American Politics

[M3J]

How does one beat ISIS? If anything, Trump seems to be helping them with his anti-Muslim rhetoric. Actually, republicans are making it easier for ISIS to recruit with their rampant Islamophobia, likely for votes rather than actual fear of Muslims.

 

[Nemispelled]

Don't know, I've never been a general before, so I honestly wouldn't have the solution for ya.

But military force is definitely necessary in this case. It doesn't have to be U.S. combat troops, but we need to make sure that the Middle Eastern nations and their rebels are fully equipped with the appropriate weapons and are trained well.

At the end of the day, it's their fight and pride for peace in the Middle East. But that doesn't mean that we neglect homegrown terrorists in our own nations. Each citizen needs to be aware that any form of terrorism is not going to be tolerated.

And I do support Trump in his harsh and tough stance on that.



As for his "anti-Muslim rhetoric", I don't think that's going to have much influence on ISIS. They're still going to continue down their crooked path regardless of what the world views or thinks about them.

What really matters is the coalition's attitude toward terrorism and their willingness to defeat it.

 

[Styx]

How does one defeat ISIS? By taking their territory from them and by not arming "rebels" any further. Oh, and by consolidating power against then with other countries like Afghanistan, Russia etc. Basically, most of which Obama didn't do (consolidating power) or did very little of (actual work to relieve the issue) or did too much of (arming "rebels").

Recruitment for ISIS isn't about "Islamophobia" either. It is the idea of the downfall of western civilization that draws in so many as almost everything against Islamic norms is a grave sin to them. Also, most that have been joining ISIS itself have been members from al-Nusra and al-Qaeda. Don't believe me? Check out Syria Observatory For Human Rights on their recruitment methods and statistics. And most of those who they do recruit not already associated to a terrorist cell are practically children, easily manipulated and controlled through ISIS' savvy media control, great video editing and their propaganda media Dabiq, all of which no terrorist group has ever had before.

I'd say go watch some of their recruitment videos, which they themselves release, and see for yourself that their main talking points is "the promise to do something with your life" and high reward within Jannah upon service and or death (though I warn you; they are graphic and unsettling most of the time).

And a lot of the time, they just prey on children/teens weaknesses which they can find easily from online searches, which include difficulties at home, mental health issues, money issues (they pay every new recruit $10,000 and then pay you the same amount every time time you refer someone to them), feeling "betrayed" by the world etc etc.

And for women, they promise what they call "sexual comfort" positions, which promises to give them a rich husband should they join (mind you, women aren't allowed to fight on the front lines). Hell, this method of recruitment is so dang popular among women ISIS officially opened their own Marriage Center within al-Bab (again, SOfHR has documented) to actually pay the rewards out and it is booming with activity.

You won't see one [video, article etc] discuss how we hate them and so they should fight us, because they don't care if you do hate them. They already believe every non-Muslim hates them and so deserves to die and even should you not hate them, you still need to blacken in their hell's fires.

I would encourage you to research the data further, for example Rukmini Callimachi had an interview with NPR's Kelly McEver where she discusses ISIS, recruitment etc that is very interesting to read. There is also Syria's data to consider, and of course the U.S collected data, but pick any. You'll very rarely, if not ever, see them mention "Islamophobia" as a recruitment tool and provide proof of it (such as videos, articles, messages etc).

And if you should find existing data not to your liking, just look as ISIS's own recruitment book "A Course in the Art of Recruiting". The book describes reaching out, particularly to the weak and the children, and form an emotionally bond with them by exercising verbal discussions about their sadness and joys and their own sadness and joys, and then over a course of time, slowly convert them to their ideas to eventually tell them about jihad.

They also heavily utilize isolation methods, which are very effective, especially against the youth and mentally ill (google Mubin Shaikh for one example). Finally, they also kidnap family (within distance of them of course) to force others to fight for them.

According to MIT, USA is the 2nd largest exporter in the world (https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/usa/). If it imports more from Canada and Mexico and without NAFTA prices would go up due to tarrifs. Also, in 1989-1993 the USA Census reported their economy was importing more than exporting. (https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0004.html#1989) That's before NAFTA.

First hand sources or anything peer reviewed such as acedemic papers is credible.

You do know that importing more than exporting is not a good thing for us, right? So reports of more importing from 1989-1993 and onwards is not a good thing and nor does the existence of a decline of exporting prior to NAFTA means NAFTA isn't causing a further decline in exporting and an substantial increase in importing. It just means it got worse.

And being "top of the game" doesn't necessarily mean we're in good standing either if GDP is falling etc, jobs are vanishing and we're killing ourselves with importing. Even the MIT link you gave describes it as negative (in some detail as it isn't much itself):

In 2016, the United States exported $1.42T and imported $2.21T, resulting in a negative trade balance of $783B. In 2016 the GDP of the United States was $18.6T and its GDP per capita was $57.5k.

Basically, even if we export more than the rest of the world, if we import more than we export, we're royally farked.

Now something else to consider: NAFTA, and deals like it, allow businesses to hunt the cheapest labor available to them which they also lower wages to and import back into the U.S without any or much of a downside to them (cutting by taxes and tariffs (which harm us)) while at the same time being allowed to avoid regulations, like environmental regulations, that we still have to follow.

Why does this matter? Well, ignore for the moment that millions and millions of our jobs were shipped out to Mexico or across seas (even Canadian jobs!) and Americans (Canadians) suffered greatly for it, and consider the slave-like exploitation of the work force and the impact on surrounding ecosystems in countries that do not even have environmental regulations like the U.S. Businesses can avoid those regulations, cutting a sizable chunk off their losses, by moving their businesses elsewhere, which allows to them hire even more lowly paid slaves and sell (import) back into the U.S at a profit and loss to the American people/economy.

Frustratingly enough, Ross Perot explained why NAFTA was bad to Bill Clinton in 1992 and predicated everything that would go wrong that has gone wrong. Worth the watch if you haven't seen it yet.


In all...this means a hefty burden placed on the American/Canadian working class—the people like you and me and old man Joe across your street. Now sure NAFTA had good intentions, and some of it could have worked if the worse parts of it were handled or addressed by those more intelligent than say Bill Clinton, but it wasn't and like dozens of analysts and politicians said at the time, NAFTA did far more damage than it did good.

 

[Reebi]

How does one defeat ISIS? By taking their territory from them and by not arming "rebels" any further. Oh, and by consolidating power against then with other countries like Afghanistan, Russia etc. Basically, most of which Obama didn't do (consolidating power) or did very little of (actual work to relieve the issue) or did too much of (arming "rebels").

Recruitment for ISIS isn't about "Islamophobia" either. It is the idea of the downfall of western civilization that draws in so many as almost everything against Islamic norms is a grave sin to them. Also, most that have been joining ISIS itself have been members from al-Nusra and al-Qaeda. Don't believe me? Check out Syria Observatory For Human Rights on their recruitment methods and statistics. And most of those who they do recruit not already associated to a terrorist cell are practically children, easily manipulated and controlled through ISIS' savvy media control, great video editing and their propaganda media Dabiq, all of which no terrorist group has ever had before.

I'd say go watch some of their recruitment videos, which they themselves release, and see for yourself that their main talking points is "the promise to do something with your life" and high reward within Jannah upon service and or death (though I warn you; they are graphic and unsettling most of the time).

And a lot of the time, they just prey on children/teens weaknesses which they can find easily from online searches, which include difficulties at home, mental health issues, money issues (they pay every new recruit $10,000 and then pay you the same amount every time time you refer someone to them), feeling "betrayed" by the world etc etc.

And for women, they promise what they call "sexual comfort" positions, which promises to give them a rich husband should they join (mind you, women aren't allowed to fight on the front lines). Hell, this method of recruitment is so dang popular among women ISIS officially opened their own Marriage Center within al-Bab (again, SOfHR has documented) to actually pay the rewards out and it is booming with activity.

You won't see one [video, article etc] discuss how we hate them and so they should fight us, because they don't care if you do hate them. They already believe every non-Muslim hates them and so deserves to die and even should you not hate them, you still need to blacken in their hell's fires.

I would encourage you to research the data further, for example Rukmini Callimachi had an interview with NPR's Kelly McEver where she discusses ISIS, recruitment etc that is very interesting to read. There is also Syria's data to consider, and of course the U.S collected data, but pick any. You'll very rarely, if not ever, see them mention "Islamophobia" as a recruitment tool and provide proof of it (such as videos, articles, messages etc).

And if you should find existing data not to your liking, just look as ISIS's own recruitment book "A Course in the Art of Recruiting". The book describes reaching out, particularly to the weak and the children, and form an emotionally bond with them by exercising verbal discussions about their sadness and joys and their own sadness and joys, and then over a course of time, slowly convert them to their ideas to eventually tell them about jihad.

They also heavily utilize isolation methods, which are very effective, especially against the youth and mentally ill (google Mubin Shaikh for one example). Finally, they also kidnap family (within distance of them of course) to force others to fight for them.



You do know that importing more than exporting is not a good thing for us, right? So reports of more importing from 1989-1993 and onwards is not a good thing and nor does the existence of a decline of exporting prior to NAFTA means NAFTA isn't causing a further decline in exporting and an substantial increase in importing. It just means it got worse.

And being "top of the game" doesn't necessarily mean we're in good standing either if GDP is falling etc, jobs are vanishing and we're killing ourselves with importing. Even the MIT link you gave describes it as negative (in some detail as it isn't much itself):



Basically, even if we export more than the rest of the world, if we import more than we export, we're royally farked.

Now something else to consider: NAFTA, and deals like it, allow businesses to hunt the cheapest labor available to them which they also lower wages to and import back into the U.S without any or much of a downside to them (cutting by taxes and tariffs (which harm us)) while at the same time being allowed to avoid regulations, like environmental regulations, that we still have to follow.

Why does this matter? Well, ignore for the moment that millions and millions of our jobs were shipped out to Mexico or across seas (even Canadian jobs!) and Americans (Canadians) suffered greatly for it, and consider the slave-like exploitation of the work force and the impact on surrounding ecosystems in countries that do not even have environmental regulations like the U.S. Businesses can avoid those regulations, cutting a sizable chunk off their losses, by moving their businesses elsewhere, which allows to them hire even more lowly paid slaves and sell (import) back into the U.S at a profit and loss to the American people/economy.

Frustratingly enough, Ross Perot explained why NAFTA was bad to Bill Clinton in 1992 and predicated everything that would go wrong that has gone wrong. Worth the watch if you haven't seen it yet.


In all...this means a hefty burden placed on the American/Canadian working class—the people like you and me and old man Joe across your street. Now sure NAFTA had good intentions, and some of it could have worked if the worse parts of it were handled or addressed by those more intelligent than say Bill Clinton, but it wasn't and like dozens of analysts and politicians said at the time, NAFTA did far more damage than it did good.

Slave like conditions? Mexico has mat and parental leave unlike the USA. In some states, they cannot form unions and in others employers can terminate with no reason. The unemployment rate in the US is relatively low, which suggests work isn't leaving the US. The jobs that are leaving have been replaced with others. The problem is the lack of access to education and training. If people aren't skilled for the jobs available how can they find employment? You can't create jobs that have obsolete or dying like coal mining and types of manufacturing. Instead, focusing on job creation in green energy and the technology sector would be better for the economy. NATFA hasn't dismantled the US economy because the US economy needs to rely on imports. What is threatening the economy is not adapting to new ideas and accepting societal changes.

 

[shionoro]

Education deregulation - He overturned Obama's Every Student Succeeds Act. Now, the federal government is restricted from controlling how states should measure or assess schools' academic performances. In addition, schools are no longer forced to put in place useless teacher preparation programs and can focus more time in reconstructing their curriculum.

• In case people don't know, the U.S. has one of the most inefficient and unorganized education systems. And that's because teachers are forced to spend extra time to attend/complete "common-sense" programs instead of preparing their lectures, materials, and exams.

And that is a really bad thing. It means school become even more dependend on bad material because it is cheaper. Your system became more ineffective.

Labor deregulation - Trump allowed individual states to expand drug-testing on unemployment benefit applicants. This ensures that all applicants who receive federal unemployment benefits will be job ready once in the workforce. States can save a lot of money that way and allocate them to better use, instead of wasting it all on drug addicts who have not been tested and are abusing the handouts.

How do states save money there?
There are more tests conducted and someone who smokes weed wiill have a far harder time finding a job. That is really bad,
What you wanna do? Let them starve? You basically waste money on testing people to make it harder for them to get back onto the market. By that you obviously make any drug habit worse that they might have.

Agriculture reform - Created a 20% tariff on softwood lumber that enters the U.S. from Canada. Buying from Canada prevents our agricultural and economic growth. Especially since the United States can harvest it as well. This allows more farmers to produce raw materials and create more jobs for American citizens, which overall, increases our export and decreases our import.

• That's also how the U.S. GDP growth increased. Instead of constantly being the consumer (importing), we can start producing our own materials (and export them). That's why Trump keeps stressing about products being made in the US.

No. US GDP growth does not increase due to reforms made in 2017. Every growth you might see was caused by the Obama administration or simply good environment for trade.
What i means to produce things in the US is that they get more expensive and many people cannot afford them anymore.
The companies producing wood might be happy about it. The people who will have to pay more for wood in the future will probably think differently.

You simply pay more for wood even tho you could just import it to keep jobs in a dying industry. That is basically socialism.

So the current condition of the economy is based on Obama's actions in 2008?
With that kind of argument, the economy is not a president's responsibility because they can just blame their predecessors for its current condition.
That's like saying George W. Bush's economy is Bill Clinton's fault.
Or Bill Clinton's economy is the result of George H.W. Bush's work.
Or the economy under Reagan should be credited to Jimmy Carter's reforms.
Or Franklin D. Roosevelt's economy is thanks to Herbert Hoover.

Mostly, yes. Obviously things before had an impact on it too.
And yes. The first some year's economy of a new president is always a heritage from the one before.
Bush highly profitted by Clinton's reforms.
Obama suffered from the Iraq war costs and other debt increases done during Bush.
This is basic knowledge. You don't see effects from changes and reforms until several years later.
Which is why it is so easy to deceive people.
The president after trump, whether rep or dem, will have hell of a lot of trouble to undo the damage trump causes which will only come into effect at a later stage.

Like I said, the U.S. GDP growth has continually exceeded its forecasts and predictions because Trump is increasing exports and decreasing imports by giving more power back to the farmers, manufacturers, and individual producers. There's no secret there.

Even after major natural disasters like Hurricane Harvey & Irma this year, Trump still managed to exceed previous expectations for each quarter.

Which is due to effects trump has nothing to do with.
As i said: Even if he did the best possible reforms imaginable in the history of mankind, you would not see any effect now.
The reforms you mentioned were 2017, that year is not even over. You do not see the effects of those until in several years.

I don't think Trump is doing what they want.
He's doing what everybody wants.
The coalition's goal is to destroy ISIS and prevent terrorism. Defeating ISIS would benefit most of Europe, Canada, and the U.S. included. It's in everybody's best interest to restore peace in the Middle East.
We all share a common goal, but the question is what to do about it.
If anybody is suffering most from Islamic terrorists, it's the world leaders from the Middle Eastern nations.
They clearly approve of the United State's assistance so far, and I see no problem with Trump's strategy and plan of action.

Trump does not fight ISIS. The operation was started by Obama and Trump didn't even know which country his army was bombing.
The fight against ISIS trump proposed didn't happen. He basically leaves syria to its own devices while maintaining the obama mission helping the kurds.
There is no 'trump's strategy'. There are troops obama has sent and who keep on their mission and a president who doesn't exactly grasp what they do.
The one thing he did was a compltely nonsensial bomb throwing onto an unimportant target to take some credit.

Trump is doing things that some peope with particular interests want while screwing everybody else.
He is a big danger for the Nato, he is a big danger for climate change, he fuels conflicts like the north korea crisis and the iran dilemma so he can play buddy buddy with the saudis.
He was too stupid to do good trade deals and no foreign leaders takes him serious unless he is playing into their hand.

Maybe, but if you were the prime target of North Korea, I highly doubt you'd say the same thing. It's easy for people to criticize Trump when they are living in a safe country that is at the bottom of North Korea's list to destroy.
I am in support of his tough stance because it's only a matter of time before the North Koreans are capable of launching a successful ICBM. We know that.
As a primary target of North Korea, I don't think you could blame Trump for drawing a line.
Not to mention, our allies South Korea and Japan are in the direct line of fire from North Korea. The last thing we want to

I would absolutely say the same thing because i dont want to be killed, and trump made the likelyhood of a war bigger.
Under Obama's term, you didn't see Kim act out like this. The reason for that is because Obama was able to negotiate with the one nation that can keep him in check: China. Trump isn't able to do that.
He is able to act out on twitter and talk about nuclear war like it is nothing.
trump didn't draw a line, trump went to a guy who cannot let himself belittled and screamed IF YOU DO ANYTHING I WILL KILL YOU YOU LITTLE BITCH and passed it off as being a good leader.
I am pretty sure your allies Japan and South korea would be happier about Obama handling the crisis as competently as he did throughout his presidency than to have an idiot who stirs trouble for them.

I never said anything about Trump doing something right.
I said world leaders in the Middle East respect him, which is true based on their actions and words.
When a world leader thanks and honors their counterpart, it expresses their gratitude and mutual respect for one another.
I don't see why we should take that lightly.
Extended invitations, condolences, and openness to negotiations are also a sign of respect.

Which actions? You cannot base anything on your words.
The saudis like you if you hate on Iran. Not more. Not less.
When a world leader thanks and honors their counterpart, it is because there is a protocol that makes this a necessity. You always do that.
You can sit there with the vilest dictator and do that. Trump does it himself, just not as good because he is an idiot.
When someone is in the US trump always acts like he is his best friend, no matter who it is.

Like...Do you really think that a world leader who hates and disrespects another but meets him and has an interest in having good relations to the country would go out and say 'lulz what an idiot'?
Ofc he would not. Of course you tell some giant idiot that he is the best guy ever for giving you weapons with which you can kill your arch enemy.
I don't get how you can take that seriously?

Things like that are exactly as valuable as when people who work in stores for clothes tell you you look awesome in the stuff you didn't buy yet.

Now that's an opinion.

A well informed opinion.

The Syria Ceasefire Agreement with Putin.

That's a positive negotiation. I'm sure all the global powers are in support of that.

The syria ceasefire basically means 'we let russia do whatever the fuck they want'. Great negotiation.
It is not like Russia conceded anything there.

Here is something to read for you https://www.npr.org/sections/parall...o-know-about-the-trump-putin-syria-cease-fire

 

[M3J]

Don't know, I've never been a general before, so I honestly wouldn't have the solution for ya.

But military force is definitely necessary in this case. It doesn't have to be U.S. combat troops, but we need to make sure that the Middle Eastern nations and their rebels are fully equipped with the appropriate weapons and are trained well.

At the end of the day, it's their fight and pride for peace in the Middle East. But that doesn't mean that we neglect homegrown terrorists in our own nations. Each citizen needs to be aware that any form of terrorism is not going to be tolerated.

And I do support Trump in his harsh and tough stance on that.



As for his "anti-Muslim rhetoric", I don't think that's going to have much influence on ISIS. They're still going to continue down their crooked path regardless of what the world views or thinks about them.

What really matters is the coalition's attitude toward terrorism and their willingness to defeat it.

Surely Trump must have given some idea on how he'll tackle ISIS, unless he was full of shit as usual.

Military force won't do anything, not until they take out the top leaders who don't even care about Islam or its teachings. And it's arming ME nations and assisting in rebellion that got us into this mess in the first place.

US? We don't want peace in Middle East, we actually don't give a shit about Middle East. What we want is oil and making sure the leaders/regime won't increase the prices of oil or refuse to sell oil to us.

Well, we are neglecting homegrown terrorists if they're white and chalking it up to mentally ill lone wolf.


As far as I know, ISIS have used his anti-Muslim rhetoric as part of recruitment by trying to make it into West vs. Muslims sort of thing. And there's no need for quotation marks, it is anti-Muslim rhetoric. He claimed to have seen thousands of Muslims celebrate 9/11 in NY/NJ area, something that a "news" source biased towards Trump admitted was an exaggeration. And the videos that I've YouTubed and were shown by Trump supporters proved how full of shit he is, and how brainwashed Trump supporters and Islamophobes are. They showed videos of Muslims celebrating throughout the world, some clips were related to 9/11 while many others weren't even specific. Trump also wants to ban Muslims, but he wanted to ban Muslims from countries that did nothing to us, and he didn't bother to ban the Muslims from countries that did attack us, and strangely enough where he has his businesses in.

If you read what I said fully, you'd see I mention recruiting. It'll have an influence because disillusioned Muslims affected by American terrorism will see the West as Muslim-hating enemies and be more likely to commit acts of terrorism.


Sure it does, but what's more important is actually doing something about terrorism. Walls and bans don't do anything, and neither does lying to make Muslims look like enemies. Trump rarely tweets about horrific acts committed by white people or takes too long to condemn them, but when an unknown assailant or assailant even remotely brown does any horrific act, he's quick to tweet about it.

How does one defeat ISIS? By taking their territory from them and by not arming "rebels" any further. Oh, and by consolidating power against then with other countries like Afghanistan, Russia etc. Basically, most of which Obama didn't do (consolidating power) or did very little of (actual work to relieve the issue) or did too much of (arming "rebels").

Recruitment for ISIS isn't about "Islamophobia" either. It is the idea of the downfall of western civilization that draws in so many as almost everything against Islamic norms is a grave sin to them. Also, most that have been joining ISIS itself have been members from al-Nusra and al-Qaeda. Don't believe me? Check out Syria Observatory For Human Rights on their recruitment methods and statistics. And most of those who they do recruit not already associated to a terrorist cell are practically children, easily manipulated and controlled through ISIS' savvy media control, great video editing and their propaganda media Dabiq, all of which no terrorist group has ever had before.

I'd say go watch some of their recruitment videos, which they themselves release, and see for yourself that their main talking points is "the promise to do something with your life" and high reward within Jannah upon service and or death (though I warn you; they are graphic and unsettling most of the time).

And a lot of the time, they just prey on children/teens weaknesses which they can find easily from online searches, which include difficulties at home, mental health issues, money issues (they pay every new recruit $10,000 and then pay you the same amount every time time you refer someone to them), feeling "betrayed" by the world etc etc.

Horrible way to beat ISIS, a decent way to weaken them. how would not arming rebels hurt them though, if they can get weapons other ways? And before blaming Obama, let's not forget the Bushes, Clinton, and I think Reagan arming the rebels with weapons and teaching them how to fight not for the countries' benefit, but for our own.

Islamophobia plays a huge part in recruiting members for ISIS. All they have to say is West vs. Muslims, show proof of it, and it'd be easier to recruit Muslims, especially those affected by the military's acts of terrorism or violence. Obama has caused tremendous amount of damage, continuing Bush's legacy, and Muslims are not happy about that. And no, it's not the idea of the downfall of western civilization, or not just that. the right wing and Trump-biased media won't tell you that as it doesn't go with their agenda, but ISIS leaders don't care about Islam at all. They twist and pervert what the Quran says, if they even believe in the Quran, in order to sell and justify violence. In fact, ISIS's victims have mostly been Muslims, and ISIS have been destroying mosques and ancient Muslim artifacts. It's only the soldiers that probably believe in the downfall of western civilization as bein ggood.

Children are easier to recruit because they're easier to brainwash, especially when they experienced loss. If they have seen American soldiers killing their family, especially soldiers who went batshit crazy, it wouldn't be that hard for ISIS to recruit them.

Why does this matter? Well, ignore for the moment that millions and millions of our jobs were shipped out to Mexico or across seas (even Canadian jobs!) and Americans (Canadians) suffered greatly for it,

Just as Trump supporters ignore that Trump gets his products made in China despite promising to bring jobs back to USA and is willing to hire illegal immigrants.

 

[Styx]

Slave like conditions? Mexico has mat and parental leave unlike the USA. In some states, they cannot form unions and in others employers can terminate with no reason. The unemployment rate in the US is relatively low, which suggests work isn't leaving the US. The jobs that are leaving have been replaced with others. The problem is the lack of access to education and training. If people aren't skilled for the jobs available how can they find employment? You can't create jobs that have obsolete or dying like coal mining and types of manufacturing. Instead, focusing on job creation in green energy and the technology sector would be better for the economy.

Work conditions, especially by businesses that fled the U.S's regulations to make greater profits, within countries like Mexico (but not limited to) have declined greatly*. They are paid considerably less than they should, border line nothing, and are treated like mules. In Mexico alone they have basically no labour rights, they are paid less than nothing, get 1 day off a week (8 for vacations a year if they are lucky), and children can and are exploited to do hard labour [if age 14 or up] because they have no laws to protect them [though they are not allowed certain jobs].

For example concerning wage, in 2016 the minimum wage for workers in Mexico was about NM$40.35, that's about $4 U.S dollars, and inflation has been on average greater than wage increases, which makes what they earn bad no matter how high the wages are increased.

More information in this subject can be found by googling Mexico's "maquiladora labor system" or Mexico's working conditions", which will lead you to horrifying work conditions for Mexicans, especially concerning women. Whatever labour laws they have, enforcement of them is extremely lax.

And you can't chalk our economical downfall and the billion plus jobs being lost after NAFTA to educational needs not being met for existing jobs. They play a part in the environment in which we are left, sure, but they are not the cause for our current economy at large. I have left more than reasonable data to prove our decline has greatly to do with NAFTA and other like minded trade deals or policies. You can find more by googling it. There are even plenty of even liberal media, like Washington Post etc have many articles linking to data to show how horribly NAFTA impacted us if you can't trust any of what I post.

*it was actually one of Bernie Sanders' greatest talking points against NAFTA and other trade deals so if you are interested in that, definitely look it up.

NATFA hasn't dismantled the US economy because the US economy needs to rely on imports. What is threatening the economy is not adapting to new ideas and accepting societal changes.

Importing is important to our economy, yes, but you are ignoring the balance between it and exporting. We need to be exporting more than we do importing, or we are left in a hazardous state, resulting in GDP decline or unstable surges (because too little and too much is bad), job loss etc etc.

Horrible way to beat ISIS, a decent way to weaken them. how would not arming rebels hurt them though, if they can get weapons other ways? And before blaming Obama, let's not forget the Bushes, Clinton, and I think Reagan arming the rebels with weapons and teaching them how to fight not for the countries' benefit, but for our own.

Islamophobia plays a huge part in recruiting members for ISIS. All they have to say is West vs. Muslims, show proof of it, and it'd be easier to recruit Muslims, especially those affected by the military's acts of terrorism or violence. Obama has caused tremendous amount of damage, continuing Bush's legacy, and Muslims are not happy about that. And no, it's not the idea of the downfall of western civilization, or not just that. the right wing and Trump-biased media won't tell you that as it doesn't go with their agenda, but ISIS leaders don't care about Islam at all. They twist and pervert what the Quran says, if they even believe in the Quran, in order to sell and justify violence. In fact, ISIS's victims have mostly been Muslims, and ISIS have been destroying mosques and ancient Muslim artifacts. It's only the soldiers that probably believe in the downfall of western civilization as bein ggood.

Children are easier to recruit because they're easier to brainwash, especially when they experienced loss. If they have seen American soldiers killing their family, especially soldiers who went batshit crazy, it wouldn't be that hard for ISIS to recruit them.

You can't defeat something as large and powerful as ISIS without first weakening them, though I find it strange you would call eliminating their ground and manpower a "horrible way to defeat them" when it is clearly started to work well.

Since Trump has become president, U.S efforts against them have tripled and they have been losing ground and manpower like crazy. That's not even considering how worldwide opposition against them has increased since Trump took office. There's simply more desire from Trump to whole heartedly end terrorism than there was with Obama, who wished to intervene as little as possible (which imo, it is understandable actually).

Just because you say it plays a "huge part" doesn't mean that it actually does. Where do you get this argument from? The media? I'm sure Muslims are displeased by our presence in their countries, that's not to be argued, what is to be argued is whether or not "U.S hatred towards" them is used as a recruitment tool. And it isn't. That's why they attack countries that throw down the welcoming mat for them. Because they don't care if they are hated and never will.

ISIS' victims are just about everyone, yes including moderate Muslims, especially those not within their branch of Islam. It isn't that they're twisting the Qu'ran and although I would like to discuss the material in question, that's a discussion for a different time time and a different thread, so I won't. However, those willing to join ISIS are joining them because they believe in an extreme effort (the absolute word of the Qu'ran, as it was written) or are just mentally weak or physically manipulated into also believing in that strict word of the Qu'ran. It isn't that they believe their actions are vindicated by the supposed "Isamphobia" of the United States (or elsewhere), it is that they feel their seething hatred is vindicated by their belief in the Qur'an and their God's instructions.

You can't say ISIS doesn't "care about Islam" just because you don't think they are religious or Muslim. That is just a crazy argument to make. It is like saying Westboro Baptist Church aren't Christians because they practice the OT in a Calvinist method.

It is really that they [Islamic terrorists] feel so religious that they practice the Qu'ran's doctrinal teachings and verses word for word, as they were followed during waring periods early in Islam's history. They are not interested in modern interpretations of their religion or the potential for their religion to evolve to modern standards, only what it says and the simplicity in which it was said. No extremist to any religion cares about that.

So I'll ask you to provide the proof you have that ISIS recruits largely based on Islamphobia, since you just completely ignored evidence provided by ISIS themselves and research data that directly contradicts your claims.

And no, I don't say it because "far-right media" says it. I say it because anyone with eyes can see it in ISIS' own propaganda websites and in successful terrorist attacks (perps never cry they did it because Muslims are hated). They loath western civilization because it contradicts the teachings within the Qu'ran (such as modern human rights for women), which they vehemently believe in as scared and just.

Just as Trump supporters ignore that Trump gets his products made in China despite promising to bring jobs back to USA and is willing to hire illegal immigrants.

What is your argument exactly, or is your entire counter saying that because Trump buys products from businesses still outside of the U.S, it somehow means NAFTA is a good trade deal? Or that we shouldn't bring back as many businesses as we can? Or that we aren't in a massive negative trade balance or that despite data we actually are exporting far more than we import or that NAFTA didn't cost us millions in jobs or cause crippling wage suppression?

I hope your argument is more than an attempted poke at Trump and his supporters and that you actually have something to say on the matter.

 

[Reebi]

And that is a really bad thing. It means school become even more dependend on bad material because it is cheaper. Your system became more ineffective.



How do states save money there?
There are more tests conducted and someone who smokes weed wiill have a far harder time finding a job. That is really bad,
What you wanna do? Let them starve? You basically waste money on testing people to make it harder for them to get back onto the market. By that you obviously make any drug habit worse that they might have.


No. US GDP growth does not increase due to reforms made in 2017. Every growth you might see was caused by the Obama administration or simply good environment for trade.
What i means to produce things in the US is that they get more expensive and many people cannot afford them anymore.
The companies producing wood might be happy about it. The people who will have to pay more for wood in the future will probably think differently.

You simply pay more for wood even tho you could just import it to keep jobs in a dying industry. That is basically socialism.



Mostly, yes. Obviously things before had an impact on it too.
And yes. The first some year's economy of a new president is always a heritage from the one before.
Bush highly profitted by Clinton's reforms.
Obama suffered from the Iraq war costs and other debt increases done during Bush.
This is basic knowledge. You don't see effects from changes and reforms until several years later.
Which is why it is so easy to deceive people.
The president after trump, whether rep or dem, will have hell of a lot of trouble to undo the damage trump causes which will only come into effect at a later stage.





Which is due to effects trump has nothing to do with.
As i said: Even if he did the best possible reforms imaginable in the history of mankind, you would not see any effect now.
The reforms you mentioned were 2017, that year is not even over. You do not see the effects of those until in several years.



Trump does not fight ISIS. The operation was started by Obama and Trump didn't even know which country his army was bombing.
The fight against ISIS trump proposed didn't happen. He basically leaves syria to its own devices while maintaining the obama mission helping the kurds.
There is no 'trump's strategy'. There are troops obama has sent and who keep on their mission and a president who doesn't exactly grasp what they do.
The one thing he did was a compltely nonsensial bomb throwing onto an unimportant target to take some credit.

Trump is doing things that some peope with particular interests want while screwing everybody else.
He is a big danger for the Nato, he is a big danger for climate change, he fuels conflicts like the north korea crisis and the iran dilemma so he can play buddy buddy with the saudis.
He was too stupid to do good trade deals and no foreign leaders takes him serious unless he is playing into their hand.



I would absolutely say the same thing because i dont want to be killed, and trump made the likelyhood of a war bigger.
Under Obama's term, you didn't see Kim act out like this. The reason for that is because Obama was able to negotiate with the one nation that can keep him in check: China. Trump isn't able to do that.
He is able to act out on twitter and talk about nuclear war like it is nothing.
trump didn't draw a line, trump went to a guy who cannot let himself belittled and screamed IF YOU DO ANYTHING I WILL KILL YOU YOU LITTLE BITCH and passed it off as being a good leader.
I am pretty sure your allies Japan and South korea would be happier about Obama handling the crisis as competently as he did throughout his presidency than to have an idiot who stirs trouble for them.


Which actions? You cannot base anything on your words.
The saudis like you if you hate on Iran. Not more. Not less.
When a world leader thanks and honors their counterpart, it is because there is a protocol that makes this a necessity. You always do that.
You can sit there with the vilest dictator and do that. Trump does it himself, just not as good because he is an idiot.
When someone is in the US trump always acts like he is his best friend, no matter who it is.

Like...Do you really think that a world leader who hates and disrespects another but meets him and has an interest in having good relations to the country would go out and say 'lulz what an idiot'?
Ofc he would not. Of course you tell some giant idiot that he is the best guy ever for giving you weapons with which you can kill your arch enemy.
I don't get how you can take that seriously?

Things like that are exactly as valuable as when people who work in stores for clothes tell you you look awesome in the stuff you didn't buy yet.



A well informed opinion.


The syria ceasefire basically means 'we let russia do whatever the fuck they want'. Great negotiation.
It is not like Russia conceded anything there.

Here is something to read for you https://www.npr.org/sections/parall...o-know-about-the-trump-putin-syria-cease-fire

In Portugal they had a huge drug problem in the 90s and they tackled it by treating addicts like patients rather than criminals. After all, if someone is addicted to drugs it is not their fault their bodies have become dependant on a substance. Some patients cannot be cured by their drug addiction so this puts them at a bigger disadvantage.

Work conditions, especially by businesses that fled the U.S's regulations to make greater profits, within countries like Mexico (but not limited to) have declined greatly*. They are paid considerably less than they should, border line nothing, and are treated like mules. In Mexico alone they have basically no labour rights, they are paid less than nothing, get 1 day off a week (8 for vacations a year if they are lucky), and children can and are exploited to do hard labour [if age 14 or up] because they have no laws to protect them [though they are not allowed certain jobs].

For example concerning wage, in 2016 the minimum wage for workers in Mexico was about NM$40.35, that's about $4 U.S dollars, and inflation has been on average greater than wage increases, which makes what they earn bad no matter how high the wages are increased.

More information in this subject can be found by googling Mexico's "maquiladora labor system" or Mexico's working conditions", which will lead you to horrifying work conditions for Mexicans, especially concerning women. Whatever labour laws they have, enforcement of them is extremely lax.

And you can't chalk our economical downfall and the billion plus jobs being lost after NAFTA to educational needs not being met for existing jobs. They play a part in the environment in which we are left, sure, but they are not the cause for our current economy at large. I have left more than reasonable data to prove our decline has greatly to do with NAFTA and other like minded trade deals or policies. You can find more by googling it. There are even plenty of even liberal media, like Washington Post etc have many articles linking to data to show how horribly NAFTA impacted us if you can't trust any of what I post.

*it was actually one of Bernie Sanders' greatest talking points against NAFTA and other trade deals so if you are interested in that, definitely look it up.



Importing is important to our economy, yes, but you are ignoring the balance between it and exporting. We need to be exporting more than we do importing, or we are left in a hazardous state, resulting in GDP decline or unstable surges (because too little and too much is bad), job loss etc etc.



You can't defeat something as large and powerful as ISIS without first weakening them, though I find it strange you would call eliminating their ground and manpower a "horrible way to defeat them" when it is clearly started to work well.

Since Trump has become president, U.S efforts against them have tripled and they have been losing ground and manpower like crazy. That's not even considering how worldwide opposition against them has increased since Trump took office. There's simply more desire from Trump to whole heartedly end terrorism than there was with Obama, who wished to intervene as little as possible (which imo, it is understandable actually).

Just because you say it plays a "huge part" doesn't mean that it actually does. Where do you get this argument from? The media? I'm sure Muslims are displeased by our presence in their countries, that's not to be argued, what is to be argued is whether or not "U.S hatred towards" them is used as a recruitment tool. And it isn't. That's why they attack countries that throw down the welcoming mat for them. Because they don't care if they are hated and never will.

ISIS' victims are just about everyone, yes including moderate Muslims, especially those not within their branch of Islam. It isn't that they're twisting the Qu'ran and although I would like to discuss the material in question, that's a discussion for a different time time and a different thread, so I won't. However, those willing to join ISIS are joining them because they believe in an extreme effort (the absolute word of the Qu'ran, as it was written) or are just mentally weak or physically manipulated into also believing in that strict word of the Qu'ran. It isn't that they believe their actions are vindicated by the supposed "Isamphobia" of the United States (or elsewhere), it is that they feel their seething hatred is vindicated by their belief in the Qur'an and their God's instructions.

You can't say ISIS doesn't "care about Islam" just because you don't think they are religious or Muslim. That is just a crazy argument to make. It is like saying Westboro Baptist Church aren't Christians because they practice the OT in a Calvinist method.

It is really that they [Islamic terrorists] feel so religious that they practice the Qu'ran's doctrinal teachings and verses word for word, as they were followed during waring periods early in Islam's history. They are not interested in modern interpretations of their religion or the potential for their religion to evolve to modern standards, only what it says and the simplicity in which it was said. No extremist to any religion cares about that.

So I'll ask you to provide the proof you have that ISIS recruits largely based on Islamphobia, since you just completely ignored evidence provided by ISIS themselves and research data that directly contradicts your claims.

And no, I don't say it because "far-right media" says it. I say it because anyone with eyes can see it in ISIS' own propaganda websites and in successful terrorist attacks (perps never cry they did it because Muslims are hated). They loath western civilization because it contradicts the teachings within the Qu'ran (such as modern human rights for women), which they vehemently believe in as scared and just.



What is your argument exactly, or is your entire counter saying that because Trump buys products from businesses still outside of the U.S, it somehow means NAFTA is a good trade deal? Or that we shouldn't bring back as many businesses as we can? Or that we aren't in a massive negative trade balance or that despite data we actually are exporting far more than we import or that NAFTA didn't cost us millions in jobs or cause crippling wage suppression?

I hope your argument is more than an attempted poke at Trump and his supporters and that you actually have something to say on the matter.

The reason some countries have lower wages is because their living costs are low and people could afford it.

Have you read up on Mexico labour laws? Even though they have the least amount of public holidays and work the most hours (which isn't much different than the US), they cannot be terminated without a cause , they can form unions and women can have maternity leave. Those things don't exist in some states.

 

[Nemispelled]

And that is a really bad thing. It means school become even more dependend on bad material because it is cheaper. Your system became more ineffective.

Not really. The problem isn't with money. You can give schools expensive and top-notch materials, but education will still fail if teachers are wasting time on basic classroom programs and not concentrating on learning/teaching the materials to their students.

In reality, it all depends on how much teachers prepare and how students are being taught. Spending million of dollars on packets and worksheets won't do any good. It will only cause more cheating instead of learning.

The U.S. education system is inefficient because there are too many regulations on how schools should operate, which takes time away from improving the curriculum.


And I don't see why the federal government needs to tell states how to assess schools' academic performances. Education is drastically different in every state. That needs to be done on an individual level.

When there is too much unnecessary control, the system becomes dysfunctional.

How do states save money there?
There are more tests conducted and someone who smokes weed wiill have a far harder time finding a job. That is really bad,
What you wanna do? Let them starve? You basically waste money on testing people to make it harder for them to get back onto the market. By that you obviously make any drug habit worse that they might have.

Because they are not investing a lot of money on drug addicts who smoke weed all day.

If applicants want to obtain federal unemployment benefits, they have the show that they are competent enough to work once being given an opportunity. Giving free handouts will only lead to more people abusing the system.

I am in full support of helping the unfortunate, but not if they're going to take advantage of the system, which happens more often than not.

No. US GDP growth does not increase due to reforms made in 2017. Every growth you might see was caused by the Obama administration or simply good environment for trade.
What i means to produce things in the US is that they get more expensive and many people cannot afford them anymore.
The companies producing wood might be happy about it. The people who will have to pay more for wood in the future will probably think differently.

You simply pay more for wood even tho you could just import it to keep jobs in a dying industry. That is basically socialism.

Obama might've helped the year start out well, I'm not discrediting him, but Trump is responsible for continuing the economy's success.

True, products get more expensive if everything is made in the U.S., but that's why trade exists and is important for the economy. However, the reason why the U.S. lumber industry is dying is because we keep on depending on trade.

We need to produce some materials ourselves and put our citizens to work.

We can still import products from other countries around the world, but we cannot just neglect our own companies and manufacturers.

Mostly, yes. Obviously things before had an impact on it too.
And yes. The first some year's economy of a new president is always a heritage from the one before.
Bush highly profitted by Clinton's reforms.
Obama suffered from the Iraq war costs and other debt increases done during Bush.
This is basic knowledge. You don't see effects from changes and reforms until several years later.
Which is why it is so easy to deceive people.
The president after trump, whether rep or dem, will have hell of a lot of trouble to undo the damage trump causes which will only come into effect at a later stage.

Past presidents have an influence on the economy of their successors, I agree, but they aren't credited with whichever direction it takes.

Reagan's success with the economy isn't attributed to Jimmy Carter's work.

Same goes for FDR. His economic reforms weren't attributed to Herbert Hoover's construction plans.



Trump has only been in office for less than a year, so the change may not have been significant, but the economy's well-being is still the result of his current management.

Which is due to effects trump has nothing to do with.
As i said: Even if he did the best possible reforms imaginable in the history of mankind, you would not see any effect now.
The reforms you mentioned were 2017, that year is not even over. You do not see the effects of those until in several years.

You might not see a significant or overwhelming effect on the economy, but results will still change according to the president's actions.

If Trump made unbalanced trade deals that took advantage of American taxpayers' money, you will surely see a change in the economy.

Trump does not fight ISIS. The operation was started by Obama and Trump didn't even know which country his army was bombing.
The fight against ISIS trump proposed didn't happen. He basically leaves syria to its own devices while maintaining the obama mission helping the kurds.
There is no 'trump's strategy'. There are troops obama has sent and who keep on their mission and a president who doesn't exactly grasp what they do.
The one thing he did was a compltely nonsensial bomb throwing onto an unimportant target to take some credit.

Trump is doing things that some peope with particular interests want while screwing everybody else.
He is a big danger for the Nato, he is a big danger for climate change, he fuels conflicts like the north korea crisis and the iran dilemma so he can play buddy buddy with the saudis.
He was too stupid to do good trade deals and no foreign leaders takes him serious unless he is playing into their hand.

Yes, the operation was started by Obama, but Trump is giving the military the permission and equipment to finish the job.

Not only did he invest a lot of money to repair and upgrade the military's equipment, but he has given the generals full authority to wipe ISIS off the map.

I would absolutely say the same thing because i dont want to be killed, and trump made the likelyhood of a war bigger.
Under Obama's term, you didn't see Kim act out like this. The reason for that is because Obama was able to negotiate with the one nation that can keep him in check: China. Trump isn't able to do that.
He is able to act out on twitter and talk about nuclear war like it is nothing.
trump didn't draw a line, trump went to a guy who cannot let himself belittled and screamed IF YOU DO ANYTHING I WILL KILL YOU YOU LITTLE BITCH and passed it off as being a good leader.
I am pretty sure your allies Japan and South korea would be happier about Obama handling the crisis as competently as he did throughout his presidency than to have an idiot who stirs trouble for them.

That's the problem, it's a dead-end on both sides because Kim is nearing the completion of his nuclear weaponry.

It's not just Obama, for many decades, U.S. presidents have appeased North Korea, but the situation has changed to the point where NK is actually fairly close to being capable of launching a successful ICBM.

Trump has no choice but to put up a tough stance.

For many years, the U.S. has looked like a spineless country with no backbone because we are letting North Korea loose on the advancements of their nuclear arsenal.

Right now, the United States is still capable of restraining North Korea and putting them in their place.

If you wait long enough, eventually the U.S. will not be able to stop NK without having total destruction on both sides.



Look at what happened prior to WWII.

Because France and Britain appeased Nazi Germany, it led to a global disaster. It's in everybody's best interest to not repeat history's mistakes.

Which actions? You cannot base anything on your words.
The saudis like you if you hate on Iran. Not more. Not less.
When a world leader thanks and honors their counterpart, it is because there is a protocol that makes this a necessity. You always do that.
You can sit there with the vilest dictator and do that. Trump does it himself, just not as good because he is an idiot.
When someone is in the US trump always acts like he is his best friend, no matter who it is.

Like...Do you really think that a world leader who hates and disrespects another but meets him and has an interest in having good relations to the country would go out and say 'lulz what an idiot'?
Ofc he would not. Of course you tell some giant idiot that he is the best guy ever for giving you weapons with which you can kill your arch enemy.
I don't get how you can take that seriously?

Things like that are exactly as valuable as when people who work in stores for clothes tell you you look awesome in the stuff you didn't buy yet.

By that logic, there is no respect among any world leader.

Alliances are all superficial and fake.

And every world leader is being played by their counterpart of another country.

A well informed opinion.

Ok, but it's still a big assumption.

The syria ceasefire basically means 'we let russia do whatever the fuck they want'. Great negotiation.
It is not like Russia conceded anything there.

Here is something to read for you https://www.npr.org/sections/parall...o-know-about-the-trump-putin-syria-cease-fire

The point of the negotiation was to avoid conflict between Russia and the United States as well as to prevent more casualties from occurring.

Russia may not have conceded anything, but neither did the United States. Trump is still as adamant as Putin.

A ceasefire means that there is more time for more negotiations and proposals to be implemented. Instead of people shooting and killing one another, nations can figure out additional solutions or come to an agreement.


The consultant speaking in the article seems to be quick in interjecting his opinion about the matter.

Obviously the conflict in the Middle East cannot be solved overnight. It's a complicated mess that has been dug pretty deep over the past several years. It's important that we make progress, but nobody is realistically expecting the problem to be solved immediately.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 8, 2017, Original Post Date: Nov 8, 2017 ---

Surely Trump must have given some idea on how he'll tackle ISIS, unless he was full of shit as usual.

Military force won't do anything, not until they take out the top leaders who don't even care about Islam or its teachings. And it's arming ME nations and assisting in rebellion that got us into this mess in the first place.

US? We don't want peace in Middle East, we actually don't give a shit about Middle East. What we want is oil and making sure the leaders/regime won't increase the prices of oil or refuse to sell oil to us.

Well, we are neglecting homegrown terrorists if they're white and chalking it up to mentally ill lone wolf.


As far as I know, ISIS have used his anti-Muslim rhetoric as part of recruitment by trying to make it into West vs. Muslims sort of thing. And there's no need for quotation marks, it is anti-Muslim rhetoric. He claimed to have seen thousands of Muslims celebrate 9/11 in NY/NJ area, something that a "news" source biased towards Trump admitted was an exaggeration. And the videos that I've YouTubed and were shown by Trump supporters proved how full of shit he is, and how brainwashed Trump supporters and Islamophobes are. They showed videos of Muslims celebrating throughout the world, some clips were related to 9/11 while many others weren't even specific. Trump also wants to ban Muslims, but he wanted to ban Muslims from countries that did nothing to us, and he didn't bother to ban the Muslims from countries that did attack us, and strangely enough where he has his businesses in.

If you read what I said fully, you'd see I mention recruiting. It'll have an influence because disillusioned Muslims affected by American terrorism will see the West as Muslim-hating enemies and be more likely to commit acts of terrorism.


Sure it does, but what's more important is actually doing something about terrorism. Walls and bans don't do anything, and neither does lying to make Muslims look like enemies. Trump rarely tweets about horrific acts committed by white people or takes too long to condemn them, but when an unknown assailant or assailant even remotely brown does any horrific act, he's quick to tweet about it.

Well, there's absolutely no way around military force.

Otherwise ISIS and its terrorists will just continue to occupy territories in the Middle East and cause further disarray.

And we care about peace and stability in the Middle East because if affects how homegrown terrorists are influenced.

As for his tweets, I don't think that's going to significantly change the course of ISIS' actions. That's just a way of giving the American people something to talk about.

 

[Styx]

The reason some countries have lower wages is because their living costs are low and people could afford it.

Have you read up on Mexico labour laws? Even though they have the least amount of public holidays and work the most hours (which isn't much different than the US), they cannot be terminated without a cause , they can form unions and women can have maternity leave. Those things don't exist in some states.

That's not the case with Mexico, at all, especially in smaller cities. They are still struggling to afford what they do buy on their current wages*, which NAFTA has contributed to.

Yes, I have read up on it. I also have family and friends there who have to decide on whether to clothe themselves or pay for their water. A right isn't a right if it can't be exercised or is built to lend more power to those the rights are meant to 'harm'. As for the people and their unions, they have to register and get acceptance from the state to even form unions legally. And so those rights of theirs are highly dependent on official approval from the Board. Which, predictably, they largely argue as "inexistente", making legal strikes exceptionally rare but with a surge in unauthorized protests and work stoppages. I would hardly call that any form of labour law when the businesses and state can say "no" without any form of argument on their end (commonly referred to as 'paper unions'). So in actual practice, they do not have these rights.

And maternity leave? Okay, even if they do have it the quality in which they work is still disgustingly horrible. If they're working in a tiny, hot sweatshop making the equivalent of $4 (which isn't even enough to feed and cloth a family of three + pay their bills) with 1 day off a week but get maternity leave, it doesn't mean they aren't in terrible work conditions.

Look up the CommScope factory in Ciudad Juárez for just one example and then look at the conditions in which they work, the wage in which they are rewarded and the living conditions they are in. There was also an article in 2016 actually concerning a woman who used to work at that very factory. She spent half of her $7 paycheck buying wood to stuff into her makeshift heating furnace so her tiny cinderblock home would be warm enough to survive in.

*And according to UNAM, the minimum wage in Mexico has fallen over 70% in the last thirty years. And with the peso falling, things can and will only get worse. NAFTA is giving Mexican businesses, and U.S businesses, the opportunity to make this environment for their workers.

 

[Reebi]

That's not the case with Mexico, at all, especially in smaller cities. They are still struggling to afford what they do buy on their current wages*, which NAFTA has contributed to.

Yes, I have read up on it. I also have family and friends there who have to decide on whether to clothe themselves or pay for their water. A right isn't a right if it can't be exercised or is built to lend more power to those the rights are meant to 'harm'. As for the people and their unions, they have to register and get acceptance from the state to even form unions legally. And so those rights of theirs are highly dependent on official approval from the Board. Which, predictably, they largely argue as "inexistente", making legal strikes exceptionally rare but with a surge in unauthorized protests and work stoppages. I would hardly call that any form of labour law when the businesses and state can say "no" without any form of argument on their end (commonly referred to as 'paper unions'). So in actual practice, they do not have these rights.

And maternity leave? Okay, even if they do have it the quality in which they work is still disgustingly horrible. If they're working in a tiny, hot sweatshop making the equivalent of $4 (which isn't even enough to feed and cloth a family of three + pay their bills) with 1 day off a week but get maternity leave, it doesn't mean they aren't in terrible work conditions.

Look up the CommScope factory in Ciudad Juárez for just one example and then look at the conditions in which they work, the wage in which they are rewarded and the living conditions they are in. There was also an article in 2016 actually concerning a woman who used to work at that very factory. She spent half of her $7 paycheck buying wood to stuff into her makeshift heating furnace so her tiny cinderblock home would be warm enough to survive in.

*And according to UNAM, the minimum wage in Mexico has fallen over 70% in the last thirty years. And with the peso falling, things can and will only get worse. NAFTA is giving Mexican businesses, and U.S businesses, the opportunity to make this environment for their workers.

Because everyone in Mexico works in a factory . There is poverty and pay inequality in the US. It's not as present as Mexico but compared to most developed countries, the US and their laws on labour are lacking. Servers don't even really earn a min wage in the US and get paid in some states less than $3/hour! Not to mention serving in a hot kitchen while on the feet for long hour with no job security. That's not much different than Mexico


Importing goods isn't going to change without NAFTA because they always imported more than they exported. The real question is why? If they don't have the resources to produce their own wouldn't limiting trade make it worse? It's naïve to presume any country can be self-sufficient in this day and age and keep a stable economy.

Trump has alienated a lot of skilled workers and some have emigrated over here. I know someone who was offered a job in the US and turned it down because of Trump. The recruiter even said they were having trouble.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...dustry-recruit-americans-silicon-valley-trump

 

[Styx]

Okay, decided to make these posts before I drop dead on my keyboard. lol

Because everyone in Mexico works in a factory . There is poverty and pay inequality in the US. It's not as present as Mexico but compared to most developed countries, the US and their laws on labour are lacking. Servers don't even really earn a min wage in the US and get paid in some states less than $3/hour! Not to mention serving in a hot kitchen while on the feet for long hour with no job security. That's not much different than Mexico

Importing goods isn't going to change without NAFTA because they always imported more than they exported. The real question is why? If they don't have the resources to produce their own wouldn't limiting trade make it worse? It's naïve to presume any country can be self-sufficient in this day and age and keep a stable economy.

Trump has alienated a lot of skilled workers and some have emigrated over here. I know someone who was offered a job in the US and turned it down because of Trump. The recruiter even said they were having trouble.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...dustry-recruit-americans-silicon-valley-trump

Of course they don't all work in factories. Those are examples of common work place experiences and how low quality work life can be in Mexico. You can have terrible work environments in offices etc etc. And okay, yes, poverty and inequality exists in many countries, including the U.S, but what does this mean exactly? Mexico still has incredibly low quality environments for workers which NAFTA is contributing to.

Who is "they"? Mexico? Canada? United States? I'll assume the later for the sake of the argument but please correct me if I'm wrong (I am on night brain).

Concerning the "always importing more than exporting" part of your post, that's not entirely true, or rather it is a bit more complicated than it looks "on paper". A trade balance becomes negative when the value of our exports is lower than the value of our imports (and a few other details) and we have to "pay it from the future" (so to speak) to make up the difference. It is entirely possibly to make a surplus even if we import more than we export, but that's generally not the case here. And a trade deficit isn't inherently bad or good. It is here when context becomes everything, the factors behind the deficit, that determine what it is. If we're receiving enough or more than enough foreign net investment, for example, the trade deficit can be a "good thing", because investment can increase long term capital and growth.

I never said nor suggested we could be entirely self reliant and boom. I'm not arguing removing trade deals itself or the concept of them, nor does arguing that NAFTA is bad and needs to go suggest it. It just means the deal itself is bad for us.

So removing NAFTA or revising it wouldn't be about limiting/removing trade or have to be, it would be about making it beneficial to all parties but more importantly, better for us. It would improve the situation, provided we do more thinking on it than we did NAFTA. That's our history with trade deals though, they come and go and adjust as we need them to. So while we need trade to grow, we have to control it. If we asked of what we have out of Canada and Mexico, they would laugh in our faces because there is no great profit in our end of the deal.

And may I ask the relevance of someone's feelings to the discussion?

I understand the Republican Party better than many since I'm a former Republican myself. A key reason I was effectively banished from the party is because several political mentors of mine got sacked for refusing to go along with the suicide caucus that now control the national party. One got sacked for criticizing the Bush Administration's handling of Iraq. Another got sacked for voicing opposition to birtherism and nonexistent voter fraud after spending years attempting to expand the party's outreach to blacks. A third got sacked for pointing out how the party's rabid opposition to the ACA was counterproductive. Along with them, I refused to endorse the party's suicide tactics and was promptly dismissed. Anyone who refuses to toe the party is demonized as "insufficiently conservative" and promptly kicked out of the party. This is the main reason the national party has been sick for a long time now.

The first rule of politics is know your enemy. How experienced are you dealing with individuals from across the political spectrum? How experienced are you dealing with individuals who hail from different countries, where conventional US political standards do not apply to them? If you want to get better at dealing with the opposition, you need to understand them, regardless of what you personally think of them. And this isn't just a problem with Republicans. This is also a big problem with Democrats too.

What would also help you is if you had some basic knowledge of policy. You appear to understand foreign policy very well, but your knowledge on healthcare policy is a different story. Here's what I mean:

Here’s the essential fact about healthcare policy, which in turn fundamentally shapes healthcare politics: Obamacare looks the way it does because it has to.

If you want to cover people with preexisting conditions, you must have community ratings. If you want to have community rating without a death spiral — that is, if you want to keep an acceptable risk pool — you have to have an individual mandate. If you want to have an individual mandate, you have to have subsidies for lower-income Americans. And that’s Obamacare: a three-legged stool, with all three legs essential. Get rid of one stool and the entire thing will come crashing down. There's no getting around this essential trait.

First of all, I'm sorry you had to experience that. Unfortunately there is no longer room for debate or compromise between any party, and that's a loss for this country. It is also why I don't identify with any of them. They're both cesspools.

Secondly, may I ask what your occupation is? You can ignore that question if you want too. I just have a natural inclination to seek answers for my curiosities.

Lastly, to the rest of the post;

how do we know there isn't a way to get around it though? And if there truly isn't a solution with the mandate option etc, why do we have to accept this plan at all? The problem is still here, some are benefiting while millions are still uninsured/suffering and are now also being slapped by the government. What we are asking to ignore is a different kind of divide of who is and isn't suffering and it isn't right.

Perhaps I don't understand healthcare policy as much as I'd like to and I'd be willing to learn more, but I don't see how if this is their only "solution" right now why we have to pretend that it is good when it is only putting makeup on a pig.

Perhaps you could substitute the individual mandate by auto-enrolling the uninsured. The only two big questions then about auto enrollment are (1) what would it buy and (2) how would it work? In theory, these issues could be resolved, but not by Republicans for the simple fact the party still refuses to accept that (nigh) universal healthcare is here to stay.

Can you explain this a bit of your post further? I'd appreciate it, if you could.

And if the Democrats aren't even looking at this as an issue to be resolved, who else does it fall on then but the Republicans? There is a massive issue with Obamacare that needs to be addressed (though I don't have trust in most Republicans to earnestly seek to fix it).

 

[M3J]

You can't defeat something as large and powerful as ISIS without first weakening them, though I find it strange you would call eliminating their ground and manpower a "horrible way to defeat them" when it is clearly started to work well.

Since Trump has become president, U.S efforts against them have tripled and they have been losing ground and manpower like crazy. That's not even considering how worldwide opposition against them has increased since Trump took office. There's simply more desire from Trump to whole heartedly end terrorism than there was with Obama, who wished to intervene as little as possible (which imo, it is understandable actually).

Just because you say it plays a "huge part" doesn't mean that it actually does. Where do you get this argument from? The media? I'm sure Muslims are displeased by our presence in their countries, that's not to be argued, what is to be argued is whether or not "U.S hatred towards" them is used as a recruitment tool. And it isn't. That's why they attack countries that throw down the welcoming mat for them. Because they don't care if they are hated and never will.

ISIS' victims are just about everyone, yes including moderate Muslims, especially those not within their branch of Islam. It isn't that they're twisting the Qu'ran and although I would like to discuss the material in question, that's a discussion for a different time time and a different thread, so I won't. However, those willing to join ISIS are joining them because they believe in an extreme effort (the absolute word of the Qu'ran, as it was written) or are just mentally weak or physically manipulated into also believing in that strict word of the Qu'ran. It isn't that they believe their actions are vindicated by the supposed "Isamphobia" of the United States (or elsewhere), it is that they feel their seething hatred is vindicated by their belief in the Qur'an and their God's instructions.

You can't say ISIS doesn't "care about Islam" just because you don't think they are religious or Muslim. That is just a crazy argument to make. It is like saying Westboro Baptist Church aren't Christians because they practice the OT in a Calvinist method.

It is really that they [Islamic terrorists] feel so religious that they practice the Qu'ran's doctrinal teachings and verses word for word, as they were followed during waring periods early in Islam's history. They are not interested in modern interpretations of their religion or the potential for their religion to evolve to modern standards, only what it says and the simplicity in which it was said. No extremist to any religion cares about that.

So I'll ask you to provide the proof you have that ISIS recruits largely based on Islamphobia, since you just completely ignored evidence provided by ISIS themselves and research data that directly contradicts your claims.

Weakening them won't defeat them unless you take away their ability to acquire soldiers, which is where most of their power comes from. It is not strange as ISIS can be defeated only by preventing them from spreading their sick ideals and viewpoints to others and brainwashing people. We know what the ISIS are capable of, and if they're pushed far enough, they just might say "fuck it" and increase the amount of soldiers to sacrifice to cause as much damage as possible.

Pretty sure worldwide opposition has been there since Obama, but I'd love to know your sources. My experience with at least 95% of Trump supporters has been that they used fake news such as Fox, Breitbart, and InfoWars to get information, where when it was fact checked, proved to be full of biased shit. What if you're only saying Trump is cracking down harder because he's openly anti-Muslim, whereas Obama was against ISIS but not treating all Muslims like enemies?

It actually is used as a recruitment tool, and to justify going after US. And not all Muslims are displeased, just the ones who suffer from us committing acts of terrorism or willingness to kill even innocent Muslims, like one soldier who went on a shooting spree and killed many innocent Muslims. That sort of shit is what ISIS use to recruit.

There are numerous Muslims who agree that they are twisting the Qu'ran. I think a Twitter account even posted a video of how many inmates converted to Islam as it's a religion of peace. Those who join ISIS commit violent acts because the recruiters and others twist the Qu'ran and make it look as if violence is the answer, or that certain things require violence. Don't know why you say "supposed Islamophobia," when there actually is Islamophobia. One of the reasons Trump got the votes he did was because he promised a harder stance against innocent Muslims and played to people's hatred of Muslims, even though he lost the popular vote.

I can say ISIS doesn't care about Islam when many other Muslims who actually know about Islam say that they twist the religion around, don't practice many customs of Islam, or whatnot. Hell, the ISIS leaders could even be using Islam as a scapegoat religion to turn others against Muslims and make it easier for more Muslims to be recruited. And it's many other Christians who say Westboro Baptist Church aren't Christians, most of them same ones who insist ISIS are Muslims or say all Muslims are violent based on actions of a few. Pretty sure if you're religious though, the very last thing you'd do is destroy holy places and artifacts of your religion.

Yeah, soldiers do. The leaders though, I'm not sure of.

No, I'm using evidence provided by ISIS and various other accounts that Trump's lies and bullshit are used as part of recruiting tools. Though, I'm not sure if I said the West's hatred and fear of Muslims is the biggest tool used. I"m sure I didn't.

And no, I don't say it because "far-right media" says it. I say it because anyone with eyes can see it in ISIS' own propaganda websites and in successful terrorist attacks (perps never cry they did it because Muslims are hated). They loath western civilization because it contradicts the teachings within the Qu'ran (such as modern human rights for women), which they vehemently believe in as scared and just.



What is your argument exactly, or is your entire counter saying that because Trump buys products from businesses still outside of the U.S, it somehow means NAFTA is a good trade deal? Or that we shouldn't bring back as many businesses as we can? Or that we aren't in a massive negative trade balance or that despite data we actually are exporting far more than we import or that NAFTA didn't cost us millions in jobs or cause crippling wage suppression?

I hope your argument is more than an attempted poke at Trump and his supporters and that you actually have something to say on the matter.

Terrorists not saying it doesn't mean it's not true.

I'm calling Trump supporters hypocrites and Trump a lying piece of crap, basically. And reread that paragraph again. Or let me reiterate: he gets his products made in China or out of US, anyway. If Trump really cared about bringing jobs back to US, he'd be working to get his businesses back here so he can hire Americans. If I recall, he's also been trying to take credit for bringing some American businesses back into US, but most of those same businesses said that was bullshit, and it was planned months before Trump. I think one of them was Ford? Or at least, a car company.

And wage suppression is more due to businesses and politicians than NAFTA. There are tons of businesses who refuse to increase minimum wage, even when they pay their CEOs tons of money. As far as I know, right wingers love opposing increasing minimum wage and are quite condescending and shitty to people like fast food workers.

I still don't understand how you misunderstood me saying Trump still gets his shit made in China instead of US, like Bernie did during the campaign.

I actually do have plenty to say. Just have to know how to read and comprehend without twisting words around. But then again, the irony of that is Trump supporters and right wingers always try to attack or insult liberals and left wings, even when they have nothing to do with something. I could go on FB, see a horrible event happen, and see conservatives blame liberals for something that none of them had a hand in, just because "if stinking liberals weren't against everyone havin guns, more people would have had guns and stopped a terrorist they couldn't see!" or "stupid snowflake left wingers want to take in more Muslims and destroy this country," even when data and stats say we have more white Americans committing acts of terrorism or violence in one month than Muslims in an entire year. Or hell, bumper stickers that take pokes at liberals like calling liberalism a disease or mental illness. Or how you bring up liberals a lot.

Giving free handouts will only lead to more people abusing the system.

Calling it "free handout" says a lot about a person, especially if they're okay with the wealthy getting handouts that they don't need. I don't understand why it's bad for the poor to get "free handouts," while it's acceptable for the wealthy to do whatever they can to get even wealthier.

I am in full support of helping the unfortunate, but not if they're going to take advantage of the system, which happens more often than not.

What about the wealthy people who do take advantage of the system and loopholes and are willing to hurt those less fortunate and/or the economy? Part of what hurt our economy was the bankers/those in finance embezzling and cheating people. I see less republicans/right wingers talk about that than they do about how welfare is bad or people shouldn't get free handouts.

Well, there's absolutely no way around military force.

Otherwise ISIS and its terrorists will just continue to occupy territories in the Middle East and cause further disarray.

And we care about peace and stability in the Middle East because if affects how homegrown terrorists are influenced.

As for his tweets, I don't think that's going to significantly change the course of ISIS' actions. That's just a way of giving the American people something to talk about.

Problem is relying mainly on military force, which ends up hurting the Muslims. I've read stories about how soldiers gunned down innocent Muslims and how some either raped or tried to rape the women.

Killing the ISIS soldiers isn't enough though, all we're doing is helpin them breed replacements.

No, we care about oil in the Middle East. This whole issue with the region traces back to at least over three decades ago, when we helped the Shah of Iran seek treatment here simply because he was our ally and ensured we can get what we need without the expense rising. Then we trained and armed the rebels because the regime they were opposing weren't acting in our favor or benefit. We played a huge part in creating terrorists. And more homegrown terrorists and violence have been from white Americans, and yet Trump and the right won't address that. If we cared about peace and stability in general, we'd be more attentive to gun control, not try to give everyone guns or debate against it, and we wouldn't be singling out Muslims or people of color.

Er, what? Point is that it's obvious Trump is trying to make things worse by getting more people to hate Muslims and divide the country, all for support and votes. Because of his bullshit, more Muslims face prejudice and violence, and the country as a whole is divided even more, especially when he says shit like "fire the NFL players who kneel!" but tries to stay quiet or not blame the guilty side when he "condemned" the violence by white supremacists.

If BLM protested peacefully, I guarantee you Trump will condemn them and cry about them. If white supremacists and Nazis rioted and killed multiple people and destroyed businesses, I'm 90% sure Trump will stay quiet for as long as possible and then finally tweet and make it look as if both sides are guilty, not just the bigots.

If you don't understand the issues with his tweets and the impact they have, then you're either ignorant or privileged.

First of all, I'm sorry you had to experience that. Unfortunately there is no longer room for debate or compromise between any party, and that's a loss for this country. It is also why I don't identify with any of them. They're both cesspools.

While democrats are bad, republicans are way worse. They'll refuse to compromise with anything not even remotely right or conservative, and then they'll blame someone else. Trump is trying to let ACA fail so he can say ACA was flawed, and republicans are doing nothing about it. There are literally right wingers who will take any potshot at the other side, whether or not they have anything to do with whatever. I have yet to see bumper stickers criticizing conservatives or the right, even though they're probably the most ignorant, idiotic, and worst group.

And if the Democrats aren't even looking at this as an issue to be resolved, who else does it fall on then but the Republicans? There is a massive issue with Obamacare that needs to be addressed (though I don't have trust in most Republicans to earnestly seek to fix it).

What is the issue? What do you think the issue is? The issue for republicans is that the wealthy gets taxed, and by repealing ACA and letting people lose healthcare, the wealthy get to keep more money. A lot of republican citizens have even argued for ACA, said that it saved their lives, and yet republicans are trying to replace it with a shitty healthcare. the first or second time, they canceled the repeal because they realized they'd be affected by ACA being repealed.

Is ACA perfect? No. Is it great? Depends on your point of view, but many Americans are thankful for ACA because it allowed them to finally be able to get healthcare. Is ACA a step in the right direction? Definitely yes. Are the republican politicians trying to fix that or do what's good for the people? Hell no, they're doing what's best for them and the wealthy.

 

[Reebi]

Not really. The problem isn't with money. You can give schools expensive and top-notch materials, but education will still fail if teachers are wasting time on basic classroom programs and not concentrating on learning/teaching the materials to their students.

In reality, it all depends on how much teachers prepare and how students are being taught. Spending million of dollars on packets and worksheets won't do any good. It will only cause more cheating instead of learning.

The U.S. education system is inefficient because there are too many regulations on how schools should operate, which takes time away from improving the curriculum.


And I don't see why the federal government needs to tell states how to assess schools' academic performances. Education is drastically different in every state. That needs to be done on an individual level.

When there is too much unnecessary control, the system becomes dysfunctional.




Because they are not investing a lot of money on drug addicts who smoke weed all day.

If applicants want to obtain federal unemployment benefits, they have the show that they are competent enough to work once being given an opportunity. Giving free handouts will only lead to more people abusing the system.

I am in full support of helping the unfortunate, but not if they're going to take advantage of the system, which happens more often than not.




Obama might've helped the year start out well, I'm not discrediting him, but Trump is responsible for continuing the economy's success.

True, products get more expensive if everything is made in the U.S., but that's why trade exists and is important for the economy. However, the reason why the U.S. lumber industry is dying is because we keep on depending on trade.

We need to produce some materials ourselves and put our citizens to work.

We can still import products from other countries around the world, but we cannot just neglect our own companies and manufacturers.




Past presidents have an influence on the economy of their successors, I agree, but they aren't credited with whichever direction it takes.

Reagan's success with the economy isn't attributed to Jimmy Carter's work.

Same goes for FDR. His economic reforms weren't attributed to Herbert Hoover's construction plans.



Trump has only been in office for less than a year, so the change may not have been significant, but the economy's well-being is still the result of his current management.




You might not see a significant or overwhelming effect on the economy, but results will still change according to the president's actions.

If Trump made unbalanced trade deals that took advantage of American taxpayers' money, you will surely see a change in the economy.




Yes, the operation was started by Obama, but Trump is giving the military the permission and equipment to finish the job.

Not only did he invest a lot of money to repair and upgrade the military's equipment, but he has given the generals full authority to wipe ISIS off the map.




That's the problem, it's a dead-end on both sides because Kim is nearing the completion of his nuclear weaponry.

It's not just Obama, for many decades, U.S. presidents have appeased North Korea, but the situation has changed to the point where NK is actually fairly close to being capable of launching a successful ICBM.

Trump has no choice but to put up a tough stance.

For many years, the U.S. has looked like a spineless country with no backbone because we are letting North Korea loose on the advancements of their nuclear arsenal.

Right now, the United States is still capable of restraining North Korea and putting them in their place.

If you wait long enough, eventually the U.S. will not be able to stop NK without having total destruction on both sides.



Look at what happened prior to WWII.

Because France and Britain appeased Nazi Germany, it led to a global disaster. It's in everybody's best interest to not repeat history's mistakes.




By that logic, there is no respect among any world leader.

Alliances are all superficial and fake.

And every world leader is being played by their counterpart of another country.




Ok, but it's still a big assumption.




The point of the negotiation was to avoid conflict between Russia and the United States as well as to prevent more casualties from occurring.

Russia may not have conceded anything, but neither did the United States. Trump is still as adamant as Putin.

A ceasefire means that there is more time for more negotiations and proposals to be implemented. Instead of people shooting and killing one another, nations can figure out additional solutions or come to an agreement.


The consultant speaking in the article seems to be quick in interjecting his opinion about the matter.

Obviously the conflict in the Middle East cannot be solved overnight. It's a complicated mess that has been dug pretty deep over the past several years. It's important that we make progress, but nobody is realistically expecting the problem to be solved immediately.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 8, 2017, Original Post Date: Nov 8, 2017 ---

Well, there's absolutely no way around military force.

Otherwise ISIS and its terrorists will just continue to occupy territories in the Middle East and cause further disarray.

And we care about peace and stability in the Middle East because if affects how homegrown terrorists are influenced.

As for his tweets, I don't think that's going to significantly change the course of ISIS' actions. That's just a way of giving the American people something to talk about.

What would you call a "handout"? Someone who can't work and have to take government money so they have feed themselves, their families and put a roof over their head? I know someone who is sick and uses medical marijuana because other medications have terrible side effects. Luckily in Canada this person is protected but had this person been in the US with these laws wouldn't that drive this person to homelessness?

People who are unemployed have a greater risk with depression and drug abuse. Instead of punishing them for their misfortune, why not put that money into better job training and support? People with a support network and the right resources have a better chance and less likely "abuse the system". Say that person was a smoker and used government money on cigarettes or booze? Is the government going to do tests for those? Or people who are just bad with money? This opens the door to punishing people who made bad choices, which everyone in their life has made at least one bad choice. Why punish people for being human?

 

[M3J]

It's one thing if handful of republicans thought like this, but the fact that majority of them think impoverished people want handouts and are drug addicts and some other shit is a problem and makes them dangerous to progress and improvement. Although there are some who would rather live on welfare than bother to find a job, there are many more who'd rather find a job, be able to pay their bills, and make a difference. Should there be some vetting? Yes, but not demonizing people who need welfare.

Kinda odd that "pro-life" people are against welfare for families with little kids, though.

I have a theory that employers decades ago started the whole "hard work is everything" mantra because they didn't want employees demanding better wage or promotion, they wanted to make the employees stay quiet and work hard in hopes of promotion or increased pay.

 

[kkck]

As far as trump on the economy goes... Trump did pass some deregulation for banks but why would that be a good thing? The financial crisis was the result of wall street and banks doing whatever the hell they wanted, they were grotesquely irresponsible over a long time. The most trump has done in this regard get rid of what insufficient regulations obama could pass and enable the same people to create a situation similar to what led to the recession a few years back.

And then on wall street in general... That's not really trump's doing. Wall street was already doing fine before trump. It's not like it is obama's doing either, the simple reality is that presidents don't have that kind of effect on the economy. The only reason obama even gets a pass on the economy is because he got to pass the bailouts which did in fact help recovery but beyond that his effect would be about as limited as any other presidents (which is very limited). Trump claims the economy is doing well because of wall street but.... that is the same dumbass mistake a number of presidents have been doing over the past decades. Wall street is not the entire economy, Wall street accounts for about 30% of the entire economy or so. There is a bit of nuance to that number so depending on how you measure it it can go lower or higher though in whichever scenario it doesn't change my overall point. That is a big chunk of the economy however what about the rest of it? Trump hasn't really done much of anything to help the rest of the economy which is where the bulk of his supporters would be to begin with.

At least going by the information online the US folk that got trump elected would be essentially formerly middle class people who have lost their jobs to either automatization or china. What has trump done for them? Jobs that are lost to automatization can't be recovered, those jobs simply don't exist anywhere and the notion that they will return is beyond absurd. As for jobs that went to china... Those won't return either. Companies that return to the US from china usually do so because automation made it so that labor was less of a factor in their costs while things like distribution became more relevant. So you have hundreds or thousands of jobs leaving but when they return the number is but a fraction of what it was and many of those will require higher level of education. Which takes us back to what exactly trump has done for any of the people that has gone through this.. Has trump even tried to offer them more education opportunities to give them the chance to be more competitive in the current workforce? Has trump given them any sort of relieve on health care so that they at least don't get further burdened by this? IIRC he did the exact opposite when he stopped some obamacare payments and sent the markets into turmoil (which he then was shameless enough to blame the democrats for even though he was literally the one who cut the payments specifically to hurt the markets). Heck, trump even got behind the republican "alternatives" to obamacare which were literally the opposite of the stuff he promised during the campaign (which was very much akin to universal health care systems in other countries). It's like if healthcare is a complicated issue or something.

So far the only thing in trump's "plan" that would actually help the middle class is the infrastructure bill he has talked about. But how would that play out for trump? Trump is already going for massive tax cuts which will result in the deficit increasing substantially, which in theory republicans oppose. Granted they do believe they will be able to make up for the lost income with increased productivity and whatnot except that... At least to the best of my knowledged such a thing has never happened in the history of humanity. As in, lower taxes leading to an increase in government revenue due to an increase in productivity. In the bush era there were the bush tax cuts. Which did not improve the economy nor generate jobs and did contribute to the deficit. Then you have their extension during the obama years which, shockingly, did not improve the economy nor generated jobs and increased the deficit. Even during the reagan years tax cuts increased the deficit to the point where after reagan cut taxes he went on to increase them 11 times... So you have the trump tax cuts which will absolutely increase the deficit and on top of that an infrastructure bill which will absolutely increase the deficit. The way I see it, republicans that care about fiscal policy shouldn't be able to support any of these, let alone both at the same time. At best it should be one or the other....

 

[Styx]

Reebi:

Spoiler

What would you call a "handout"? Someone who can't work and have to take government money so they have feed themselves, their families and put a roof over their head? I know someone who is sick and uses medical marijuana because other medications have terrible side effects. Luckily in Canada this person is protected but had this person been in the US with these laws wouldn't that drive this person to homelessness?

People who are unemployed have a greater risk with depression and drug abuse. Instead of punishing them for their misfortune, why not put that money into better job training and support? People with a support network and the right resources have a better chance and less likely "abuse the system". Say that person was a smoker and used government money on cigarettes or booze? Is the government going to do tests for those? Or people who are just bad with money? This opens the door to punishing people who made bad choices, which everyone in their life has made at least one bad choice. Why punish people for being human?

I can't answer for him, but what I'd call a handout is giving it to someone who can work but decides not to. For example, the "famous" bum in California who is leeching off the government to live a life of "freedom" while we pay for it. The fewer people like that we have on the system, the more we can give it to people who truly need it. Like those who cannot find a job and are always looking, or those who are disabled or those who work two jobs but can't feed their family and pay all the bills. I know what a life like that can be like. This system is vital, but how we operate it determines how vital it is. We could save a lot of money alone just improving the "Vetting" process of these governmental services. However, we won't do such a thing. Not when people aren't ready to sit down and discuss it.

(MS) Republicans' answers to remove it entirely because of a few who abuse it is the same idiocy they oppose about gun control. They don't see it though because it wouldn't fit with their desires. It isn't that they don't believe there really are abusers, it is that they think most people are abusers. However, Democrats ignoring this abuse isn't helping at all either and their refusal to discuss relieving it leads to Republicans' stance getting harsher on it.

It isn't enough to Republicans that the process has become so strict that a family of six is rejected for wealthfare because technically you can just about feed your kids and keep the bills going with $1000 a month. The purpose of the aid shouldn't be about "keeping them where they are", it should be about relieving the problem enough to help them out of their spot so they don't have to rely on assistance the rest of their lives.

I don't think it is fair at all though that Name's post could be taken as not wanting the poor to be helped or something similar. I think it is more than reasonable to ask that, should you be given aid, you are required to try and find a job and improve your life on your own while we pay for you to do so. It is unreasonable to ask the American public to pay for a family because they are poor and not require them to try and do something about it themselves IF they can (obviously not disabled people etc).

However, that does lead to the question of "what if they are able to work, educated enough to, but can't find work? Do we remove their assistance?" I think the answer to that would easily be no if we didn't have to worry about people abusing the system so much.

M3J:

Spoiler

Weakening them won't defeat them unless you take away their ability to acquire soldiers, which is where most of their power comes from. It is not strange as ISIS can be defeated only by preventing them from spreading their sick ideals and viewpoints to others and brainwashing people. We know what the ISIS are capable of, and if they're pushed far enough, they just might say "fuck it" and increase the amount of soldiers to sacrifice to cause as much damage as possible.

Pretty sure worldwide opposition has been there since Obama, but I'd love to know your sources. My experience with at least 95% of Trump supporters has been that they used fake news such as Fox, Breitbart, and InfoWars to get information, where when it was fact checked, proved to be full of biased shit.

It is entirely possible to weaken them even without touching upon their requirement methods, which we actually are doing, it is just harder as stopping them entirely is nearly impossible. The struggle is being able to isolate their methods when they are online or in countries we have barely any ability to impact. They can go from mosque to mosque, have their imams preach it, drop fliers, etc.

I'd know better than to ever give you a link that is even slightly against your narrative, don't worry. If it is conservative, it won't be accepted. That is very clear in this thread.

And you keep saying that ISIS recruits based off of "bigotry" by the U.S without providing any evidence whatsoever, and you expect me to just believe you? That's not how [proper] debating works. If you are going to continue to say ISIS does this and that despite evidence being presented to you that they do not, at least give me what you think validates your claims and this does not include words or public opinion but actual "evidence".

The evidence that the world is uniting better against terrorism now than it did with Obama is in the countries' actions itself (Russia, Syria, Saudi Arabia etc), and the fact that Trump and Saudi's king announced after a meeting the Terrorism Financing Targeting Center, which is co-chaired by the United States and Saudi Arabia. Also, Trump has always called for a coalition against terrorism, which Obama did very little of it not at all. And he just recently asked for it again in Saudi Arabia. He's also said since day one that more Islamic countries need to pick up their game, which they have since then done.

I also never said there wasn't opposition support from allies or other countries under Obama, just that Obama wasn't pushing it as far as Trump is and that it has increased dramatically since then (announcement of Islamic coalition, TFTC etc).

That's not even considering how worldwide opposition against them has increased since Trump took office.

It actually is used as a recruitment tool, and to justify going after US. And not all Muslims are displeased, just the ones who suffer from us committing acts of terrorism or willingness to kill even innocent Muslims, like one soldier who went on a shooting spree and killed many innocent Muslims. That sort of shit is what ISIS use to recruit.

Prove it. Let's see what you come up with, as I'd love to see what convinces you so thoroughly that you ignore ISISI itself and research done by people far more knowledgeable in this subject than you or I. Go on.

What if you're only saying Trump is cracking down harder because he's openly anti-Muslim, whereas Obama was against ISIS but not treating all Muslims like enemies?

Really? I'm sure that's what you'd love to believe, but no, that's not it at all and it is quite annoying that you would pass off my remarks or a stricter push against terrorism as "anti-Muslim". Though this tactic of yours hardly comes as a surprise. The reason between it is that while Obama understandably wished to help as much as he could by intervening as less as possible, it didn't work. ISIS gained more ground every day.

Trump is a man against world policing in general, but given that prior methods against terrorism was not working and it was beginning to slip into our country and many others, something different had to be done. That means a harsher reply to Islamic terrorism. You can stretch the reality of it to meet your desires of Trump being anti-Muslim all you want though.

There are numerous Muslims who agree that they are twisting the Qu'ran. I think a Twitter account even posted a video of how many inmates converted to Islam as it's a religion of peace. Those who join ISIS commit violent acts because the recruiters and others twist the Qu'ran and make it look as if violence is the answer, or that certain things require violence. Don't know why you say "supposed Islamophobia," when there actually is Islamophobia. One of the reasons Trump got the votes he did was because he promised a harder stance against innocent Muslims and played to people's hatred of Muslims, even though he lost the popular vote.

I can say ISIS doesn't care about Islam when many other Muslims who actually know about Islam say that they twist the religion around, don't practice many customs of Islam, or whatnot. Hell, the ISIS leaders could even be using Islam as a scapegoat religion to turn others against Muslims and make it easier for more Muslims to be recruited. And it's many other Christians who say Westboro Baptist Church aren't Christians, most of them same ones who insist ISIS are Muslims or say all Muslims are violent based on actions of a few. Pretty sure if you're religious though, the very last thing you'd do is destroy holy places and artifacts of your religion.

Yeah, soldiers do. The leaders though, I'm not sure of.

Are you kidding me? It doesn't matter at all what these people say or feel. They don't control their religion. They aren't their God and they certainly didn't write their books. They don't get to decide who can be identified as Muslims. This is a ridiculous argument you are trying to make here. Just because other Muslims say "Oh but they're twisting the religion!" does not make it fact nor give them the right to determine who is religious. So I don't care if a Twitter account tweeted out that Islamic terrorists aren't Islamic because prisoners converted. It isn't even evidence of anything.

Extremists are extremists because they practice their doctrine as it was written. And I'm aware other Christians would claim they aren't Christians, so they can make their comments all they want, doesn't make it true. The fact is, those people are Christian, just as Islamic terrorists are in fact Muslims. The difference that lies between them is if they take their religion's text as it was written—in an extreme fashion. You, nor any other Muslim, can dictate whether they are or not Muslim just because you want them not to be or because they [Muslims] are moderate. This would be like saying any Muslim or Christian back during the Crusades or the sacking of al-Madīnah weren't Christian or Muslim because they practice their religion violently as it was prescribed to them, from burning people to stoning people to enslaving them.

You would be surprised what the Qu'ran would permit them to do when facing what they perceive is a threat, and so they use it as a justification for what they do. Damaging a mosque is not evidence of them not being religious or Muslim. Christians, Jews and Muslims have all desecrated their holy temples throughout their history various times, often against each other, because their texts or gods would forgive them for it or allowed it.

No, I'm using evidence provided by ISIS and various other accounts that Trump's lies and bullshit are used as part of recruiting tools. Though, I'm not sure if I said the West's hatred and fear of Muslims is the biggest tool used. I"m sure I didn't.

Terrorists not saying it doesn't mean it's not true.

No, you aren't using any evidence at all. I don't understand what you don't get about it. If you aren't giving me research or data, or ISIS books at the very least, you aren't providing any evidence. Until you do you are only making unverifiable claims, claims that are as ridiculous as the notion that Islamic terrorists aren't Muslims because other Muslims feel like they aren't, that you are now trying to argue "could" be true.

And are you really trying to use the "well, we can't not prove it" argument right now?

I'm calling Trump supporters hypocrites and Trump a lying piece of crap, basically. And reread that paragraph again. Or let me reiterate: he gets his products made in China or out of US, anyway. If Trump really cared about bringing jobs back to US, he'd be working to get his businesses back here so he can hire Americans. If I recall, he's also been trying to take credit for bringing some American businesses back into US, but most of those same businesses said that was bullshit, and it was planned months before Trump. I think one of them was Ford? Or at least, a car company.

And wage suppression is more due to businesses and politicians than NAFTA. There are tons of businesses who refuse to increase minimum wage, even when they pay their CEOs tons of money. As far as I know, right wingers love opposing increasing minimum wage and are quite condescending and shitty to people like fast food workers.

I still don't understand how you misunderstood me saying Trump still gets his shit made in China instead of US, like Bernie did during the campaign.

Why do you think they refuse to raise minimum wage? They wouldn't be able to make their profits and just "raising the minimum" wage isn't going to solve anything. You can raise it by $10 and if the economy isn't healthy, it will be as if it was never raised. Prices for food and goods and services will just go up in price to match that raise. That's why despite Mexico raising wages almost annually isn't solving their problems.

Hmm, more anti-Republican sentiments and generalizations. Alright, whatever, to the point: I didn't misunderstand you nor twist your words. I gave those questions to point out how your ridiculous rambling hatred of Trump and his supporters held no relevance to the discussion at hand. Regardless of whether or not Trump has businesses outside the U.S or buys from them or whatever else you were trying to say is not logical evidence of any sort to present against the argument that NAFTA isn't working.

Okay, you claim NAFTA isn't the problem. Please provide your evidence.

I actually do have plenty to say. Just have to know how to read and comprehend without twisting words around. But then again, the irony of that is Trump supporters and right wingers always try to attack or insult liberals and left wings, even when they have nothing to do with something. I could go on FB, see a horrible event happen, and see conservatives blame liberals for something that none of them had a hand in, just because "if stinking liberals weren't against everyone havin guns, more people would have had guns and stopped a terrorist they couldn't see!" or "stupid snowflake left wingers want to take in more Muslims and destroy this country," even when data and stats say we have more white Americans committing acts of terrorism or violence in one month than Muslims in an entire year. Or hell, bumper stickers that take pokes at liberals like calling liberalism a disease or mental illness. Or how you bring up liberals a lot.

Why do you keep bringing this kind of thing up? It doesn't matter what you find about Republicans/Trumpers. This isn't evidence. Of anything. And it isn't contributing at all to the discussion. You are talking a lot, but saying nothing at all.

Are those white Americans committing their acts of violence for political, religious or ideological reasons? If not, it isn't terrorism. It is just murder. The media has spun the term* way out of control, transforming it so rapidly to the point that just about any kind of murder or violence can be defined as "terrorism". The shooter at Texas most likely was a terrorist though, because he wrote on his FB that he hated white conservatives and Christians a lot.

*Look up the word's etymology. The word arose in the 1700s to define as "the systematic use of terror as a policy". The modern term terrorism finds its origins in Russian radicals from the 1800s, who referred to themselves as such because they employed the tactics of fear and violence and death to control and change whatever it was they were aiming for (religious, political or ideological). Not every act of violence or murder is an act of terrorism.

While democrats are bad, republicans are way worse. They'll refuse to compromise with anything not even remotely right or conservative, and then they'll blame someone else. Trump is trying to let ACA fail so he can say ACA was flawed, and republicans are doing nothing about it. There are literally right wingers who will take any potshot at the other side, whether or not they have anything to do with whatever. I have yet to see bumper stickers criticizing conservatives or the right, even though they're probably the most ignorant, idiotic, and worst group.

What is the issue? What do you think the issue is? The issue for republicans is that the wealthy gets taxed, and by repealing ACA and letting people lose healthcare, the wealthy get to keep more money. A lot of republican citizens have even argued for ACA, said that it saved their lives, and yet republicans are trying to replace it with a shitty healthcare. the first or second time, they canceled the repeal because they realized they'd be affected by ACA being repealed.

Is ACA perfect? No. Is it great? Depends on your point of view, but many Americans are thankful for ACA because it allowed them to finally be able to get healthcare. Is ACA a step in the right direction? Definitely yes. Are the republican politicians trying to fix that or do what's good for the people? Hell no, they're doing what's best for them and the wealthy.

I find it quite saddening that you think one or the other is any better. It is evidence of your bias. Both are equally horrendous political groups. While you complain that Republicans will not take any compromise, the Democrats do the same. While you complain that they just want to do what is best for themselves, the Democrats do the same thing. They are both oppressive, non-compromising, selfish, rich political groups hell bent on the domination of the country through their uncompromising political values. You just don't see it because you want an enemy out of the Republicans and fool yourself into thinking that somehow the left is any better when they just were revealed to have rigged the election against their own voters.

I don't care what the issue is for the wealthy politicians. The issues I care about is what ACA is doing to the middle class and those in poverty. If the "solution" only changes around who is and isn't covered at a crippling cost instead, it isn't a solution at all. It is asinine to pass it off with "its good enough". The American people don't want "its good enough". Trump voters don't want "its good enough". Republicans don't want "its good enough". Democrats shouldn't want "good enough" either.

I'll ask again though: please bring me your evidence that ISIS uses "Islamphobia" as a tool to recruit. Please also bring me evidence that NAFTA is not the problem. I have now asked for this evidence five or six times. Please provide it.

 

[M3J]

hmm

 

[Reebi]

It's one thing if handful of republicans thought like this, but the fact that majority of them think impoverished people want handouts and are drug addicts and some other shit is a problem and makes them dangerous to progress and improvement. Although there are some who would rather live on welfare than bother to find a job, there are many more who'd rather find a job, be able to pay their bills, and make a difference. Should there be some vetting? Yes, but not demonizing people who need welfare.

Kinda odd that "pro-life" people are against welfare for families with little kids, though.

I have a theory that employers decades ago started the whole "hard work is everything" mantra because they didn't want employees demanding better wage or promotion, they wanted to make the employees stay quiet and work hard in hopes of promotion or increased pay.

I used to think safe injection sites was hypocritical but I have never been addicted to drugs nor did I know about people with addictions. However, punishing them for something they are trying to deal with is harsh because their bodies have become addicted. I'm not a fan of One Piece but when those children on the island were addicted to that candy it really showed addicts. Addicts aren't criminals. It's the drug deals that are.

 

[M3J]

Firstly, Trump supporters, what are your sources? List them, as if you use YouTube videos from biased accounts and right wing media like Breitbart as sources, then I'm not gonna waste my time with you. CNN is far more reliable than 90% of the right wing media, from my experience of fact checking most things they've said.


Safe injection sites are actually a good idea, thinking about it. You can either prevent overdose or save addicts who overdosed, it's much better than addicts doing it in their homes without anyone there to monitor them. But I agree, addicts aren't criminals, and a lot of them turn to drugs or alcohol as a way to cope, especially with trauma. Demonizing them isn't going to help, and forcing them to quit or get help won't either. They should be offered options to get help, not be abandoned or shamed.