This article in The Washington Times is long, but the first paragraph sums it:
“Key tribal leaders from the Iraq’s Sunni Arab population say U.S. officials have failed to work with them in the fight against the Islamic State and assert that Russia is now increasingly eager to fill the void – even inviting influential sheiks to visit Moscow and air their grievances”.
It’s become a cliche to say that Donald Trump represents something like the equal and opposite reaction to President Obama and his administration. As Jimmy Carter was to Watergate, so is Trump to the Age of Obama. …
__________________________
“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.
Here’s Jimmy “Hitler” Carter saying it back in 1980.
Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.
Apparently barring people from a terrorist country is not against “our values” after all. It may even be “who we are”. Either that or Carter was a racist monster just like Trump.”
There is a difference between banning those who come from a specific country we are having trouble with vs. banning those of a certain religion, who come from various countries. So I don’t think what Trump is advocating & what Carter did are equivalent.
I suppose some will argue (& are arguing) for why banning all Muslims is a good idea, but equating that to Carter’s banning Iranians doesn’t quite fit.
With Donald Trump leading a splintered field, top Republican Party officials are keeping open the possibility that the fight to be the party’s presidential candidate could stretch to the nominating convention in July, officials said on Thursday.
A so-called “brokered convention,” in which no single candidate has a sufficient number of nominating delegates to become the presidential nominee in the November election, used to be a common feature of American politics. But there has not been one in more than 60 years.
The possibility that the Republican battle for a nominee will extend to the July 18-21 convention in Cleveland was discussed at a dinner on Monday of top party operatives hosted by Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus.
Guess who, don’t they suggest that every election cycle? This one does seem particularly weird, but it really seems like we hear that every four years.
And more than 60 years? I may be wrong, but it doesn’t seem like it. I thought it had happened in my lifetime.
I remember a classmate in junior high (her dad was an attorney and active in Republican politics) saying how exciting the conventions were to watch. She was so smart — and I think she went on to get elected to county office in SD
At any rate, the conventions have been pretty boring ever since. 🙂 (And, embarrassingly, I had no idea at the time — in junior high — even *what* a party convention was … )
Wandering Views 
This article in The Washington Times is long, but the first paragraph sums it:
“Key tribal leaders from the Iraq’s Sunni Arab population say U.S. officials have failed to work with them in the fight against the Islamic State and assert that Russia is now increasingly eager to fill the void – even inviting influential sheiks to visit Moscow and air their grievances”.
LikeLike
Vacuums.
LikeLike
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/12/inside-trumps-support.php
__________________________
It’s become a cliche to say that Donald Trump represents something like the equal and opposite reaction to President Obama and his administration. As Jimmy Carter was to Watergate, so is Trump to the Age of Obama. …
__________________________
LikeLike
If Trump is Hitler, so then so was Carter….
http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261062/carter-banned-iranians-coming-us-during-hostage-daniel-greenfield
“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.
Here’s Jimmy “Hitler” Carter saying it back in 1980.
Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.
Apparently barring people from a terrorist country is not against “our values” after all. It may even be “who we are”. Either that or Carter was a racist monster just like Trump.”
LikeLike
Paraphrasing what someone said::
Those people who kill people are not Muslims.
But if you don’t close Guantanamo or disrespect Muslims, they may become terrorists.
LikeLike
There is a difference between banning those who come from a specific country we are having trouble with vs. banning those of a certain religion, who come from various countries. So I don’t think what Trump is advocating & what Carter did are equivalent.
I suppose some will argue (& are arguing) for why banning all Muslims is a good idea, but equating that to Carter’s banning Iranians doesn’t quite fit.
LikeLike
banning Iranians who did not suppose the Shiite regime is quite close.
LikeLike
what does that even mean? Oppose.
LikeLike
No on, except Trump, said all. But why not from known terrorist breeding grounds, like Syria, SA, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan?
Is that not the same thing as Carter, albeit a larger scale?
Not all, but some seems like a good idea to me.
LikeLike
It may be painful to watch, but at least it would be entertaining.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-republicans-idUSKBN0TT35020151210#VbL0qMzid4mKqKcF.97
_______________________________________
With Donald Trump leading a splintered field, top Republican Party officials are keeping open the possibility that the fight to be the party’s presidential candidate could stretch to the nominating convention in July, officials said on Thursday.
A so-called “brokered convention,” in which no single candidate has a sufficient number of nominating delegates to become the presidential nominee in the November election, used to be a common feature of American politics. But there has not been one in more than 60 years.
The possibility that the Republican battle for a nominee will extend to the July 18-21 convention in Cleveland was discussed at a dinner on Monday of top party operatives hosted by Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus.
____________________________________________
LikeLike
Guess who, don’t they suggest that every election cycle? This one does seem particularly weird, but it really seems like we hear that every four years.
And more than 60 years? I may be wrong, but it doesn’t seem like it. I thought it had happened in my lifetime.
LikeLike
They do. Still, this year is strange, the country seems close to meltdown
LikeLike
I remember a classmate in junior high (her dad was an attorney and active in Republican politics) saying how exciting the conventions were to watch. She was so smart — and I think she went on to get elected to county office in SD
LikeLike
At any rate, the conventions have been pretty boring ever since. 🙂 (And, embarrassingly, I had no idea at the time — in junior high — even *what* a party convention was … )
LikeLike