General US Politics

[Acacia Sgt]

Well, that is precisely how he can "thrive on the people's feeling of fear". The people get concerned about a topic, he promises action about it, then naturally people will think on him and his promise when said thing happens elsewhere and they start to think again about their own home and the chances it could happen there as well.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Acacia Sgt

[Anacybele]

Oh, now I see. As long as Trump keeps his word and makes good on his promises, I have no issue with that. I will be upset if he disappoints.

[CyborgZeta]

Would it have an impact on the voting done today...?

It might keep Cruz from reaching the 50% threshold in Utah and getting all the delegates, but that's all.

It could help Trump in the long run, but it's hard to say.

[Kieran Knightley]

You mean CAN be dangerous. Trump doesn't actually want to ban all of them from the country, he just wants a better way of weeding out the terrorists. And right now, there isn't a good enough way as far as I'm concerned. Terrorists can use children and even babies to hide themselves. So even a normal-looking Muslim family with a toddler and infant can actually be terrorists. If the safety of our innocent people means temporarily closing our borders to everyone until these terrorists are eliminated, that's what has to happen. It isn't fair to the innocent immigrants, I know. I don't like having to keep them out anymore than non-Trump supporters do. But sometimes you have to do things you don't like, you know.

Seriously, I do partly blame Trump for some of the crap he gets, he needs to think before he speaks sometimes. I swear he must have Asperger's like me or something. But I still think he has ideas and policies that make sense and that's why I'll vote for him...eventually.

Do you know the percentage of Muslims who are foreign terrorists? Virtually zero. A Muslim family seeking to come to America is not going to jump through all of the insane hoops imposed on them just to fulfill some kind of ultimate "terrorist" goal. That's costly, and terrorism is used precisely because it is NOT costly. Also, that's an absurdly racist thing to say. The amount of "white" terrorists we face domestically are significantly more of a threat than any foreign terrorist is.

Terrorism is a trigger word, and it's a loaded, contorted, race-oriented term at that in its use in America. I urge anyone interested to become familiar with literature on terrorism, because it's a lot different than what "we think" it is.

Edit: Copypasta'd from a Huffy Post article:

"According to the FBI, 94% of terrorist attacks carried out in the United States from 1980 to 2005 have been by non-Muslims. This means that an American terrorist suspect is over nine times more likely to be a non-Muslim than a Muslim. According to this same report, there were more Jewish acts of terrorism in the United States than Islamic, yet when was the last time we heard about the threat of Jewish terrorism in the media? "

"There have been over one thousand terrorist attacks in Europe in the past five years. Take a guess at what percent of those terrorists were Muslim. Wrong, now guess again. It’s less than 2%."

"There have been 140,000 terror attacks committed worldwide since 1970. Even if Muslims carried out all of these attacks, those terrorists would represent less than 0.00009 percent of all Muslims. To put things into perspective, this means that you are more likely to be struck by lightening in your lifetime than a Muslim is likely to commit a terrorist attack during that same timespan."

Edited March 23, 2016 by Kieran Knightley

[Moblin Major General]

Do you know the percentage of Muslims who are foreign terrorists? Virtually zero. A Muslim family seeking to come to America is not going to jump through all of the insane hoops imposed on them just to fulfill some kind of ultimate "terrorist" goal. That's costly, and terrorism is used precisely because it is NOT costly. Also, that's an absurdly racist thing to say. The amount of "white" terrorists we face domestically are significantly more of a threat than any foreign terrorist is.

Terrorism is a trigger word, and it's a loaded, contorted, race-oriented term at that in its use in America. I urge anyone interested to become familiar with literature on terrorism, because it's a lot different than what "we think" it is.

Edit: Copypasta'd from a Huffy Post article:

"According to the FBI, 94% of terrorist attacks carried out in the United States from 1980 to 2005 have been by non-Muslims. This means that an American terrorist suspect is over nine times more likely to be a non-Muslim than a Muslim. According to this same report, there were more Jewish acts of terrorism in the United States than Islamic, yet when was the last time we heard about the threat of Jewish terrorism in the media? "

"There have been over one thousand terrorist attacks in Europe in the past five years. Take a guess at what percent of those terrorists were Muslim. Wrong, now guess again. It’s less than 2%."

"There have been 140,000 terror attacks committed worldwide since 1970. Even if Muslims carried out all of these attacks, those terrorists would represent less than 0.00009 percent of all Muslims. To put things into perspective, this means that you are more likely to be struck by lightening in your lifetime than a Muslim is likely to commit a terrorist attack during that same timespan."

Some would. Terrorism is the instillation of fear to a particular end. I could argue that using the word terrorism is terrorism in and of itself because it keeps people afraid and stupid, making our supposedly anti-terrorist government terrorists themselves. What makes Muslims a target is because they are misunderstood by the West, seeing as though the last major de jure bastion of Muslim faith folded less than 100 years ago, creating a power vacuum that the West exploited for the rich resources in the Levant and Middle East. This led many former denizens of the Ottoman Empire to despise Western Civilization, and a great many expressed their desire to destroy it. Fast forward 100 years, while the animosity on the Muslim side has gone underground, the Western reaction has gotten even louder. Don't think Trump is a legitimate leader at all: He is a demagogue, one bent on telling the world to go fuck itself, and that America bends the knee to no one.

[Kieran Knightley]

Some would. Terrorism is the instillation of fear to a particular end. I could argue that using the word terrorism is terrorism in and of itself because it keeps people afraid and stupid, making our supposedly anti-terrorist government terrorists themselves. What makes Muslims a target is because they are misunderstood by the West, seeing as though the last major de jure bastion of Muslim faith folded less than 100 years ago, creating a power vacuum that the West exploited for the rich resources in the Levant and Middle East. This led many former denizens of the Ottoman Empire to despise Western Civilization, and a great many expressed their desire to destroy it. Fast forward 100 years, while the animosity on the Muslim side has gone underground, the Western reaction has gotten even louder. Don't think Trump is a legitimate leader at all: He is a demagogue, one bent on telling the world to go fuck itself, and that America bends the knee to no one.

Beautiful, my friend. You have both educated me and enlightened me.

[Duff Ostrich]

Some would. Terrorism is the instillation of fear to a particular end. I could argue that using the word terrorism is terrorism in and of itself because it keeps people afraid and stupid, making our supposedly anti-terrorist government terrorists themselves. What makes Muslims a target is because they are misunderstood by the West, seeing as though the last major de jure bastion of Muslim faith folded less than 100 years ago, creating a power vacuum that the West exploited for the rich resources in the Levant and Middle East. This led many former denizens of the Ottoman Empire to despise Western Civilization, and a great many expressed their desire to destroy it. Fast forward 100 years, while the animosity on the Muslim side has gone underground, the Western reaction has gotten even louder. Don't think Trump is a legitimate leader at all: He is a demagogue, one bent on telling the world to go fuck itself, and that America bends the knee to no one.

This is an oversimplification that (incorrectly) assumes that Islamic terrorism is primarily a creation of American/British/French policy following the end of the first World War. These terrorists spend the majority of their time murdering their fellow Muslims. Is western policy to blame for that as well? What about those Muslims that live their entire lives in the Europe or North America but radicalize anyway? This often includes the children of non fundamentalist parents. If anything I would say that you misunderstand Muslims more than any sort of western collective consciousness. After all your explanation does nothing to address why double digit percentages of Muslims in various European countries support the execution of apostates among other elements of Sharia. Imagine if similar proportions of Christians believed such a thing! There is far more to be said about Islamism than to put the blame at the feet of failed foreign policy objectives.

[blah the Prussian]

This is an oversimplification that (incorrectly) assumes that Islamic terrorism is primarily a creation of American/British/French policy following the end of the first World War. These terrorists spend the majority of their time murdering their fellow Muslims. Is western policy to blame for that as well? What about those Muslims that live their entire lives in the Europe or North America but radicalize anyway? This often includes the children of non fundamentalist parents. If anything I would say that you misunderstand Muslims more than any sort of western collective consciousness. After all your explanation does nothing to address why double digit percentages of Muslims in various European countries support the execution of apostates among other elements of Sharia. Imagine if similar proportions of Christians believed such a thing! There is far more to be said about Islamism than to put the blame at the feet of failed foreign policy objectives.

It is pretty obvious historical fact that, not necessarily the Ottoman Empire's fall, but rather the Ottoman Caliphate's fall, is to blame for the rise of ISIS. Which, actually, makes it partly the fault of the west, partly the fault of the Russians, but mostly the fault of a certain band of photo Fascists called the Young Turks. Islamic a Fundamentalism was a reaction to the secular Nationalism of Enver Pasha, Ataturk, Gamel Nasser and Saddam Hussein. I find it to be perfectly explicable that more of the younger generation of immigrants are turning to fundamentalism, because it is simply the latest counterculture for edgy teenagers to enjoy. Basically, white kids have Stormfront and Communism to be edgy about, and Muslim kids have fundamentalism to be edgy about. The problem is that the Fundamentalists find it much easier to actually do tangible harm, because there is an actual organization dedicated to their cause.

[Irysa]

Why blame the Ottomans? I think we can place a significant amount of blame on the mismanagement from both Britain and France over the Palestinian mandates for the rise of Islamic extremism over the last century or so.

On that note, Sanders didn't show to AIPAC so there's no way he's getting the nomination. And unsurprisingly Trump did another flip flop.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Irysa

[blah the Prussian]

Why blame the Ottomans? I think we can place a significant amount of blame on the mismanagement from both Britain and France over the Palestinian mandates for the rise of Islamic extremism over the last century or so.

On that note, Sanders didn't show to AIPAC so there's no way he's getting the nomination. And unsurprisingly Trump did another flip flop.

The Ottoman government basically created a situation where it's fall became inevitable. Starting with Abdulhamid II and taken to the logical extreme by Enver Pasha, the Ottomans made their multiethnic empire a Turkish centered state. Yeah. Bad idea. Even if the French and the British had not colonized the Middle East, the Ottoman's racist policies would have led to their empire collapsing, and from there the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. The genocide carried out by the Young Turks against the Armenians made a continuation of the Empire morally unjustifiable. It's like saying that since Zimbabwe is so bad, Rhodesia shouldn't have been destroyed. Too often we let the bad stuff that results from our decisions make us forget what made those decisions necessary in the first place. Islamic extremism was born out of the lack of a central Islamic authority in the form of the House of Osman. Edited March 23, 2016 by blah the Prussian

[Alertcircuit]

Wow, Bernie really crushed Hillary last night. Wonder if he'll be able to keep this up.

[Moblin Major General]

Wow, Bernie really crushed Hillary last night. Wonder if he'll be able to keep this up.

Only because Hillary lacked the minorities to prey upon in those states. She is a predator for votes, and will eat those votes, leaving America to clean up the scraps. I am hopeful, however.

[Yojinbo]

It's weird how all these 'minorities' seem to gravitate towards a candidate that has a history of doing things that are directly against the interest of these people. Hillary is an opportunist of the worst kind. I doubt she's one bit better than Trump.

[tuvarkz]

It's weird how all these 'minorities' seem to gravitate towards a candidate that has a history of doing things that are directly against the interest of these people. Hillary is an opportunist of the worst kind. I doubt she's one bit better than Trump.

Not exactly. At least for Republican latinos, they see illegal immigrants as giving bad reputation to them and being lazy for not going through the same work legal immigrants have gone through, thus they want illegals out. It's probably a similar reason why Trump has the lead amongst republican muslims as well.

[Snowy_One]

So, yea... I've got a co-worker at work who is basically convinced Bernie is the best thing ever. Saying how he's gonna change the school system for the better, raise the minimum wage, and all that stuff while Trump is little more than a double-talking hatemonger. I can handle the Trump stuff easily since I don't think I'm voting for him (I'm heavily considering doing a wasteful write-in since I simply cannot accept his stance on the current ongoings in the pacific) but I am REALLY sick of hearing all the Bernie stuff and just want some counters, or even basic knowledge, here.

[Phoenix Wright]

maybe you should do more research on him before you write him off.

[Duff Ostrich]

but I am REALLY sick of hearing all the Bernie stuff and just want some counters, or even basic knowledge, here.

Basic knowledge about the Bernie Sanders designs for America? Well, an analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimated that the Sanders tax plan would generate $15.3 trillion in revenue over a ten year period, which would include an estimated $9000 per person or (perhaps more usefully, given his how top loaded his plan is) $4700 for "Households in the middle quintile of the income distribution...".

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-senator-bernie-sanderss-tax-proposals/full

Basically, Mr. Sanders and his fawning millennial supporters (who affectionately refer to their favored candidate by his first name, ugh) want an unprecedented and expansive welfare state that will require an additional several thousand dollars per working person per year just to get the ball rolling, and I would advise against assuming that this 15.3 trillion will come anywhere near to actually paying the bills. Balanced budgets are not a part of the Democratic platform and a socialist like Sanders certainly doesn't seem concerned in that regard.

[BBM]

What exactly are you looking for Snowy?

Do you want to hear an unbiased opinion of Bernie Sanders? You're not going to get it here, or any one specific place. Every source has their biases, and it should be pretty obvious that the frequenters of this thread are mostly left-leaning. You have to consult a wide variety of sources to find out his platform, his personality, his sincerity, whatever you want to know about.

If you've already made up your mind that he's terrible and just want to hear all the bad stuff about him, then go to some Republican news site like Fox; why even pretend to post here? Or directly message someone like Duff, who posts things like "balanced budgets are not a part of the Democratic platform" while ignoring that the last president to lower the debt/GDP ratio was a Democrat.

[Duff Ostrich]

He can do better than FOX, as can we all.

Balanced budgets are not a part of the Democratic platform and they are not a priority for Sanders supporters. This is just a fact. The successes of Bill Clinton in adapting the most popular elements of the early 90s Republican platform into a two term winning coalition are well known, but many of the folks in this very thread have expressed their distaste for the current Democratic establishment which they do not believe is nearly far left enough. This is, after all, why they support the independent socialist over the actual moderate Democrat, and in any case the philanderer from Arkansas left office a long time ago.

Edited April 3, 2016 by Duff Ostrich

[eclipse]

Actual question: What is wrong with someone who's socialist?

I mean, it's a nice buzz word, but what are the objective down sides to it?

[Tryhard]

Actual question: What is wrong with someone who's socialist?

Sanders is donning a maligned 'Socalist' title that is unlikely to get him much popularity in America, unfortunately.

[BBM]

Bush Sr and Reagan also ran deficits by the way. It's all good and easy to say that balanced budgets aren't a part of the Democrat platform and then say "oh that one guy who did doesn't count". I agree that Republican policies should deserve partial credit for Clinton's budget, but holding up Republicans as the sole bastions of balanced budgets is laughable at best.

Not to mention, singling out Sanders for not prioritizing budgets and deficits is disingenuous. Cruz and Trump aren't going to balance anything; Cruz's plan is going to cut revenues by over 8 trillion over the next decade. How the hell is he going to cut enough to justify that? And Trump, lol.

[blah the Prussian]

Actual question: What is wrong with someone who's socialist?I mean, it's a nice buzz word, but what are the objective down sides to it?

The problem with the word is that it is functionally impossible to define it. Socialism means what it is politically convenient for it to mean, from Naziism, to Social Democracy to Stalinism.

[Duff Ostrich]

Actual question: What is wrong with someone who's socialist?

I mean, it's a nice buzz word, but what are the objective down sides to it?

In very basic terms, socialism is state control over the means of production and the distribution of wealth.There are of course various degrees of socialism and it can be seen in the United States to a lesser extent than in western Europe. Someone that describes themselves as a "Democratic Socialist" has adopted a very European term to indicate that he wishes to bring European style economic policies to the United States.

European leaders are learning what the cost of their domestic policies really are, and the terrifying solution they're adopting is to import millions of migrants to serve as the tax base that they're otherwise not going to have in a few decades. That's enough of an objective downside in my book, and that's long before getting into the moral question of ultra high taxes and government management of formerly private industry.

Bush Sr and Reagan also ran deficits by the way. It's all good and easy to say that balanced budgets aren't a part of the Democrat platform and then say "oh that one guy who did doesn't count". I agree that Republican policies should deserve partial credit for Clinton's budget, but holding up Republicans as the sole bastions of balanced budgets is laughable at best.

Not to mention, singling out Sanders for not prioritizing budgets and deficits is disingenuous. Cruz and Trump aren't going to balance anything; Cruz's plan is going to cut revenues by over 8 trillion over the next decade. How the hell is he going to cut enough to justify that? And Trump, lol.

This is all great and I don't disagree, but I wasn't singling Sanders out over hypothetical budget deficits. That comment was part of a larger point that $15.3 trillion dollars of new revenue over a ten year period - which I'll remind everyone would be an incredible new tax burden even on those of us within the celebrated "99%" - would probably not even come close to paying the bills.

Edited April 3, 2016 by Duff Ostrich

[Anacybele]

You see, on paper, Sanders's idea of free college and raised minimum wage sounds good, but these would really have some not good results. Raising minimum wage would force companies to pay their workers more, thus they might have to let some workers go in order to be able to afford that, and the unemployment rate goes up. Prices on goods and services could go up too because companies will need more money to pay their employees higher wages. And nobody wants this, right?

As for college, how would colleges make any money if it was free? How would they get their teaching supplies, textbooks for students, etc. etc. How would their employees get paid as well?

Bernie Sanders just doesn't think things through and wants the government to have more control over stuff. I don't think that's right. The economy runs in a circle all coming down to the circulation of money. Oil prices affect gas prices which affect the prices of a lot of products which affect a company's income which affect employees' wages which affect what people buy which can affect how much income companies get. You really need to think it all entirely through before making any economical changes. You could find that making a certain single change could throw a monkey wrench into the whole system and make it fall apart. It's really basic high school economics and I actually nearly failed that class. xP

What does need to happen though, is college books and stuff being a little cheaper. I'm hearing that a lot of students are downloading/getting them illegally because they're just too expensive. In short, college should just be more affordable and accessible, not free.

From what I've learned, Trump is the only one that isn't going to just "tip-toe around the problem" and stay politically correct all the time and crap, he wants to redefine certain things and actually fix things. I also lean a lot more towards Republican than Democratic beliefs and I don't like Cruz at all.

Edited April 3, 2016 by Anacybele