Did Rubio voters that voted for Kasich make a difference?
-
Comment -
it is possible. I'd say it just as likely a perfect storm. Kasich being from Ohio and Ohio had some serious advantages compared to the rest of the country which helped kasich immensely. Some of it was his doing and his bipartisanship etc, so it just easy for people to say they want to see him in action in Washington.(odds are they will be let down)
lol kasich wins his first state and it is his home state... I wouldn't be surprised if he goes win-less the rest of the way.Comment -
This is totally correct information. However, if you are talking about my father, probably last time he prayed was 25-30 years ago. We are from Istanbul, Turkey where all women are free to do whatever they want. If my dad, one day, tells my mom to cover, she will probably destroy him lol
So just because of I am muslim or my dad is muslim that doesn't mean we agree to everything what our religion says nor my mom is covered and praying everyday. We are muslim but I have never been in masque past 20 years or so lol So we are not religious at all. Also there is like %50 of the population like this in Turkey as well. As liberal as any other liberal countries. I am sure there are some people who have been there could give you more information if you think I am biased.
Comment -
Violence in the Muslim religion.. Straight from WIKI...
War and peace
Main article: Quran and violence
The Quran's teachings on matters of war and peace have become topics of heated discussion in recent years. On the one hand, some critics, such as Sam Harris, interpret that certain verses of the Quran sanction military action against unbelievers as a whole both during the lifetime of Muhammad and after. Harris argues that Muslim extremism is simply a consequence of taking the Qur'an literally, and is skeptical that moderate Islam is possible.[73][74] On the other hand, other scholars argue that such verses of the Quran are interpreted out of context,[75][76] and Muslims of the Ahmadiyya movement argue that when the verses are read in context it clearly appears that the Quran prohibits aggression,[77][78][79] and allows fighting only in self-defense.[80][81]
Kim Ezra Shienbaum and Jamal Hasan have claimed that a concept of 'Jihad', defined as 'struggle', has been introduced by the Quran. They claim that while Muhummad was in Mecca, he "did not have many supporters and was very weak compared to the Pagans", and "it was at this time he added some 'soft', peaceful verses", whereas "almost all the hateful, coercive and intimidating verses later in the Quran were made with respect to Jihad" when Muhammad was in Medina .[82]
Micheline R. Ishay has argued that "the Quran justifies wars for self-defense to protect Islamic communities against internal or external aggression by non-Islamic populations, and wars waged against those who 'violate their oaths' by breaking a treaty" .[83] Mufti M. Mukarram Ahmed has also argued that the Quran encourages people to fight in self-defense. He has also argued that the Quran has been used to direct Muslims to make all possible preparations to defend themselves against enemies.[84]
Shin Chiba and Thomas J. Schoenbaum argue that Islam "does not allow Muslims to fight against those who disagree with them regardless of belief system", but instead "urges its followers to treat such people kindly".[85] Yohanan Friedmann has argued that the Quran does not promote fighting for the purposes of religious coercion, although the war as described is "religious" in the sense that the enemies of the Muslims are described as "enemies of God".[86]
Rodrigue Tremblay has argued that the Quran commands that non-Muslims under a Muslim regime, should "feel themselves subdued" in "a political state of subservience" . He also argues that the Quran may assert freedom within religion.[87] Nisrine Abiad has argued that the Quran incorporates the offence (and due punishment) of "rebellion" into the offence of "highway or armed robbery".[88]
George W. Braswell has argued that the Quran asserts an idea of Jihad to deal with "a sphere of disobedience, ignorance and war".[89]
Michael David Bonner has argued that the "deal between God and those who fight is portrayed as a commercial transaction, either as a loan with interest, or else as a profitable sale of the life of this world in return for the life of the next", where "how much one gains depends on what happens during the transaction", either "paradise if slain in battle, or victory if one survives".[90] Critics have argued that the Quran "glorified Jihad in many of the Medinese suras" and "criticized those who fail(ed) to participate in it".[91]
Ali Ünal has claimed that the Quran praises the companions of Muhammad, for being stern and implacable against the said unbelievers, where in that "period of ignorance and savagery, triumphing over these people was possible by being strong and unyielding."[92]
Solomon Nigosian concludes that the "Quranic statement is clear" on the issue of fighting in defense of Islam as "a duty that is to be carried out at all costs", where "God grants security to those Muslims who fight in order to halt or repel aggression".[93]
Shaikh M. Ghazanfar argues that the Quran has been used to teach its followers that "the path to human salvation does not require withdrawal from the world but rather encourages moderation in worldly affairs", including fighting.[94] Shabbir Akhtar has argued that the Quran asserts that if a people "fear Muhammad more than they fear God, 'they are a people lacking in sense'" rather than a fear being imposed upon them by God directly.[95]
Various calls to arms were identified in the Quran by US citizen Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, all of which were cited as "most relevant to my actions on March 3, 2006".[96]Comment -
...Comment -
Wiki is a reliable sources now?
Ok let me go ahead and add some stuff into christianity and copy paste here. C'mon man. You are smarter than this.
I still don't understand why we are talking about religion though. That's another thing.
Just because you are Muslim, that doesn't mean you have to be extremist.Comment -
They gather factual information as WIKI employees are instructed to do when posting, it's reviewed and confirmed....
Pretty solid factual information in presented on WIKI yes...
I am not prejudice against peaceful Muslims, just wish they would do more to denounce the violent extremists...Last edited by JIBBBY; 03-15-16, 09:12 PM.Comment -
Mr President TrumpComment -
All American's can differentiate between the 2 numbnuts however I get the fact that some Americans don't mind the good Muslims suffering for the bad ones for the greater good of our country.Comment -
I think most Americans understand the majority of refugees are peaceful Muslims that are desperate and fleeing the violence, it's just the one or two in the huge group that are extreme and that can ruin your day as an American like what we saw happen in Paris.
Can't take that chance and risk.. Gotta keep em out... Create a safe zone instead and help them that way rather then give them a free pass into America like they are doing in Europe.. Look what's it doing to Germany.....Comment -
What are they doing to Germany? Man you are over exaggerating everything. What are they doing in Germany?
Whatever happened in Paris can happen everywhere. It happened in the U.S without any refugees. Just because you are not getting any refugees that doesn't mean you won't get a terrorist attack. You might get it as well just like San Bernardino, 9/11 or Boston marathon. So there is no equation such as refugees=more terrorist attacks.
Who is about to give a free pass to America? Hillary? Bernie? Or did I say anything like the US have to get refugees in? Where is this 'free pass for refugees into the US' coming from? No one said anything about refugees coming into this country.
All I am saying is this and this is the last time I am explaining this;
You can keep refugees out of this country. You may not let them coming in. I respect them. But if you say 'we will ban all muslims coming into this country' it is laughable and far from the reality. Simple.Comment -
State Date Trump Cruz Rubio Kasich Carson Popular Vote Total - 6,923,169 5,007,005 3,244,954 2,288,917 664,569
so far trump has 2 million votes more than lyin tedComment -
Its not only refugees, Europeans are against the islamification of europe
Comment -
Why Trump's Muslim ban isn't like Jimmy Carter's actions on Iranians
By Louis Jacobson on Thursday, December 17th, 2015 at 11:54 a.m.
<figure class="art-block" style="margin: 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 24px; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">
<figcaption class="art-block__caption" style="margin: 1em 0px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: italic; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-family: inherit; font-size: 0.845em; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(126, 126, 126);">A scene from the Iranian Revolution in Shahyad Square in Tehran. (Wikimedia commons)</figcaption></figure>Donald Trump’s call to bar Muslims at least temporarily from entering the United States sparked a backlash, including from fellow Republican presidential candidates who said it was unconstitutional and unwarranted.
But some who support Trump’s proposal have taken to social media to argue that his idea is pretty much the same thing that a recent Democratic president -- Jimmy Carter -- did while he was in office.
The argument surfaced initially at the conservative website FrontPage Mag in a post written by Daniel Greenfield before spreading widely. Greenfield’s post looks at some of the actions Carter took in the wake of the Iran hostage crisis, in which more than 60 American embassy personnel in Tehran were held captive by militants for 444 days between 1979 and 1981.
Greenfield begins his article sarcastically, writing, "Trump is a monster, a madman and a vile racist. He's just like Hitler. Or Jimmy Carter. During the Iranian hostage crisis, Carter issued a number of orders to put pressure on Iran. Among these, Iranians were banned from entering the United States unless they oppose the Shiite Islamist regime or had a medical emergency."
He cites two specific actions. One was an order for Iranian students to report to immigration offices in order to determine if they had violated the terms of their ****; if they had, they would be deported. The second was an order to end all future visas for Iranians and to stop issuing most new visas
Documentary evidence and interviews with experts say the events under Carter happened -- but how much support they provide for Trump’s proposal is a lot less certain.
Because it’s difficult to give a Truth-O-Meter rating to what amounts to an analogy, we aren’t putting this claim to the scale. But we thought it was a worth a thorough analysis, because experts told us the two cases aren’t equivalent.
What did Carter do?
On the question of student visas, Carter’s attorney general, Benjamin Civiletti, on Nov. 13, 1979, ordered all Iranians with student visas to report to U.S. immigration officials by Dec. 14 or else face possible deportation, according to a New York Times account. Civiletti was acting on a Nov. 10 order from Carter.
Federal judge Joyce Hens Green initially ruled the order unconstitutional on Dec. 12, 1979, but her ruling was later reversed on appeal. On Sept. 22, 1980, the Times, citing an Immigration and Naturalization Service spokesman, reported that by that date, nearly 60,000 students had registered as required, about 430 had been deported and 5,000 had left voluntarily.
As for visas for Iranians other than students, on April 7, 1980, about five months into the hostage crisis, Carter went to the White House briefing room to announce a series of sanctions against Iran.
In addition to announcing an end to diplomatic relations with Iran, freezes of Iranian assets and economic sanctions, Carter ordered administration officials to "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. This directive will be interpreted very strictly."
So the contention that Carter issued a pair of orders that effectively blocked a broad category of foreigners from entry into the United States, is broadly accurate, though the discussion on the Internet sometimes glosses over the humanitarian exclusions, which according to news accounts at the time were taken seriously -- and which contrast sharply with Trump’s opposition to accepting Syrian refugees.
How similar are the two cases?
When we interviewed an ideologically diverse group of specialists on Iran, immigration, and constitutional law, most saw significant differences between the two examples.
• Carter acted against Iranian nationals, not an entire religion.
"The difference is that Iranians were citizens of, and owed allegiance to, a country that was acting against the United States," said Kermit Roosevelt, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. "The class of ‘all Muslims’ has no similar connection to ISIS or terrorists. That makes the analogy seriously flawed."
David Houghton, a senior lecturer in defense studies at King’s College of London and author of U.S. Foreign Policy and the Iran Hostage Crisis, agreed, saying only Carter’s actions can be labeled "proportionate." Trump "appears to want to bar all Muslims, extremists, moderates and anything else, merely because they identify with a religious group which is actually quite diverse," Houghton said.
Michael M. Gunter, a political scientist at Tennessee Technological University and author of the forthcoming book From Nowhere: The Kurds in Syria, concurs. "Trump is throwing out the baby with the bathwater by taking action against all members of a particular religion, regardless of whether or not such members belong to states hostile to the United States," Gunter said.
The distinction between nationality and religion is significant, some legal scholars added, since the Constitution provides a bigger barrier to Trump’s religion-based approach than Carter’s nationality-based approach.
"I doubt that courts would read that law to authorize the president to remove non-citizens based on religion," said Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. "Targets of such an executive policy would likely be successful in lawsuits raising First Amendment (free exercise) and Fifth Amendment (due process) rights."
• Carter was ratcheting up diplomatic pressure in a fairly traditional process of crisis management.
Experts said that Carter’s actions are best understood in the context of a traditional conflict with a nation-state, something that doesn’t exist in the environment now shaping Trump’s proposal.
"Carter acted after the Iranian government accepted and defended the action by militants who stormed our embassy in Tehran and took our diplomats hostage," said David Martin, a University of Virginia law professor who has written extensively about immigration law. "It was a classic, major, state-to-state confrontation, based on a flagrant violation of diplomatic immunity. Carter invoked a host of counter-measures long recognized as appropriate under international law."
David Farber, a University of Kansas historian and author of Taken Hostage: The Iranian Hostage Crisis and America's First Encounter with Radical Islam, agreed, saying, "Carter intended to show the Iranian government that their actions in support of the hostage takers would have consequences. **** restrictions were just one of the many measures President Carter deployed to pressure the Iranian government."
The changing geopolitical environment
The biggest area of agreement we found between Greenfield and experts is that Carter was responding to a crisis involving a sovereign state, whereas today’s threats come from non-state actors such as ISIS or al-Qaida. Today, non-state threats are growing in severity, making the kinds of tactics Carter used moot.
Martin sees some merit in this argument. "I don't deny that some legal doctrines will change -- and are already changing -- based on the very different types of conflicts we now face against non-state actors," Martin said. "And maybe someday, in a deeper emergency, a president will find it necessary to adopt some other type of broad categorical exclusions on immigration from a particular region."
Still, he added, "Trump's action can't possibly find justification based on such an analogy. Barring all Muslims uses a ridiculously overbroad proxy when viewed either as protecting against danger or as creating a plausible bargaining chip that could get the other side to cease its violations."Comment -
Anyone watching this Cruz speech on CNN? What in the hell is this guy talking about?
HE HAS ZERO CHANCE
Comment -
How many Rubio Voters are going to go to Cruz?Comment -
Cruz keeps saying he beats trump over and over and over again meanwhile he can put another 0-5 on his record tonight vs trump.Comment -
Your turkey is in the middle of nowhere! My Ohio gave America 8 presidents and today I proudly voted for Trump so he could kick every muslim scum from this magnificent land. So we could say "Merry Christmas " without any fear of offending peaceful terrorists.
God bless America, you big dummy, my home sweet home!Comment -
Comment
