doing the exact same thing speaks louder than what that man could ever do.

As for Mr. Carson, he didn't say that he won't support a Muslim carte blance, but he will support one if he puts American values and the Constitution before his Muslim beliefs. Quoting the Washington Times:

On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Mr. Carson, a Seventh-day Adventist, had said he would not advocate that a Muslim serve as president, but he has also said he would be willing to support anyone as long as they put America and the U.S. Constitution ahead of their religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

And considering what happened in Jersey City, NJ, that is unlikely to happen.
 
Sanji Himura
I disagree. Making no effort to correct the man at the Trump rally does not equal support in any sense of the word.
Click to expand...
Did I say it did?


As for Mr. Carson, he didn't say that he won't support a Muslim carte blance, but he will support one if he puts American values and the Constitution before his Muslim beliefs. Quoting the Washington Times:
Click to expand...
First, a link would be handy when you do this so I can see your quote in context.

Here is a transcript of the interview. This is the beginning to end of this part of the exchange:

CHUCK TODD: Let me wrap this up by finally dealing with what's been going on, Donald Trump, and a deal with a questioner that claimed that the president was Muslim. Let me ask you the question this way: Should a President's faith matter? Should your faith matter to voters?

DR. BEN CARSON: Well, I guess it depends on what that faith is. If it's inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter. But if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the constitution, no problem.

CHUCK TODD: So do you believe that Islam is consistent with the constitution?

DR. BEN CARSON: No, I don't, I do not.

CHUCK TODD: So you--

DR. BEN CARSON: I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.

CHUCK TODD: And would you ever consider voting for a Muslim for Congress?

DR. BEN CARSON: Congress is a different story, but it depends on who that Muslim is and what their policies are, just as it depends on what anybody else says, you know. And, you know, if there's somebody who's of any faith, but they say things, and their life has been consistent with things that will elevate this nation and make it possible for everybody to succeed, and bring peace and harmony, then I'm with them.
CHUCK TODD: And I take it you believe the president was born in the United States and is a Christian?

DR. BEN CARSON: I believe that he is. I have no reason to doubt what he says.
CHUCK TODD: All right, Dr. Carson I will leave it there, I look forward to speaking with you again soon.
Click to expand...
Yes, he said he would support anyone whose faith is consistent with the Constitution. after that he then directly stated that he does not believe Islam is consistent with the Constitution and would not advocate a putting a Muslim in charge of this country.

By his own argument, I could say that he shouldn't be president because his religious beliefs are not consistent with the Constitution.

Truth is, no one's religion should affect their role as a public servant if it means stepping outside the constitution. This is the same man who defends Kim Davis. Had he not done that two weeks before then we could view his comments in a different light, but as it is he is a man who defends Christians serving in office violating the Constitution for religious reasons and then says Muslims shouldn't serve because they would violate the Constitution for religious reasons.
 
Clinton Legal Adviser on the email scandal: Time to lawyer up.

The adviser in question, in which the NYP didn't identify, advised the Clintons for over 30 years. He also said that Bill is taking the advice seriously, but Hillary is still thinking that the whole scandal is orchestrated by right-wing zealots, and spitting on the advice.

Read more here from the New York Post: http://nypost.com/2015/10/03/hillary-clintons-legal-adviser-warns-her-time-to-lawyer-up/
 
Johnnypenso
I don't understand the confusion on your part.
Click to expand...
Most likely due to the fact it seems acceptable for him in the first place for this to even happen.

He gave way to his political correctness in responding in a 'matter-o-fact' way instead of saying "well, I think in the first place what we need to do is..."

I don't understand why someone would want to put themselves in someone else's shoes in that event. It might seem like the brave thing to do, but not the smart thing to do.
 
The arrogance of saying "well, here's what I would have done with a spree killer in front of me" when people died is quite remarkable. Did it occur to him at all that some people might freeze or go into shock in such a situation?

It's far too easy to say what he said, with perfect hindsight, and far too tasteless to even comprehend it. The cheek of him, the absolute cheek of him.
 
Swagger897
Most likely due to the fact it seems acceptable for him in the first place for this to even happen.

He gave way to his political correctness in responding in a 'matter-o-fact' way instead of saying "well, I think in the first place what we need to do is..."

I don't understand why someone would want to put themselves in someone else's shoes in that event. It might seem like the brave thing to do, but not the smart thing to do.
Click to expand...
I don't see where in that interview, Dr. Carson makes it seem acceptable for this to happen. In the entire interview he says we should focus on the root causes of the issue with the shooters themselves and identify and intervene before this happens. He put himself in their shoes because he was asked what he would do in that situation and instead of answering like a politician and avoiding the question, he gave a direct answer. I find it rather refreshing myself.

GTPorsche
There's no confusion. Carson's "plan" to deal with an active shooter is to tell everyone to rush the shooter... all that accomplishes is getting more people killed.
Click to expand...
Right, because if we placate an insane person who is shooting people, less people will get killed.

Liquid
The arrogance of saying "well, here's what I would have done with a spree killer in front of me" when people died is quite remarkable. Did it occur to him at all that some people might freeze or go into shock in such a situation?

It's far too easy to say what he said, with perfect hindsight, and far too tasteless to even comprehend it. The cheek of him, the absolute cheek of him.
Click to expand...
It's not arrogance to answer a question directed at you with an honest answer. He's not a politician schooled from adulthood on up on how to answer things politically correct and when to avoid answering at all. As I said, I find it rather refreshing that he's a bit unpolished. As someone who spent a lifetime in life and death situations, I have no doubts at all that Dr. Carson would respond just as he said he would.
 
There are ways of handling the situation. Trying to be the hero that saves the day by attacking an armed and dangerous shooter isn't one of them, especially in a college setting where not many people are likely to have been trained in handling such a scenario.
 
It's not the fact that elsewhere deep in the interview of what he said, it's the fact that he put himself in the situation where people died.

How many presidents have you heard saying what they would of done during the attack on Pearl Harbor, or what people would of done if they were Ayrton Senna or Jules on those days, or any other great fate in history. None. It's quite simple really, you don't say something when someone has died. You are directly disrespecting them and how they went out, whether their choice or not.
 
GTPorsche
There are ways of handling the situation. Trying to be the hero that saves the day by attacking an armed and dangerous shooter isn't one of them, especially in a college setting where not many people are likely to have been trained in handling such a scenario.
Click to expand...
Enlighten us then on thise more effective methods of handling insane mass murderers.
Swagger897
It's not the fact that elsewhere deep in the interview of what he said, it's the fact that he put himself in the situation where people died.

How many presidents have you heard saying what they would of done during the attack on Pearl Harbor, or what people would of done if they were Ayrton Senna or Jules on those days, or any other great fate in history. None. It's quite simple really, you don't say something when someone has died. You are directly disrespecting them and how they went out, whether their choice or not.
Click to expand...
As I said, he didn't put himself in the situation, he responded to a question, and instead of dodging it like a politician and saying something politically correct, he answered directly. You don't like his answer that's fine, but I'll never deride a guy for answering a question directly and honestly. I'd rather a truth I disagree with, than a non-answer made for reasons of political correctness. Perhaps after he's in office for a few years, he'll learn to speak like a politician.
 
GTPorsche
There are ways of handling the situation. Trying to be the hero that saves the day by attacking an armed and dangerous shooter isn't one of them, especially in a college setting where not many people are likely to have been trained in handling such a scenario.
Click to expand...

While I mostly agree with you and Swagger, in some recent shooting tragedies the one refreshing thing I've seen is normal people taken the matter into their own hands. Thus stopping or slowing down the assailant but saving many, it's sad that normal citizens have to do this, but at times it may be the only way to stop such a person. It's not about being a hero but more so survival and if that's the option that someone feels is the only way to thrive they'll take it.

However, I will saying being asked such a question of what would you do when you have absolute control over the hypothetical and then responding in such a manner is not very well placed. In fact I think the best idea would be to honestly say you have no idea, because you don't. No one is ever prepared for such a random event and thus you can't safely know what you'd do. Which is why I agree with you two cause that's what you're saying in the end.
 
I don't see an "us", just you questioning my words. Unless you've got others on your side of the internet waiting patiently along with you.

I never said placating was a proper way of handling it either. I've never been in such a situation or have any training in handling such a situation.

Carson put himself in that situation with the way he worded his response to the question, which I disagree with his response. It's pretty irresponsible of someone running for political office to have a response that essentially boils down to "HEY LOOK A GUY WITH A GUN SHOOTING PEOPLE.. QUICK RUN AT HIM". Do you not see the failed logic in that response?

If the shooter is to be subdued by anyone that's not armed to handle it, shouting at him and getting his attention is not a smart way of doing it.
 
GTPorsche
There are ways of handling the situation. Trying to be the hero that saves the day by attacking an armed and dangerous shooter isn't one of them, especially in a college setting where not many people are likely to have been trained in handling such a scenario.
Click to expand...
Do you want to know why scenarios like that are possible? Most, if not all, colleges in the US are gun-free zones, meaning that it is prohibited to carry a weapon anywhere on those grounds. It breeds active shooter situations like this where the only guy in the room with a gun is the bad guy, and any intelligence on how to handle him in such a situation go right out the window. That is why most everything wrong that is associated with college, the underage drinking, rapes and so on fall on the head of college deans across the country. They brainwash and don't actually do their jobs, which is educate.

That is why I refuse to step foot in a college classroom.
 
huskeR32
Except for, ya know, this particular college isn't a gun-free zone...
Click to expand...
While legally, yes, that's true, except the college student code of conduct says:

Umpqua Community College Student Code of Conduct
19. Possession or use, without written authorization, of firearms, explosives, dangerous chemicals, substances, or any other weapons or destructive devices that are designed to or readily capable of causing physical injury, on College premises, at College-sponsored or supervised functions or at functions sponsored or participated in by the College.
Click to expand...

That means that without a piece of paper from college administration saying that you can carry a weapon on school grounds, you can not carry a firearm on school grounds. Period, end of subject. Doing so without permission will result in expulsion, and it will be impossible to gain admittance to another university anywhere in the country with a weapons citation on your permanent record.

Here is the link if you don't believe me:

http://www.umpqua.edu/resources-and-services/academic/student-code-of-conduct?showall=&start=4
 
Sanji Himura
without a piece of paper from college administration
Click to expand...
No where does it say from the school itself. The school is state owned, therefore a concealed carry license is the required paperwork. There is no "go to the dean and get it signed" paper needed here.

edit:

The school may be able to make its own rules however they do not override anything that the state allows in its own property.
 
Sanji Himura
While legally, yes, that's true
Click to expand...

Then your attempt to answer this...

Sanji Himura
Do you want to know why scenarios like that are possible?
Click to expand...

...would appear to be mostly just regurgitated rhetoric? Gotcha.

Sanji Himura
That means that without a piece of paper from college administration saying that you can carry a weapon on school grounds, you can not carry a firearm on school grounds. Period, end of subject
Click to expand...

As Swagger pointed out, this is false. A state-issued conceal-carry permit meets the "written authorization" requirement found in the school's code of conduct; the Oregon Court of Appeals made that clear in a 2011 ruling.

A quick Google search finds plenty of examples of people acknowledging carrying firearms on that campus.
 
So if that is true, then why was it plastered all over the news that the university was a gun-free zone?
 
Sanji Himura
So if that is true, then why was it plastered all over the news that the university was a gun-free zone?
Click to expand...
Because it sells more papers within certain demographics. It's cynical, but they're not looking at the deaths of a dozen people as a tragedy - they're looking at the supposed institutional interference in the victims' ability to defend themselves as the "real" tragedy.

There has become an increasing trend among journalists that "it's better to ask forgiveness than to seek permission" - in the race to get an exclusive, it's okay to do minimal fact-checking because the twenty-four hour news cycle is always rolling, so all you need to do is say that the story was accurate to the best of your knowledge at the time of publication, and if you're proven wrong, then it doesn't matter because there will always be another story around the corner to capture the public's attention.
 
prisonermonkeys
There has become an increasing trend among journalists that "it's better to ask forgiveness than to seek permission" - in the race to get an exclusive, it's okay to do minimal fact-checking because the twenty-four hour news cycle is always rolling, so all you need to do is say that the story was accurate to the best of your knowledge at the time of publication, and if you're proven wrong, then it doesn't matter because there will always be another story around the corner to capture the public's attention.
Click to expand...

I once heard a British tabloid editor describe this type of story as "too good to check".
 
TenEightyOne
I once heard a British tabloid editor describe this type of story as "too good to check".
Click to expand...
In December last year, a gunman took hostages in a cafe in Sydney's Martin Place, which is home to the commercial headquarters and studios of two television channels. During the siege, the gunman put up a black flag with Arabic text on it, and those two stations immediately ran stories that it was a terrorist attack. Nobody bothered to check the flag, and it wasn't until the evening news broadcasts that a prominent Muslim journalist pointed out that it is a common flag for Islamic families to own, and that while the black flag is commonly associated with ISIS, it is not exclusively associated with them. The media had arguably created an enormous panic for the sake of running an exclusive. For days, footage of the siege was broadcast with the commercial networks putting massive watermarks over the top so that you knew exactly who had gotten it. Ever since the advent of the twenty-four hour news cycle and the expansion of the commercial broadcast framework to allow more commercial channels, the networks have been in direct competition with each other, trying to sell themselves on the idea that they get the exclusive stories first. Journalistic integrity has gone out the window unless you work for the national broadcaster, and even they come under fire from the government for not being pro-government enough and running too many stories critical of them.
 
Sanji Himura
So if that is true, then why was it plastered all over the news that the university was a gun-free zone?
Click to expand...

Firstly, because of what @prisonermonkeys already said.

But I think there's more to it; the media, especially at the conservative end, wanted a way to get out in front of the conversation that we should have had instead - putting some meaningful gun regulations in place in this country.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

wfooshee
Electoral College: Discuss!
3 4 5
Replies
120
Views
7K
TheCracker
TheCracker
Sanji Himura
  • Poll
The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread
316 317 318
Replies
10K
Views
396K
TexRex
TexRex
Sanji Himura
The 2018 US Mid-Term Elections Thread
8 9 10
Replies
277
Views
12K
PocketZeven
PocketZeven
Sanji Himura
US Midterm Elections 2014
2 3 4
Replies
100
Views
4K
prisonermonkeys
prisonermonkeys
DK
US Congress Elections, 2016
Replies
1
Views
520
ryzno
ryzno

Latest Posts

Back