American Politics

[xi0]

True, and the terrorists took it too far by bombing the place (that was months before massacre, right?). But then again, I'm still sore about some Americans holding events where they show pictures and paintings of Mohammad just to piss off the Muslims.

Took it too far? What would have been an appropriate response then? It was a shooting though, not a bombing.

Something like a move to show solidarity isn't done to piss off Muslims IMO, it's an act of defiance against terrorists.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 9, 2016, Original Post Date: Jan 9, 2016 ---

They are still from the same area. Every refugee from that area of the world should be blocked from coming here. They clearly use our countries kindness against us hatching time delayed plots when we least expect them.

I don't see the point of attributing "kindness" to the country. Taking in refugees is not simply a matter of charity, it's a duty done that benefits us as well.

 

[SharkBait]

I don't see the point of attributing "kindness" to the country. Taking in refugees is not simply a matter of charity, it's a duty done that benefits us as well.

Taking in refugees is kindness to the asylum seekers, I don't think a country *has* to accept them, werent Europe countries not wanting to accept them, so it is Kind for them too. How does it benefit a country though, here they take money from the govt as a loan then they have to work and become part of the school system if they have kids, and work, economically, its a big negative for the country to take them until they rise to get a well paying salaried job which would take a long time.

---
Clinton's add is terrible. Why is Rubio there when she didn't even choose anything out of context to quote him on like she took the others comments out of context. Scare tactics and taking things out of context ruins the political arena.

 

[kkck]

So.... she is using their their scare tactics for her own scare tactics?

 

[SharkBait]

So.... she is using their their scare tactics for her own scare tactics?

Ive not seen any of their ads do this and be blatant.

 

[kkck]

Ive not seen any of their ads do this and be blatant.

Well, but aren't their entire campaigns almost completely built on scare tactics?

 

[M3J]

They are still from the same area. Every refugee from that area of the world should be blocked from coming here. They clearly use our countries kindness against us hatching time delayed plots when we least expect them.

Any proof that a lot of them actually succeeded in damaging the country? Or that a high percentage of them are planning on attacking the country? As it stands, we're still in far more danger from Americans with guns than we are from refugees, who are actually screened pretty well. Instead of focusing on the so-called threats from refugees, we should focus on preventing guns from being put into the wrong hands and stopping mass shootings.

Crazy how we focus on refugees who have done nothing when lives are being lost to guns.

Took it too far? What would have been an appropriate response then? It was a shooting though, not a bombing.

Something like a move to show solidarity isn't done to piss off Muslims IMO, it's an act of defiance against terrorists.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 9, 2016, Original Post Date: Jan 9, 2016 ---

I don't see the point of attributing "kindness" to the country. Taking in refugees is not simply a matter of charity, it's a duty done that benefits us as well.

Dunno, just not pay attention to Charlie Hebdo? Bombing didn't help, shooting wouldn't either. Hell, I'm not even sure if the reason was truly because of the insult to Mohammad and Islam.

I'm pretty sure it's done to piss off Muslims, not just an act of defiance against terrorists. Same with burning the Qu'ran.

 

[xi0]

Dunno, just not pay attention to Charlie Hebdo? Bombing didn't help, shooting wouldn't either. Hell, I'm not even sure if the reason was truly because of the insult to Mohammad and Islam.

I'm pretty sure it's done to piss off Muslims, not just an act of defiance against terrorists. Same with burning the Qu'ran.

Right, so if people decide to not pay attention to it, what does it matter what their motives are?

Even if a single cartoonist has that in mind, the publication is known for satirizing all religions, it's just Islam that's on the tip of people's tongues lately.

 

[kkck]

Any proof that a lot of them actually succeeded in damaging the country? Or that a high percentage of them are planning on attacking the country? As it stands, we're still in far more danger from Americans with guns than we are from refugees, who are actually screened pretty well. Instead of focusing on the so-called threats from refugees, we should focus on preventing guns from being put into the wrong hands and stopping mass shootings.

Crazy how we focus on refugees who have done nothing when lives are being lost to guns.

Dunno, just not pay attention to Charlie Hebdo? Bombing didn't help, shooting wouldn't either. Hell, I'm not even sure if the reason was truly because of the insult to Mohammad and Islam.

I'm pretty sure it's done to piss off Muslims, not just an act of defiance against terrorists. Same with burning the Qu'ran.

Even with the increase in mass shootings, that should hardly be the actual focus. Deaths from that are so small in numbers that they don't even represent much of a factor in US gun violence or murder statistics. mass shootings are but a small factor in the gun violence issue the US as a whole has. Even if you could specifically take guns away from mass shooters, people at the US wouldn't be measurably safer.

Ideally, that would be the thing to get them to stop displaying such images. It's their job to make cartoons that strike a nerve. If they publish a cartoon and it does nothing, then they pretty much published a cartoon about something irrelevant. At which point they simply move on to something else. The whole thing is simple, they make muhammad cartoons because they can make a point out of it. And even then, it is a fact that they make cartoons about islam as much as they do with any other religion.

 

[SharkBait]

Any proof that a lot of them actually succeeded in damaging the country? Or that a high percentage of them are planning on attacking the country? As it stands, we're still in far more danger from Americans with guns than we are from refugees, who are actually screened pretty well. Instead of focusing on the so-called threats from refugees, we should focus on preventing guns from being put into the wrong hands and stopping mass shootings.

Crazy how we focus on refugees who have done nothing when lives are being lost to guns.

I would think people focus on refugees who are the highest risk group for being terrorists as its easier to control. You cant be a syrian or lybian refugee in America unless you made it in through the vetting process that is facing increased scrutiny. Additionally you cant be a radical islamic extremist unless you went to the key areas from that country and are also of the islamic faith, so again blocking people from coming from that area would cut down and eliminate the threat. Also anyone who ventured over there since just this week we had yet another case in our glorious homeland where someone unleashed a terrorist attack in philadelphia (the person was an extremist sympathizer who had gone over their for training).

Were in far more danger from mass terrorists of terrorism focus as more damage is caused and more uneasiness since you dont know when or where you will be attacked be it a train station, in your workplace in a tall skyscraper with limited places to escape, in a subway downtown in the city, or worst at your workplace moments after a social gathering. I highly doubt people are really concerned that the native born man sitting beside you at the library with a concealed weapons permit enjoying his lewd anime on the pc, is just going to randomly shoot up the library, or the native born mother of two browsing Target in the kids section carrying a concealed weapons permit with her handgun in her purse, is going to randomly shoot up the store because they dont have the size of a shirt in her sons size in stock.

 

[xi0]

Were in far more danger from mass terrorists of terrorism

No we're not, that's just statistically false...

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 10, 2016, Original Post Date: Jan 10, 2016 ---

Additionally you cant be a radical islamic extremist unless you went to the key areas from that country and are also of the islamic faith

Key areas of which country? The couple in San Bernardino hadn't been to ISIS controlled areas. The Tsarnaev brothers hadn't been to AQ controlled areas.

You're completely misguided here, there is no particular country that these terrorists are coming from. Many of them are even born in the countries they commit acts of terrorism against. This isn't simply a matter of looking at someone's passport and deciding to block their entry on that basis. That's not going to make the country safer from terrorists. If there was hard evidence of a majority of the attackers being Syrian internationals, then an argument could be made...

 

[kkck]

True, coming from a middle eastern country is not necessary for such a thing. One of the key aspects of ISIS recruitment is done online, it's how they have gotten supporters all over the world. The idea that potential terrorists come from the middle east is obsolete considering how sophisticated the whole thing is. They even have a fancy magazine...

 

[M3J]

Even with the increase in mass shootings, that should hardly be the actual focus. Deaths from that are so small in numbers that they don't even represent much of a factor in US gun violence or murder statistics. mass shootings are but a small factor in the gun violence issue the US as a whole has. Even if you could specifically take guns away from mass shooters, people at the US wouldn't be measurably safer.

Ideally, that would be the thing to get them to stop displaying such images. It's their job to make cartoons that strike a nerve. If they publish a cartoon and it does nothing, then they pretty much published a cartoon about something irrelevant. At which point they simply move on to something else. The whole thing is simple, they make muhammad cartoons because they can make a point out of it. And even then, it is a fact that they make cartoons about islam as much as they do with any other religion.

Well, keeping guns away from people who are prone to violence or have history of violence can help save more lives and keep the citizens safer. Gun owners who don't want to lose their guns will keep citing mental issues as the source, but how many mass shooters really had mental issues? I think Adam Lanza did, but most of the other shooters did not seem to have any mental health issue.

As long as people aren't shocked at the backlash they'll get.

I would think people focus on refugees who are the highest risk group for being terrorists as its easier to control. You cant be a syrian or lybian refugee in America unless you made it in through the vetting process that is facing increased scrutiny. Additionally you cant be a radical islamic extremist unless you went to the key areas from that country and are also of the islamic faith, so again blocking people from coming from that area would cut down and eliminate the threat. Also anyone who ventured over there since just this week we had yet another case in our glorious homeland where someone unleashed a terrorist attack in philadelphia (the person was an extremist sympathizer who had gone over their for training).

Were in far more danger from mass terrorists of terrorism focus as more damage is caused and more uneasiness since you dont know when or where you will be attacked be it a train station, in your workplace in a tall skyscraper with limited places to escape, in a subway downtown in the city, or worst at your workplace moments after a social gathering. I highly doubt people are really concerned that the native born man sitting beside you at the library with a concealed weapons permit enjoying his lewd anime on the pc, is just going to randomly shoot up the library, or the native born mother of two browsing Target in the kids section carrying a concealed weapons permit with her handgun in her purse, is going to randomly shoot up the store because they dont have the size of a shirt in her sons size in stock.

The refugees aren't the highest risk group for being terrorists, not compared to American citizens like Dylann Roof and James Holmes. Americans with guns have killed far more Americans than refugees or terrorists. I'd rather America focuses on its people and guns over refugees. And no, you can be a radical Islamic extremist without having stepped a foot inside any country with extremist ties. I don't know where you get your sources from, but if I recall there have been plenty of attempts made by people who were born and raised here, and many became radicals without even stepping out of the US.
So no, blocking people coming from that area would not cut down or eliminate a threat, it would actually increase the threat because that would make them more susceptible to join the ISIS. Some of them are even using Trump to recruit Muslims by telling them that the world is against them, even.

How do you know he went over there for training? Few sources (mainly CNN) say he went to Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but none of them said he received training there. Or are you using Rubio as a source? Given my experience, using a republican as a source is quite foolish as they don't represent facts.


How is that any different from mass shooters? Sikhs don't know if a group of white supremacists will attack them in their place of worship, nor do the blacks know if a lone shooter will attend a church meeting and end up shooting the people. Stats and evidence say we are in far more danger from mass shooters and gun owners than we are from terrorists, given we have stopped a lot of attempts but we fail to stop mass shooting. Despite what Fox News will have you believe, a lot of people are concerned that a white native born man sitting next to them could all of the sudden start shooting at people, or that a native born man in the theater could start spraying bullets everywhere. It is only republicans who believe otherwise, and only because they don't like facts. What reason did Adam Lanza have for shooting kids? Dylann Roof's motivation for going crazy inside a church was to incite a racial war because he hates the black people.

How many terrorist attacks have taken place in the US?

 

[kkck]

Well, keeping guns away from people who are prone to violence or have history of violence can help save more lives and keep the citizens safer. Gun owners who don't want to lose their guns will keep citing mental issues as the source, but how many mass shooters really had mental issues? I think Adam Lanza did, but most of the other shooters did not seem to have any mental health issue.

As far as I know, damian lanza was a proven schizophrenic and during the trial the conclusion was that he acted the way he did because of his mental illness. However his case is far from the norm. he still was sent to jail though. Most mass shooters have not usually been particularly violent before the events. In some cases I have read of mental illness however unlike the lanza case its not necessarily a proven fact. In the end actual mental illness might not even be much of a factor here considering people with mental illness are statistically more likely to be on the other side of the violence. And one way or the other, mass shootings are still an insignificant part of the gun violence issues the US has. One issue the US does seem to have in this front is actual lack of information about it. It seems like the US does not really keep track of information which could be use to detect trends and other valuable data that could help reduce gun violence. Maybe I just didn't find the information in question but some sites suggested this was an actual issue.

 

[SharkBait]

No we're not, that's just statistically false...

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 10, 2016, Original Post Date: Jan 10, 2016 ---

Key areas of which country? The couple in San Bernardino hadn't been to ISIS controlled areas. The Tsarnaev brothers hadn't been to AQ controlled areas.

You're completely misguided here, there is no particular country that these terrorists are coming from. Many of them are even born in the countries they commit acts of terrorism against. This isn't simply a matter of looking at someone's passport and deciding to block their entry on that basis. That's not going to make the country safer from terrorists. If there was hard evidence of a majority of the attackers being Syrian internationals, then an argument could be made...

Are you sure? If there were not specific countries than why are the candidates so focused on these key countries? Perhaps Im missing something but I just dont understand what you mean.

 

[M3J]

As far as I know, damian lanza was a proven schizophrenic and during the trial the conclusion was that he acted the way he did because of his mental illness. However his case is far from the norm. he still was sent to jail though. Most mass shooters have not usually been particularly violent before the events. In some cases I have read of mental illness however unlike the lanza case its not necessarily a proven fact. In the end actual mental illness might not even be much of a factor here considering people with mental illness are statistically more likely to be on the other side of the violence. And one way or the other, mass shootings are still an insignificant part of the gun violence issues the US has. One issue the US does seem to have in this front is actual lack of information about it. It seems like the US does not really keep track of information which could be use to detect trends and other valuable data that could help reduce gun violence. Maybe I just didn't find the information in question but some sites suggested this was an actual issue.

Who is Damian Lanza? I think I was talking about Adam Lanza, who seems to be the only mass shooter who had mental illnesses, one which is Asperger's syndrome. I googled Damian Lanza and got no hit related to violence, just a soccer player. Adam Lanza committed suicide.

From what I read, people with mental illnesses are very least likely to commit shootings or even most forms of violence and are usually the victims. I see mental illnesses be brought up as an excuse to duck gun issues, especially by people who don't care about the facts. I don't think the US does, but it has suggested history as part of the data and suggested that people with history of violence, even domestic abuse, were likely to shoot or commit mass shooting. I'm not sure which one they were talking about though, probably shooting in general.

Mass shootings are still horrible because they are more unpredictable and take more lives. Sad thing is, I can't even be 1% for banning guns because it won't stop bad people from getting guns illegally, just as outlawing alcohol and drugs didn't stop people from buying alcohol and drugs.

Are you sure? If there were not specific countries than why are the candidates so focused on these key countries? Perhaps Im missing something but I just dont understand what you mean.

Same candidates who lied/misinformed people and claimed that US doesn't vet or won't vet the Syrian refugees carefully enough even though evidence proves them wrong, and that we're pretty safe? Same candidate who claimed Net Neutrality was the Obamacare of the internet? Same candidates who keep claiming mental health issues as the reason for mass shootings? I would not trust most of these candidates, but I guess people are willing to blindly trust their party.

I've seen more homegrown terrorists be mentioned in the news than terrorists that came from abroad. A lot of these homegrown terrorists have apparently used the internet to acquire information as well.

 

[kkck]

Who is Damian Lanza? I think I was talking about Adam Lanza, who seems to be the only mass shooter who had mental illnesses, one which is Asperger's syndrome. I googled Damian Lanza and got no hit related to violence, just a soccer player. Adam Lanza committed suicide.

From what I read, people with mental illnesses are very least likely to commit shootings or even most forms of violence and are usually the victims. I see mental illnesses be brought up as an excuse to duck gun issues, especially by people who don't care about the facts. I don't think the US does, but it has suggested history as part of the data and suggested that people with history of violence, even domestic abuse, were likely to shoot or commit mass shooting. I'm not sure which one they were talking about though, probably shooting in general.

Mass shootings are still horrible because they are more unpredictable and take more lives. Sad thing is, I can't even be 1% for banning guns because it won't stop bad people from getting guns illegally, just as outlawing alcohol and drugs didn't stop people from buying alcohol and drugs.

Same candidates who lied/misinformed people and claimed that US doesn't vet or won't vet the Syrian refugees carefully enough even though evidence proves them wrong, and that we're pretty safe? Same candidate who claimed Net Neutrality was the Obamacare of the internet? Same candidates who keep claiming mental health issues as the reason for mass shootings? I would not trust most of these candidates, but I guess people are willing to blindly trust their party.

I've seen more homegrown terrorists be mentioned in the news than terrorists that came from abroad. A lot of these homegrown terrorists have apparently used the internet to acquire information as well.

Ahh, you are right, I got the names confused. However the guy I was thinking about was james holmes, the guy who shot at the batman movie. Asperger isn't a mental illness though, it's a form of autism.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 10, 2016, Original Post Date: Jan 10, 2016 ---

Are you sure? If there were not specific countries than why are the candidates so focused on these key countries? Perhaps Im missing something but I just dont understand what you mean.

There are places where terrorists hold control over however that does not mean terrorists exclusively come from those places. As far as recruitment goes, they have no borders and distances are irrelevant given their effective use of the internet and social media to spread their propaganda. I would argue the issue in this regard about candidates is their basic inability to understand how the internet works. Take a look at the paris attacks for instance. It was basically carried out by european nationals. And then the couple at san bernardino, there is no evidence of them ever being at syria or other extremist controlled areas (at least as far as I know).

 

[kannazuki]

So.... she is using their their scare tactics for her own scare tactics?

Well technically what they were saying in those clips weren't scare tactics but a form of low information, "us vs. them" populism... but the overall commercial uses "scare tactics" common to just about all kinds of politicians. Obviously the point of this ad is partly to appeal to Democrats fearful of her relatively hawkish history as compared to other Democrats, partly to appeal to the largely anti-war sentiments of most voters in general, as well as the preference of most people not to have the religious right decide their rights over their own bodies. (In the past, people tried to say she didn't have foreign policy experience and would be too soft when it comes to so-called "defence" matters, so she postured and rattled sabres in the past and now it's backfiring I guess.)

But with the exception of a handful o issues, mainstream Republicans and Democrats are actually very, very similar for the most part. They're just spending obscene amounts of money to convince you they're different. In the 1990s, Bill Clinton was able to spend $33 million and become president. They're now estimating the winner of this election will have spent about $2 billion, I just heard yesterday. All thanks to Citizens United.

I'm pretty sure the number one election issue of the time (for the US especially) is campaign financing and corruption. No matter what other issues you believe need to be addressed, this is the mother of all issues that decides whether your politicians give a damn at all about what you have to say. You won't hear about it in mainstream media because they are the primary beneficiary of Citizens United in the form of cash spent on attack ads from both parties. I didn't want to believe it at first, but it only took Lawrence Lessig being locked out of the Democratic debates a while back for me to be convinced. He met the 1% minimum requirement and they even had people who polled lower than him on the stage at first, so there was literally no excuse. They just didn't want the guy around who was campaigning on fixing democracy, period.

You already knew you (like everyone else in the world) were living in a form of oligarchy rather than a democracy, but have some details: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/princeton-scholar-demise-of-democracy-america-tpm-interview

Larry Lessig's setbacks notwithstanding, there are many who are working to create actual democracy. I'm not exactly a huge fan of The Young Turks, but their Wolf-PAC comes to mind, which aims to use relatively less corrupt state level mechanisms to force change at the federal level. There are others but I can't remember the names of those. I can link them later if someone is interested. (I just know that Wolf-PAC isn't the only game in town.)

 

[xi0]

True, coming from a middle eastern country is not necessary for such a thing. One of the key aspects of ISIS recruitment is done online, it's how they have gotten supporters all over the world. The idea that potential terrorists come from the middle east is obsolete considering how sophisticated the whole thing is. They even have a fancy magazine...

I didn't say middle eastern countries, I was responding to Shark's mentioning of a "country", even though there's no specific country terrorists come from. That will likely always change, even if we somehow do end up dismantling ISIS. If you were to simply decided to reject all entry from any Middle Eastern country and including Iran and Pakistan in that as well, it's even more unreasonable than singling out Syrian refugees.

Are you sure? If there were not specific countries than why are the candidates so focused on these key countries? Perhaps Im missing something but I just dont understand what you mean.

Because ISIS's base of strength is the area they control in Syria and Iraq. However, ISIS isn't the first and only threat and it won't be the last either. But before anything else, you have Trump leading this race and suggesting such things and some of his competitors being too chicken-shit to say anything to the contrary because he's leading and has the most support according to polls. Some have of course, but almost the entire field (save for Jeb Bush) is afraid to go against him. Trump is an obvious demagogue, and his popularity comes from being as bombastic as possible, overly negative and appealing to the xenophobia that exists within the base. The Republican base is getting played...this guy wasn't even a Republican until recently. He donated to the senatorial campaign of Hillary Clinton. But all of a sudden none of this matters because he's spewing this toxic garbage from his mouth and members of the party are eating it up. Part of it is Republicans being incredibly anti-establishment at the moment, and part of it is just being ignorant. And like I said, because Trump is leading and no one has gone against what he says and came out the better for it, you have clowns like Ted Cruz just parroting almost everything he says just to maintain his second place status. This is something Cruz has always done by the way. Like Trump he's always liked the sound of his own voice. Neither of these men have a backbone or genuine conviction of what they say.

I've talked negatively about Marco Rubio for a variety of reasons, but I never really thought that he was a phony or a liar. The two leading Republicans are clearly that. I've talked negatively about Jeb Bush and not liking the idea of another Bush presidency, but no one can say he isn't qualified. Trump and Cruz are not; they're shysters through and through.

 

[M3J]

Goes back to most of the candidates being cancer to the wellbeing of America. The republican candidates are the worst though, and most of their supporters are trash. At least, this is true for Trump supporters. Trump had no business throwing out a Muslim woman from his rally, but he did just that anyway. Any minority who votes for Trump is in my opinion a dumbass, at best. From what the republican candidates have said, and from what I know about few republican supporters, the candidates are probably aware their supporters don't fact check anything and will believe whatever a candidate says no matter how big of a lie it is. Nice game they have going on, and it seems to be a gamble that's paying off decently - play to the republican voters' ignorance and count on them to not google for actual facts.

I'm glad there are at least some republicans in the government with enough sense to know Cruz's stance on Net Neutrality is dumb.

 

[SharkBait]

Goes back to most of the candidates being cancer to the wellbeing of America. The republican candidates are the worst though, and most of their supporters are trash. At least, this is true for Trump supporters. Trump had no business throwing out a Muslim woman from his rally, but he did just that anyway. Any minority who votes for Trump is in my opinion a dumbass, at best. From what the republican candidates have said, and from what I know about few republican supporters, the candidates are probably aware their supporters don't fact check anything and will believe whatever a candidate says no matter how big of a lie it is. Nice game they have going on, and it seems to be a gamble that's paying off decently - play to the republican voters' ignorance and count on them to not google for actual facts.

I'm glad there are at least some republicans in the government with enough sense to know Cruz's stance on Net Neutrality is dumb.

How? the rules were set and she broke them. She knew what she was getting into when she decided to silent protest, it was what was deserved for a rule breaker. Not to mention other protestors who were vocal earlier in the week and tossed out. I don't see you getting mad and agitated when Mr Obama throws out a LGBTQ protestors at his own functions. At least Mr Triumph was polite about it and handled it with class and style. Either be consistent or don't point it out at all.