From what I understand, they're talking about any and all Muslims potentially becoming a terrorist or Islamic extremist. Barring Muslims from entering the country causes more problems because it convinces them that the west hates them and makes them more likely to join the ISIS to take us down.
I'm not even sure if most republicans even care as much about international security or foreign policy as they do about suffering some sort of loss. I actually see France as being more justified in barring Muslims as they apparently have had more attacks from Islamic extremists... though, how many did the US authority stop before they could do any damage?
Their point isn't that all Muslims are terrorist, but that these attacks are being carried out by them and no chances should be taken. Not that I agree with it or anything, but the xenophobic tone to it is people making their own conclusions. John Q from Iowa probably has racist motivations for wanting such a thing.
I hope Bernie isn't flip flopping like Christie. I don't understand holding weapons manufacturers responsible if their weapons are used in homicide... if anything it should be the ones who sell the guns. It's like blaming the video game makers for kids playing adult games when either the parents buy the games or the retailers sell it without asking for ID.
Their point isn't that all Muslims are terrorist, but that these attacks are being carried out by them and no chances should be taken. Not that I agree with it or anything, but the xenophobic tone to it is people making their own conclusions. John Q from Iowa probably has racist motivations for wanting such a thing.
Well, what he said at the Town Hall is that if a seller isn't following proper procedure they should be held accountable in some way.
but how many of these Muslims have committed acts of terrorism on our soil? There's far more evidence that more Americans have died at the hands of other Americans from handguns than from terrorist attacks.
Take away their license to sell guns and all the weapons from their shops. Problem solved. There shouldn't be second chance given the sellers have far more responsibility than the manufacturers, and almost as much as the purchasers.
How is it of racist motivations when it would just be a temporary barring of individuals of muslim descent? I could see if it was permanent, but it isnt.
but how many of these Muslims have committed acts of terrorism on our soil? There's far more evidence that more Americans have died at the hands of other Americans from handguns than from terrorist attacks.
No one is denying that Americans have died at the hands of Americans. The ban is trying to prevent an outside threat, therefore it becomes an issue of international security and foreign policy which gets a lot of play in election cycles, like I said.
How is it of racist motivations when it would just be a temporary barring of individuals of muslim descent? I could see if it was permanent, but it isnt.
Because Islam isn't a race? How do you even prove whether someone is a muslim in the first place? Do you think a terrorist trying to get into our country would intentionally appear "ethnic"? No, they'd try to westernize themselves as much as possible, just as the 9/11 hijackers did. This policy wouldn't prevent anything, just like wiretapping hasn't prevented anything. It's politicians using demagoguery to appeal to their base's xenophobia.
No one is denying that Americans have died at the hands of Americans. The ban is trying to prevent an outside threat, therefore it becomes an issue of international security and foreign policy which gets a lot of play in election cycles, like I said.
Because Islam isn't a race? How do you even prove whether someone is a muslim in the first place? Do you think a terrorist trying to get into our country would intentionally appear "ethnic"? No, they'd try to westernize themselves as much as possible, just as the 9/11 hijackers did. This policy wouldn't prevent anything, just like wiretapping hasn't prevented anything. It's politicians using demagoguery to appeal to their base's xenophobia.
But they do appear ethnic? When was the last time a Hunter or a Connor or 18 other names, the name of a terrorist (example = Dzhokhar)? They still have ethnic names. The females still have the traditional hair gear, and the terrorists still arent native english speakers. Lastly would an Islamic extremist hide the love for their religion?
If we use Americans, I dont see any Evangelical that hides the fact that they are an Evangelical Christian, or a Cathoholic or a Jewish person hiding their affiliation to appear "westernized." People from India don't either, and even hardworking Muslims here clearly dont as well.
But they do appear ethnic? When was the last time a Hunter or a Connor or 18 other names, the name of a terrorist (example = Dzhokhar)? They still have ethnic names. The females still have the traditional hair gear, and the terrorists still arent native english speakers. Lastly would an Islamic extremist hide the love for their religion?
If we use Americans, I dont see any Evangelical that hides the fact that they are an Evangelical Christian, or a Cathoholic or a Jewish person hiding their affiliation to appear "westernized." People from India don't either, and even hardworking Muslims here clearly dont as well.
I'm talking hypothetically about people who would try to get around a proposed muslim ban. Obviously people coming into the country don't have a reason to hide it...?
No one is denying that Americans have died at the hands of Americans. The ban is trying to prevent an outside threat, therefore it becomes an issue of international security and foreign policy which gets a lot of play in election cycles, like I said.
Because Islam isn't a race? How do you even prove whether someone is a muslim in the first place? Do you think a terrorist trying to get into our country would intentionally appear "ethnic"? No, they'd try to westernize themselves as much as possible, just as the 9/11 hijackers did. This policy wouldn't prevent anything, just like wiretapping hasn't prevented anything. It's politicians using demagoguery to appeal to their base's xenophobia.
We know that's not going to work that well, unless Mexico and Canada don't accept Muslims or make sure they don't cross the borders, and the US does a stringent checking of any stowaways or background checks. The logic makes no sense here.
But they do appear ethnic? When was the last time a Hunter or a Connor or 18 other names, the name of a terrorist (example = Dzhokhar)? They still have ethnic names. The females still have the traditional hair gear, and the terrorists still arent native english speakers. Lastly would an Islamic extremist hide the love for their religion?
If we use Americans, I dont see any Evangelical that hides the fact that they are an Evangelical Christian, or a Cathoholic or a Jewish person hiding their affiliation to appear "westernized." People from India don't either, and even hardworking Muslims here clearly dont as well.
I'm sure a terrorist can pretend he's not a Muslim if he wanted to, or that a female might not wear the traditional head gear. And most foreigners aren't native English speakers as well. And yes, they probably would if it meant causing acts of terrorism.
Because Evangelical Christians, Catholics, and Jewish people aren't threatened in America. Hardworking Muslims and Indians also have no reason to hide their religions either and want to retain their traditions regardless of violence, but a terrorist would have more success pretending to be a Christian or Catholic or something.
In fact, more white and black Americans have committed acts of terrorism on the US soil than Muslims. I also don't understand why Christians don't find it ironic that they distance themselves from KKK and Westboro Baptist, but have no issue saying the Muslims are ISIS or Al Quaeda.
The situation has changed quite a bit from years ago. Not only it has gotten far more dangerous but the sheer number of refugees Obama wanted to get in was way higher than the years before. And we have already seen it only takes a few people to kill over a 100 if the circumstances are right. You are fine by taking the risk ok but don't force it on the rest of Americans.
I don't think the hypothetical of the US not being a thing is relevant here. In the end the US exists... And ultimate I doubt there is much of a chance of a war between the US and russia/china. The US and china are way to closely relate through trade, we are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars. Even the slightest fear of war would cripple both economies. Russian economy is to crippled at the moment to really do much. Oil prices and sanctions have affected russia way more than putin would ever admit. If there ever is a confrontation rusia and the US it would likely be no more than a small confrontation in a remote nation... All in all the US economy right now is rather solid (safe for the markets going down last week) whereas the russian and chinese economies are somewhat absolutely screwed. The simple fact is that the US economy has recovered incredibly over the last few years and the idea that rusia or china have the economy, technology or military strength to compete with the US in those regard is simply not based on any facts. And to top it all off, US allies have a rather favorable view of the US right now, at least better than during the past decades. The way I see it the US is not only the most powerful nation in the world, it's the most powerful it has ever been...
The point was that precisely the reason why those other countries spend so little on defence is because they know the US got thir backs if anything serious were to happen.
A strong army is something that ideally, you shouldn't have to use. The fact that is strong should be enough to prevent an attack. But if you do have to use it you will be glad you have it.Sounds a bit dramatic but an enemy can arise out of nowhere. You tell me Russia and China are not doing so well economically?Well look at how Germany was doing a few years before it almost took over Europe.
The US economy is doing well? Dude:
The US economy grew at an annualised rate of 0.7% in the fourth quarter of 2015 compared with the same quarter a year ago, official figures show. The rate of growth marks a sharp slowdown from the 2% growth recorded in the previous quarter. The US Commerce department said one reason for the slower growth was a slowdown in consumer spending.
[FONT=Lucida Grande, Lucida Sans Unicode, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Did you know that if you have no debt an like 10 dollars on your pocket you are better off than 25% of Americans combined? Seriously think about it.
The US owns 19 trillion and consistently spends more money than it gets.Hw can anyone want more of the same (Hillary) is beyond my understanding. If things keep like this the US will go broke. There are also more people in welfare (both in total numbers and in percentage of the population) that any time in history, and democrats want even more government spending. It won't be pretty when the US economy collapses. Don't be surprised when the feds end up taking 70%+ of your life savings asdesperate measure to save the country. (And the banks will be the ones getting that money of course. Because the traditional system is broken. [/FONT]
Muslim commit less terrorist acts than whites and blacks but their share of the population is waaaaayy less.
The situation has changed quite a bit from years ago. Not only it has gotten far more dangerous but the sheer number of refugees Obama wanted to get in was way higher than the years before. And we have already seen it only takes a few people to kill over a 100 if the circumstances are right. You are fine by taking the risk ok but don't force it on the rest of Americans.
That makes no sense as less population doesn't necessarily mean fewer terrorist attacks. If Muslim population in France is similar or less to US's, then there's really no excuse. We've had maybe one or three attacks since 9/11, and I'm pretty sure if a lot of Muslims were terrorists, we'd have far more attacks regardless of population.
Dangerous how? The risk of a terrorist coming through is very low to none because that's how good the employees are at background checking the refugees. And from what some sources say, the passport was fake, and the terrorists weren't really from Syria.
I'm not forcing anything but common sense on the Americans. If the screening process wasn't as good as it is, I'd likely support even more stringent checking or increased refusal rate. It's easier for a potential terrorist to come in as a tourist than it is as a refugee. It's probably more dangerous for Europe, but not for US because the country can actually do something right.
The point was that precisely the reason why those other countries spend so little on defence is because they know the US got thir backs if anything serious were to happen.
A strong army is something that ideally, you shouldn't have to use. The fact that is strong should be enough to prevent an attack. But if you do have to use it you will be glad you have it.Sounds a bit dramatic but an enemy can arise out of nowhere. You tell me Russia and China are not doing so well economically?Well look at how Germany was doing a few years before it almost took over Europe.
These countries should stop relying on America, and America should stop interfering or helping out other countries.
You mean prior to WWII? Germany had Hitler, who had propaganda on his side that worked thanks to the economic state of the country. Russia and China know not to mess with the US. Germany learned that in WWI, and the Japanese learned that in WWII. FUCK YEAH US
the candidates are so pathetic, bringing up Obama all the time and attacking him
But then again, republicans tend to cater to the ignorant, idiotic masses while I'm sure democrats aren't happy with Obama. But if I read the summary right, Cruz said Trump is Obamacare? Wut? And Rubio actually said Obama woke up thinking how he can violate the Constitution Ah, so funny.
I have more doubts as to whether the republicans and Clinton want to keep US safe, whereas I know Obama and Bernie care to keep US safe or at least, safer than the other candidates. Though, I'm not sure if Bernie has appropriate knowledge of the system, but at least he cares to improve the situation for people.
This is what happens every time in the primaries of the opposite party of the current president. I guess you didn't pay attention to the Democrats in 2008.
If the US keep going exactly they way it is going under Obama the federal government is going to go bankrupt. There is little doubt about that. The US has been consistently spending more than it gets and Obama increased the US debt massively:
The debt of the federal government has now increased by more than $8,000,000,000,000 during the time President Barack Obama has been in office, according to the official debt numbers published by the U.S. Treasury.
Even Bush, with his ridiculously expensive and stupid war in Irak (which Hillary supported btw) didn't increase the debt by as much as Obama did. People who think the country is doing good have no idea how much of a burden this debt is going to be for the next years. They are like a kid who thinks he is rich because he is using daddy's credit card to buy stuff.
Obama has destroyed the country, abused and exerted his power in ways that would keep the founders in the grave, marginalised the marginal, ignored the American tradion by embracing big city values, and made America weaker than its been in decades. This evil man has got to go.
If the US keep going exactly they way it is going under Obama the federal government is going to go bankrupt. There is little doubt about that. The US has been consistently spending more than it gets and Obama increased the US debt massively:
The debt of the federal government has now increased by more than $8,000,000,000,000 during the time President Barack Obama has been in office, according to the official debt numbers published by the U.S. Treasury.
Even Bush, with his ridiculously expensive and stupid war in Irak (which Hillary supported btw) didn't increase the debt by as much as Obama did. People who think the country is doing good have no idea how much of a burden this debt is going to be for the next years. They are like a kid who thinks he is rich because he is using daddy's credit card to buy stuff.
Apparently, people are unfairly blaming Obama and being melodramatic in blaming him for the immense debt. He did succeed a president who fucked things up royally, so it's not fair to blame Obama entirely.
Obama has destroyed the country, abused and exerted his power in ways that would keep the founders in the grave, marginalised the marginal, ignored the American tradion by embracing big city values, and made America weaker than its been in decades. This evil man has got to go.
He hasn't destroyed the country or abused or exerted his power in such ways, that's just silly republican bullshit. I also don't see how America has been any weaker, plenty of people are unhappy with our drones, and terrorists aren't blowing up American cities. If it was a white republican doing the exact same thing Obama was, I am 100% sure very few people would complain or whine about it.
What American tradition over big city values? Didn't you say you support same sex marriage? If it weren't for Obama, same sex marriage would either remain banned in most states or be banned in the country. But then again, I'm not sure if it's worth arguing with someone who criticizes democrats going after each other or lying, but is okay with or ignores republicans fighting each other and openly lying and being deceitful.
Apparently, people are unfairly blaming Obama and being melodramatic in blaming him for the immense debt. He did succeed a president who fucked things up royally, so it's not fair to blame Obama entirely.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
He hasn't destroyed the country or abused or exerted his power in such ways, that's just silly republican bullshit. I also don't see how America has been any weaker, plenty of people are unhappy with our drones, and terrorists aren't blowing up American cities. If it was a white republican doing the exact same thing Obama was, I am 100% sure very few people would complain or whine about it.
What American tradition over big city values? Didn't you say you support same sex marriage? If it weren't for Obama, same sex marriage would either remain banned in most states or be banned in the country. But then again, I'm not sure if it's worth arguing with someone who criticizes democrats going after each other or lying, but is okay with or ignores republicans fighting each other and openly lying and being deceitful.
Under Obama the american dream of owning a house is naught but a dream looking at the declining home owners. The people on foodstamps has increased on Obama meaning ges increased the number of the unwealthy. Screw him.
Same sex marriage is a state issue not a federal one meaning he abused his powers.
The point was that precisely the reason why those other countries spend so little on defence is because they know the US got thir backs if anything serious were to happen.
A strong army is something that ideally, you shouldn't have to use. The fact that is strong should be enough to prevent an attack. But if you do have to use it you will be glad you have it.Sounds a bit dramatic but an enemy can arise out of nowhere. You tell me Russia and China are not doing so well economically?Well look at how Germany was doing a few years before it almost took over Europe.
The US economy is doing well? Dude:
The US economy grew at an annualised rate of 0.7% in the fourth quarter of 2015 compared with the same quarter a year ago, official figures show. The rate of growth marks a sharp slowdown from the 2% growth recorded in the previous quarter. The US Commerce department said one reason for the slower growth was a slowdown in consumer spending.
[FONT=Lucida Grande, Lucida Sans Unicode, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Did you know that if you have no debt an like 10 dollars on your pocket you are better off than 25% of Americans combined? Seriously think about it.
The US owns 19 trillion and consistently spends more money than it gets.Hw can anyone want more of the same (Hillary) is beyond my understanding. If things keep like this the US will go broke. There are also more people in welfare (both in total numbers and in percentage of the population) that any time in history, and democrats want even more government spending. It won't be pretty when the US economy collapses. Don't be surprised when the feds end up taking 70%+ of your life savings asdesperate measure to save the country. (And the banks will be the ones getting that money of course. Because the traditional system is broken. [/FONT]
Those countries couldn't spend as much as the US in military even if they wanted to. The US economy simply is that much bigger (which makes sense if you consider the US is the third most populous country in the world). To add to that, why would russia or china go to war with the US? It's an asinine scenario at this stage. China specially wouldn't go to war with the US, ever. How much trade do you think there is between both countries? The US is china's most important soy producer. not that that is the most important trade going on but holy shit Chinese people are eating US soy. Neither the US nor china can afford to go to war with each other. At least not as long as they rely so much on each other. And you are right, things could change down the line. But consider the extent to which rusia is currently the US' bitch... The US has systematically crushed rusian economy and all putin is able to do it put up a strong front and pretend everything is all right. The US has specifically toppled oil prices which at least currently has crippled the rusian economy and then imposed yet more crippling sanctions on them. And to add insult to injury, the US is improving relations with cuba (one of rusia's traditional allies). At least currently and in the foreseeable future there isn't a single country that even vaguely approaches the US in terms of economic or military might. And on top of that most of US allies view obama favorably (and in turn absolutely loathed everything bush related and probably find the prospect of trump or the alternatives to the guy as horrifying).
As for the debt, deficits don't work quite like that... A government deficit does not work like a household deficit.
No it is not. Via executive orders and other mechanism, Obama (and the US president in general) wields ridiculous, emperor-like power that the founding fathers never intended. Obama made 5 million illegals legal with the stroke of a pen (which happen to lean democrat, of course). He has used more unilateral presidential orders than any other president. He attempts to bypass republican controlled congress at every opportunity he gets.
Don't be surprised if a republican president comes to power at some point and abuses executive orders to undo everything democrats have done. because that is the precedent Obama is setting.
Ah, so funny.
