meower wrote: 

That is right and the Persians themselves are actually the most progressive citizens in the region, the distinction between Iranian citizens and their government is akin to the distinction between all Muslims and Muslim extremist.

 sirdroseph wrote: 
& that describes the  country, the government within the country is religiously based. yes

 Lazy8 wrote: 

The Iranian government was and is a Theocracy.  
Definition: A theocracy ("theo-" = God, "-cracy" = government) is a government operated under divine rule, or the pretense of divine rule. In practice, this term refers to a government operated by religious authorities who claim unlimited power in the name of God or other supernatural forces.


Oh and for the record, I do not support either of these positions.  Just was making the point that foolish knee jerk reactions and bigotry are not the exclusive domain of the Republican party.

Trump:

At a campaign rally in South Carolina on Monday, Trump suggested that Microsoftfounder Bill Gates could help censor parts of the Internet from radicalized individuals.

  "We're losing a lot of people because of the internet," Trump said. "We have to see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what's happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that internet up in some ways. Somebody will say, 'Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people."


Clinton: 

The tech industry can help stem the tide by finding ways to “deny online space—just as we have to destroy their would-be caliphate—we have to deny them online space,” she said.

Clinton acknowledged that “this is complicated—you’re gonna hear all the usual complaints: freedom of speech, etcetera.” Still, she said, “if we truly are in a war against terrorism and we are truly looking for ways to shut off their funding, shut off the flow of foreign fighters, then we’ve got to shut off their means of communicating.”

sirdroseph wrote:
You are aware, of course, that Iran is a country (and one engaged in hostilities against the US at the time) and not a religion, right?

Right?

 miamizsun wrote: 

This should help:

Carter Banned Iranians from Coming to US During Hostage Crisis

Trump is just like Hitler. Or Jimmy Carter.

i'm sensing some bias here...

 Steely_D wrote: 
Supper's ready?

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
The more likely he is to be the GOP candidate, the more certain it is that Hillary will be elected. Republican 'Mericans think they're "showing us something" by supporting him, but they haven't seen step two: he can't be elected. Ergo, supporting Trump is a win for Hillary. It's almost like they planned it... 

 Rod wrote: 
No kiddin'.

I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY hope this is the rope he hangs himself with. Not only will he be done, it will be a huge rebuke to the morons who support him. Maybe, just maybe, one or two of them will begin to actually make use of their brain cells. 

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Wow! When Darth Vader thinks you've gone too far, it may be time to reel it a bit.

"Some things sicken even jackals" —Terry Pratchett
 
 

 islander wrote: 
I've thought about that lately as well - how some people expected the sky to fall.  What made it more interesting was that all three of them were re-elected (or reëlected in some circles).

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
I console myself by realizing about half the country thought we were doomed when Clinton was elected. Then about half the country thought we were doomed when Bush was elected. Then about half the country thought we were doomed when Obama was elected.

So in general, we are not good at predicting doom, and we are pretty capable of surviving various threats of doom.  I also am fairly convinced that even if Trump managed to get elected, we would all survive.  I am more seriously worried about all of us being laid off as citizens if Fiorina gets elected, but that's probably just my own bias (and I'm probably not really good at predicting doom either).  

 islander wrote: 
I agree; it's just interesting to have actual conversations. I don't look forward to any of these candidates being president for a variety of reasons, but it's at least cool to think about what good a bad candidate might bring.
 
Otherwise it's just the usual shark frenzy. I was on youtube and the ad I had to sit thru was a hatchet job on Marco Rubio by the Ted Cruz camp. While it's entertaining, it's not very useful. 

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
I read a bunch of Scott Adam's stuff and find it interesting, sometimes even enlightening. But he has a lot in common with other people who have had enough success to paper over their failures (he admits most of this, and it's not uncommon... I have some of this as well). Basically he thinks that because he has been successful he must be right/smart/insightful. 

Now that's out of the way.  I can't believe Trump is still here, but hey - I'm often wrong about politics and show business. I still don't think he has a shot, but let's see where we are when South Carolina comes around to voting.

This immigration idea actually has some legs and a few interesting options. I don't think it is going anywhere, no matter who pushes it though. to pick on a single point up front: A large negative that I see presented here is the "get them to pay taxes" argument. I see that a lot (in a similar vein with the "lift the cap on social security taxes"). Most of the immigrants are already paying taxes under falsified SS cards. They just won't be collecting benefits. Let's just say that number is half (I think it's probably a lot higher), we will have just added 6 million or so people to the pool of those who will collect benefits, but haven't added much in new revenue.  Oops.  I wonder what the general population isn't paying taxes on income either. How many expats are there abroad?

Not that it's a bad idea. But I favor a much more bottom up approach. We have a lot of little problems. Let's knock off a few dozen of those before going after the giants. I don't have much faith in trickle down problem solving.  

Edit: also, Trump is not a real estate genius (well not by my definition). Many of his projects have failed, gone bankrupt or needed various forms of breaks and bailouts, to survive. I don't think he's the right guy to develop a self sustaining gateway border control/jobs program/tourist trap. Maybe if he made a TV show out of it...

Remember that Dilbert's Scott Adams isn't actually pro-Trump; he's just fascinated by him (as am I, in a not-going-to-actually-read news reports about him but he's still fascinating sort of way) and has called his nomination a lock. Landslide. Adams likes to just muse about how a President Trump would have to sort of keep his promises, but also not be a total dick anymore. So, anyway, this immigration scenario (the one Trump has used to alienate a huge bloc of voters) made Adams spin out a few ideas.
 
How Trump Can Solve Immigration
 
It's not strictly a Trump-only thing, any president could try this. Adams thinks Trump might actually be able to make it happen.
 
Step 1: Self-deportation. Not gonna happen, right? What if we made all post offices (temporary) Mexican Embassies? Walk into any post office, fill out a form and boom! you're on the rolls as a temporary legal resident, paying taxes and SS and not hiding in the shadows... 

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
Six months ago, wasn't he was polling below Voldemort, the shark from "Jaws," and Darth Vader?

Come on, who wouldn't love a "Voldemort / Jaws 2016" bumper sticker?

I don't care what anyone says about Trump, the price of Oreo's are falling cuz of him.

Thanks Donald !!