are you perhaps offended by the statementRoseusJaeger wrote:
Sorry for assuming, but I was talking to him and you referred to "14-year olds" as plural
forum
Your opinion on American Politics?
posted
Total Posts
770
I'm 14
Old enough to drinkKhelly wrote:
I'm 14
pussy juiceKisses wrote:
Old enough to drinkKhelly wrote:
I'm 14
Kisses wrote:
Old enough to drinkKhelly wrote:
I'm 14
Semen
DeletedUser_6709840
The easy way to remember it is:FuZ wrote:
tfw 22 and still dont know whats left and rightKisses wrote:
I love it when 14 yr olds act like they know all about politics eckkss deee
i mean, i always forget which one is the nazi wing
'left are loonies and right is right'
DeletedUser_6709840
what is this 18 pages long thread that came out of nowhere
on topic: It's an undemocratic shitshow.
on topic: It's an undemocratic shitshow.
Probably because you've been indoctrinated by the liberal media, like most people.RoseusJaeger wrote:
I guess I'm a loony then, because right ideas are usually pretty bullshit to meB1rd wrote:
'left are loonies and right is right'
The left is emotionally appealing, but the right is based on facts. The left wants an overreaching nanny state to control everyone and enforce equality of outcome through force. The right is about individual liberties and responsibilities.
But you probably have the stereotypical idea of the right as authoritarian neocon boogeymen who want to oppress gays and make the rich richer and so on.
The left is emotionally appealing, but the right is based on facts.I mean, this isn't really hard to work out when you have these 'rational' leftists arguing that Christians are just as dangerous as Muslims.
well individual liberties and responsibilities sound like a superb idea when people start out equal, which is sadly as far from the truth as could be. As I see it, most left-wing politicians don't actually want to create an equality of outcome, but an equality of opportunity (if I dare call it that). If I were to summarize the left definition of social justice, I'd say its something along the lines of "give everyone equal opportunities", as opposed to "make everyone equal". The latter would be rather scary, don't you think?
Also, if you take a look at both of the sides followers and at the passion with which they defend their position, I wouldn't say that one side is more emotionally appealing than the other. Regardless of the side, people seem to be very emotionally invested. In fact, I would claim that the right side is often times more emotional than the left side, but maybe thats just my personal bias.
Also, if you take a look at both of the sides followers and at the passion with which they defend their position, I wouldn't say that one side is more emotionally appealing than the other. Regardless of the side, people seem to be very emotionally invested. In fact, I would claim that the right side is often times more emotional than the left side, but maybe thats just my personal bias.
right ideas are the same as the left ideas at least in american politics
Topic Starter
xxjesus1412fanx wrote:
right ideas are the same as the left ideas at least in american politics
DeletedUser_6709840
every argument in this freakin' thread just proves me right even moreTeffammie Maye wrote:
it sucks
we should detatch the united states from mexico and canada and just push it somewhere in the middle of the ocean for nobody to find again
Muricans talking about their politics like the rest of the 195 countries give 2 sh**s
I bet you would've given a shit about American politics when US Lend Lease was the only thing keeping the UK alive and in the fight during WW2.Kisses wrote:
Muricans talking about their politics like the rest of the 195 countries give 2 sh**s
RoseusJaeger wrote:
Both the right and left have their share of crazy idiots, imo
factRoseusJaeger wrote:
Both the right and left have their share of crazy idiots, imo
Like I was sayingLacrimae wrote:
factRoseusJaeger wrote:
Both the right and left have their share of crazy idiots, imo
I'm trying to be up to date with actual situation in USA, very interesting things are happening there.
Trump seems like ideal candidate for USA president, saying in point of american view. If I were american I would definitely vote for him.
Speaking of polish point of view, actual USA relations to China is leading us to WW3, I doubt if Trump will change anything after winning elections.
Trump seems like ideal candidate for USA president, saying in point of american view. If I were american I would definitely vote for him.
Speaking of polish point of view, actual USA relations to China is leading us to WW3, I doubt if Trump will change anything after winning elections.
RoseusJaeger wrote:
Let this thread die
US/China war is not happening in the foreseeable future. Even though American politicians tend to be trigger-happy, I'd like to believe they are logical. No side would declare war unless the other bombed/nuked/invaded the other's home soil, which isn't going to happen because we have strong economic ties.Frolski wrote:
I'm trying to be up to date with actual situation in USA, very interesting things are happening there.
Trump seems like ideal candidate for USA president, saying in point of american view. If I were american I would definitely vote for him.
Speaking of polish point of view, actual USA relations to China is leading us to WW3, I doubt if Trump will change anything after winning elections.
I honestly don't mind trump but I'm not allowed to say that in public or else Ill be called a racist bigot and will be hanged.
#notalltrumpets
I swear, half of the people that hate on trump only do it because its trendy and on the basis of some stupid meme shit like the small loan of a million dollars thing or making mexico build a wall.
#notalltrumpets
I swear, half of the people that hate on trump only do it because its trendy and on the basis of some stupid meme shit like the small loan of a million dollars thing or making mexico build a wall.
or maybe they hate him offensive nonsensical things such as 'The UK city, bradford is built to quarantine asian minorities'balldoowell wrote:
I honestly don't mind trump but I'm not allowed to say that in public or else Ill be called a racist bigot and will be hanged.
#notalltrumpets
I swear, half of the people that hate on trump only do it because its trendy and on the basis of some stupid meme shit like the small loan of a million dollars thing or making mexico build a wall.
maybe.. just maybe
SaigonAlice wrote:
RoseusJaeger wrote:
Let this thread die
I used to support Trump but since he got the Republican nomination he's backtracking on a lot of the things. For example, his policies on immigration, and now he's accepting donations from big donors and lobbying groups (he's saying now that he only intended to self-fund until he got the Repub nomination, a load of BS)Kisses wrote:
or maybe they hate him offensive nonsensical things such as 'The UK city, bradford is built to quarantine asian minorities'balldoowell wrote:
I honestly don't mind trump but I'm not allowed to say that in public or else Ill be called a racist bigot and will be hanged.
#notalltrumpets
I swear, half of the people that hate on trump only do it because its trendy and on the basis of some stupid meme shit like the small loan of a million dollars thing or making mexico build a wall.
maybe.. just maybe
If you're still inclined to vote, Gary Johnson is the best candidate by far, he's a libertarian and has proven to have excellent leadership skills as governor of New Mexico.
You are the cancer of OT. You do nothing but shit up the forum, and spam threads because they aren't for shitposting. Go flush yourselves down a toilet.Aomi wrote:
SaigonAlice wrote:
Let this thread die
no need to be upset friendB1rd wrote:
You are the cancer of OT. You do nothing but shit up the forum, and spam threads because they aren't for shitposting. Go flush yourselves down a toilet.
'only do it because of memes'balldoowell wrote:
I honestly don't mind trump but I'm not allowed to say that in public or else Ill be called a racist bigot and will be hanged.
#notalltrumpets
I swear, half of the people that hate on trump only do it because its trendy and on the basis of some stupid meme shit like the small loan of a million dollars thing or making mexico build a wall.
needing anything more in your life than memes
The general quality of threads in the subforum is bad enough, but it's even more intolerable when people bring their shitposting into serious threads.Aomi wrote:
no need to be upset friendB1rd wrote:
You are the cancer of OT. You do nothing but shit up the forum, and spam threads because they aren't for shitposting. Go flush yourselves down a toilet.
Kanye West wrote:
US/China war is not happening in the foreseeable future. Even though American politicians tend to be trigger-happy, I'd like to believe they are logical. No side would declare war unless the other bombed/nuked/invaded the other's home soil, which isn't going to happen because we have strong economic ties.
> unless the other bombed/nuked/invaded
Yes, unless. American provocation is just matter of time. NATO is spreading their bases around eastern Europe, american soldiers will be gathered in Poland for training purposes. Our goverment is creating territorial defence forces, they has no heavy armament, if things will keep its pace young people might be sent to a war without professional equipment. The war I'm speaking of won't happen in America, in China either. It's Europe/eastern Europe. For first, they want to weaken Russia. First provokation happened when Turkey shot down Russian plane. It happened because America guaranted Turkey help if conflict with Russia will explode. Another thing is migrant crisis and Silk Road. Timing of these happenings is not coincidence. Anyways, most likely it all will happen in matter of few years. You Americans are safe, until China/Russia will decide to nuke you and that's not they would do at first step.
I could write about it much more but I don't want to bother myself, since it seems like all of these 15/yo guys here are not giving a shit about anything than clicking circles. And besides it, it's not place to talk about it.
I think we're going to have another series of proxy wars, with China starting to push their boundaries further and further into the Japanese and Vietnamese seas.
Also if you look at how much Trump has spent on advertisement and subtract the amount of money opponents have spent on him, he has net gain. It's kinda funny. Also, on opensecrets.org, Trump's top donor has paid him 150k while Hillary's donors are in the millions
Also if you look at how much Trump has spent on advertisement and subtract the amount of money opponents have spent on him, he has net gain. It's kinda funny. Also, on opensecrets.org, Trump's top donor has paid him 150k while Hillary's donors are in the millions
So apparently the DNC is almost completely shoving Bernie's attempts to "influence the party platform" to the side. And then Debbie Wasserman Schultz is gonna claim that the Bernie supporters are who's gonna doom the country by paving the way for a Trump presidency... maybe if they weren't so fucking focused on making excuses for all the shady shit they've done and, you know, instead, actually owning up to what they've done, just maybe they'd get the support they crucially need. But nope. They probably somehow still think Trump has no chance at winning the general. That's the only real reason why they hate Bernie so much.
If the DNC keeps this up, Trump's gonna be the 45th president. I hope you're happy, Khelly.
If the DNC keeps this up, Trump's gonna be the 45th president. I hope you're happy, Khelly.
Topic Starter
In all seriousness, I will be seriously worried for this country's well being if Trump gets elected
hes gonna totally blow it with foreign affairs because of his act of acting before thinking
fucking idiot
hes gonna totally blow it with foreign affairs because of his act of acting before thinking
fucking idiot
Please tell me more how you think he acts before thinks and is dumb.roshan117 wrote:
In all seriousness, I will be seriously worried for this country's well being if Trump gets elected
hes gonna totally blow it with foreign affairs because of his act of acting before thinking
fucking idiot
hush you, I already gave him my imaginary upvoteKhelly wrote:
Please tell me more how you think he acts before thinks and is dumb.roshan117 wrote:
In all seriousness, I will be seriously worried for this country's well being if Trump gets elected
hes gonna totally blow it with foreign affairs because of his act of acting before thinking
fucking idiot
You mean you gave the guy talking out of his ass an imaginary upvote yeah.
DeletedUser_6709840
I actually would like Donald Trump to be our next president
he isn't afraid to speak out the truth
he isn't afraid to speak out the truth
DeletedUser_6709840
RoseusJaeger wrote:
I don't understand how anyone can support a bigoted misogynist and still be a sane personKhelly wrote:
You mean you gave the guy talking out of his ass an imaginary upvote yeah.
Well I mean if you're going to hold that bekieve because of what others tell you about Trump rather than what he says...
I'm glad the now meaningless words like sexist and racist the regressive left uses to silence people into submission isn't workingn on Trump.
DeletedUser_6709840
RoseusJaeger wrote:
I'm fully convinced you're extremely dense, tbh. I'd love to see how you can rationalize a man that proves over and over to pathological liar, sexist and racist to be fit to run the country.
Well I'd wait for you to give me these points first rather than prattling on the same thing over and over again
DeletedUser_6709840
You're avoiding the issue.Khelly wrote:
RoseusJaeger wrote:
I'm fully convinced you're extremely dense, tbh. I'd love to see how you can rationalize a man that proves over and over to pathological liar, sexist and racist to be fit to run the country.
Well I'd wait for you to give me these points first rather than prattling on the same thing over and over again
So you're not going to give me ecamples of why you think he's all of these names you're calling him? I think it's pretty sad how you're complaining how anyone can like this guy for C reason but fail to provide those reasons - it's almost like he's none of those things!
ffs khelly do you even youtube?Khelly wrote:
So you're not going to give me ecamples of why you think he's all of these names you're calling him?
Yes. I've seen the protesters causing riots and waving Mexican flags but it's not their fault. It's Donald's fault they're acting this wayKisses wrote:
ffs khelly do you even youtube?Khelly wrote:
So you're not going to give me ecamples of why you think he's all of these names you're calling him?
DeletedUser_6709840
The burden of proof is on the accuser. Where are you getting yours? I'll happily tell you why it's not <x> buzzwordRoseusJaeger wrote:
Then where the firetruck are you getting your information, khelly?
DeletedUser_6709840
Anything but Hillary.
Second, Bernie.
But honestly Trump takes the cake. Would do the best job of un-fucking the country.
Second, Bernie.
But honestly Trump takes the cake. Would do the best job of un-fucking the country.
RoseusJaeger wrote:
It goes both ways, I go by local news stations since bigger news networks tend to biased. You can't deny something when you also hear it straight from the horse's mouth. I've been to a Trump rally and his ideas are cancer.
Give me a quote and an idea and I'll tell you why I support it
I've literally been askng this for a page
Honestly, this video said a lot about Trump and his supporters. It actually surprised me a lot
https://www.facebook.com/PeacehouseUS/v ... 194115003/
https://www.facebook.com/PeacehouseUS/v ... 194115003/
DeletedUser_6709840
We can start from the fact that he wants to build a wall and says Mexico will pay for it when Mexico has already refused to do this. You can't force a country to do anything.Khelly wrote:
RoseusJaeger wrote:
It goes both ways, I go by local news stations since bigger news networks tend to biased. You can't deny something when you also hear it straight from the horse's mouth. I've been to a Trump rally and his ideas are cancer.
Give me a quote and an idea and I'll tell you why I support it
I've literally been askng this for a page
He has NEVER specified how he's going to help small businesses but constantly said he would.
He says he's going to handle terrorism, but his personality has already distanced us for allies that will refuse to work with him. (The man said all Mexicans are rapists, jfc he's an asshole.)
He wants to deund Planned Parenthood because of abortion when that's only 3% of the services it offers.
He claims to be for gender quality but constantly verbally disrespects women, he's a hypocrite.
He believes Islam hates us when it's not all Muslims.
He wants to bring back libel laws that will constricts the right to free speech, which violates the first amendment.
That's just the start of the bull that he's spewed.
It's like people dont fucking undersatnd. Culture and childhood backgrounds are what makes someone's personality not someones ethnic background. If Trump has objectives he wants to fight for then he shouldnt back it up with absolute bullshit
DeletedUser_6709840
I actually enjoyed that.Sandy Hoey wrote:
Honestly, this video said a lot about Trump and his supporters. It actually surprised me a lot
https://www.facebook.com/PeacehouseUS/v ... 194115003/
UpvotedKisses wrote:
It's like people dont fucking undersatnd. Culture and childhood backgrounds are what makes someone's personality not someones ethnic background. If Trump has objectives he wants to fight for then he shouldnt back it up with absolute bullshit
Kisses wrote:
It's like people dont fucking undersatnd. Culture and childhood backgrounds are what makes someone's personality not someones ethnic background. If Trump has objectives he wants to fight for then he shouldnt back it up with absolute bullshit
And it turns out all too often that culture and childhood background being linked with an ethnicity is far too common. E.g, the middle east COULD be hypothetically more ethnicly diverse (like asian and african with finns or some shit) and produce thevsame type of people, but in reality they're not like that and a large group of people with similar ethnicity cone from the same culture and background
Now I gotta get out of the shower
I just hope its authentic. felt pretty heartfelt to meRoseusJaeger wrote:
I actually enjoyed that.
So arent we still agreeing with each other
WOW YOU DEKETED YOU POST
WOW YOU DEKETED YOU POST
DeletedUser_6709840
culture and childhood background linked with ethnicity is far too common? do you eveen fucking think.Khelly wrote:
And it turns out all too often that culture and childhood background being linked with an ethnicity is far too common. E.g, the middle east COULD be hypothetically more ethnicly diverse (like asian and african with finns or some shit) and produce thevsame type of people, but in reality they're not like that and a large group of people with similar ethnicity cone from the same culture and background
Now I gotta get out of the shower
If there is an established culture in one set of the world then the ppl there are going to have a norm behaviour. GET THIS. PPL dont change ethnicity over one generetation. Donkeys years ago ppl didnt travel at all so the ppl settling in the area would all be the same ethnicity. HOW THE FK CAN YOU NOT GATHER YOUR HEAD AROUND THAT. Have you ever seen ppl of the same races come from different environmental backgrounds behave completely different?
made this new one insteadKhelly wrote:
So arent we still agreeing with each other
WOW YOU DEKETED YOU POST
It's linked because people of an ethnic background group tend to come from a certain region AND ALL SHARE IN THE SAME CULTURE AND BACKGROUND with people moving away from that tending to be the ones changed.
Did you not comprehend my meaning there? You're agreeing with what I said and arguing against something not there
Did you not comprehend my meaning there? You're agreeing with what I said and arguing against something not there
Sounds like my parents. You would look at them and think, Asian. Must suck to be their kid (Tiger mom and all that). But my parents are the most laid back parent I have ever met.Kisses wrote:
Have you ever seen ppl of the same races come from different environmental backgrounds behave completely different?
YOU DO REALIZE THAT PPL CAN LIVE IN THE SAME AREA AND BE APART OF DIFFERENT SOCIAL GROUPS?Khelly wrote:
It's linked because people of an ethnic background group tend to come from a certain region AND ALL SHARE IN THE SAME CULTURE AND BACKGROUND with people moving away from that tending to be the ones changed.
Did you not comprehend my meaning there? You're agreeing with what I said and arguing against something not there
get it now?
Also since I'm still in the shower and kisses cant comprehend how people from the same culture would tend to be majority one ethnicity thus producibg more if said ethnicity in the same setting, I'll just post the two shortet ones at Jaeger
I don't know about small businesses nor is it one of my issues, fine.
Planned parenthood defunding is dumb and I'm pro choice but iirc the decision about abortion for Trump is left to the states to decide - he's just the enforcer of the law. That's fine with me though I wish more states would be pro choice
Rest are pro trump
I don't know about small businesses nor is it one of my issues, fine.
Planned parenthood defunding is dumb and I'm pro choice but iirc the decision about abortion for Trump is left to the states to decide - he's just the enforcer of the law. That's fine with me though I wish more states would be pro choice
Rest are pro trump
Kisses wrote:
YOU DO REALIZE THAT PPL CAN LIVE IN THE SAME AREA AND BE APART OF DIFFERENT SOCIAL GROUPS?Khelly wrote:
It's linked because people of an ethnic background group tend to come from a certain region AND ALL SHARE IN THE SAME CULTURE AND BACKGROUND with people moving away from that tending to be the ones changed.
Did you not comprehend my meaning there? You're agreeing with what I said and arguing against something not there
get it now?
So is it socisl group or "culture" now? Are you changing the goalmposts from big to small?
wtf does this even meanKhelly wrote:
Also since I'm still in the shower and kisses cant comprehend how people from the same culture would tend to be majority one ethnicity thus producibg more if said ethnicity in the same setting
OMFG do you not read my replies in chronological order?Khelly wrote:
So is it socisl group or "culture" now? Are you changing the goalmposts from big to small?
Why the fk do I even bother arguing with a futanari loving, trump supporting fucking weirdo. bye
Region A is made up of mainly an ethnicity - let's calk them green
Region A has a culture and setting that produces assholes, thus a lot of greens are assholes
Since region A only mainly has greens, a lot of newborn greens will grow up to be assholes and a lit of greens are assholes
This only makes sense because region A is mainly green and two greens dont make a purple baby
Sime greens move away and the nect generation is not asshole
Do you get it
Region A has a culture and setting that produces assholes, thus a lot of greens are assholes
Since region A only mainly has greens, a lot of newborn greens will grow up to be assholes and a lit of greens are assholes
This only makes sense because region A is mainly green and two greens dont make a purple baby
Sime greens move away and the nect generation is not asshole
Do you get it
Kisses wrote:
OMFG do you not read my replies in chronological order?Khelly wrote:
So is it socisl group or "culture" now? Are you changing the goalmposts from big to small?
Why the fk do I even bother arguing with a futanari loving, trump supporting fucking weirdo. bye
It's okay I still love you
Wait, what does all that have to do with Trump? I dont wanna go back and read all of the argument
I forgot but I gotta get out soon and finish the rest of Jaeger's points and calm kisses down cause my phone is dyingSandy Hoey wrote:
Wait, what does all that have to do with Trump? I dont wanna go back and read all of the argument
Lmao
Sandy Hoey wrote:
Wait, what does all that have to do with Trump? I dont wanna go back and read all of the argument
Oh yes tldr kisses says childhoid/culture affect a person not ethnicity which I agreed to but he wont see my point that ethnicit can be linked to a same culture/upbringing since people homogonise and congregate with similar people in many regions. Suprise, mostly arabs from an arab culture prduce more likeminded arabs. The same for snywhere
And ANY one of an ethnicity like that you see in your local streets is automatically nearly an exception being removed from that land.
Unless they all congregate with each other and stay isolated in a foreign land
RoseusJaeger wrote:
How are the rest pro trump?
I havent gotten to writing them yet
Although this is true in some cases, one of the most extreme cases at the moment (Muslims) kind of warp this a little. People believe that the Muslims (especially post 9/11) are dangerous, even if they have immigrated to other countries and away from their homeland. However, it is not true to say that all Muslims who still live in Muslims states or hold the Muslim faith hate the US or would actually do anything to harm the US. In fact, the majority are not the radical Muslims or other radicals that have caused such destruction and terror.Khelly wrote:
And ANY one of an ethnicity like that you see in your local streets is automatically nearly an exception being removed from that land.
Now that I think about it, what I wrote doesn't really apply to what you said, but it is still important to note
He claims to be for gender quality but constantly verbally disrespects women, he's a hypocrite.
This is one of the claims against Trump that I really, REALLY hate. It's not sexist to disrespect a woman. It's not - the same as it isn't sexist to disrespect a man. If you disrespect a woman because she's female, then that's sexist. If you simply disrespect her for doing something you think is retarded, what's the actual problem?
To me this is the ultimate form of ironic actual sexism - thinking you can't say bad things about women because they're woman. Fuck that - they're not some protected class of people.
He says he's going to handle terrorism, but his personality has already distanced us for allies that will refuse to work with him. (The man said all Mexicans are rapists, jfc he's an asshole.)
I am going to dig up this quote and tell you what it means to me. At this moment this type of criticism against Trump shows me the other side actively looking and ignoring something fundamental.
When Mexico (meaning the Mexican Government) sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you (pointing to the audience). They’re not sending you (pointing again). They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems to us. They’re bringing drugs.They’re bringing crime; Their rapists. And some, I assume, are good people! But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people. It’s coming from more than Mexico. It’s coming from all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming probably from the Middle East. But we don’t know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don’t know what’s happening. And it’s got to stop and it’s got to stop fast.”"All of these "they're bringing" statements are about people coming into the United States that have no business within the United States because they can't come through proper channels. They're the actual illegals that he's referencing. The actual people that have and bring problems to the people in the United States. How is this calling Mexicans rapists rather than saying that rapists coming along the border illegally is but one of many problems?
And hell, it's not even about Mexicans. It’s coming from more than Mexico. Other peoples are using the Mexican border as the means through the country. So no, I don't think this is a valid thing to say that he consideres all Mexicans rapists.
We can start from the fact that he wants to build a wall and says Mexico will pay for it when Mexico has already refused to do this. You can't force a country to do anything.
No, you're right - you can't force a country to do anything short of war. What you can do is go through economic channels to incentivise the country to do what you want. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/ ... ion-reform
Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards – of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]. We will not be taken advantage of anymore.
He believes Islam hates us when it's not all Muslims.
I'd like to see something more exact here, but I'll think about it in a general sense and think of it like the ban on immigration. "Not all muslims" isn't good enough. If only half a percent of the entire global population of muslims was in the capacity to want and would do harm, that would still be 80,000,000 people. That's more people than a lot of fucking European nations - that's almost the population of Germany. And I only said the ones who would want to do harm - what of the people that support them or do nothing to inhibit them? The silent majority seem to me to be irrelevant.
It's a ban on people coming from a specific region of the world, and you know what? It's been done in the past before by Obama and it can be done again. The United States doesn't have a responsibility to let in any foreign peoples if it doesn't want to - so some good and some bad can't get into the nation. Oh well.
He wants to bring back libel laws that will constricts the right to free speech, which violates the first amendment.
I don't know much about the libel laws, but free speech is not all encompassing. It doesn't protect you as a judge said "From shouting fire in a crowded theatre when there is no fire" and should not protect you from publishing fictitious information. You'd have to inform me more of these changes.
I really like this video when talking about the majority.Sandy Hoey wrote:
Although this is true in some cases, one of the most extreme cases at the moment (Muslims) kind of warp this a little. People believe that the Muslims (especially post 9/11) are dangerous, even if they have immigrated to other countries and away from their homeland. However, it is not true to say that all Muslims who still live in Muslims states or hold the Muslim faith hate the US or would actually do anything to harm the US. In fact, the majority are not the radical Muslims or other radicals that have caused such destruction and terror.Khelly wrote:
And ANY one of an ethnicity like that you see in your local streets is automatically nearly an exception being removed from that land.
Now that I think about it, what I wrote doesn't really apply to what you said, but it is still important to note
They brought up some very good points about what the majority is doing to stop the radicals and how the majority is often considered more "effective". However, I do believe that the panel was completely disrespectful to the Muslim women, not only laughing at her (the man on the left as well as the women speaking), but also speaking in a tone that demeans (even if it was not intended, they should be aware of this sort of thing when talking to the masses).Khelly wrote:
I really like this video when talking about the majority.
On the other hand, you cannot blame the peaceful Muslim population for not doing anything when the majority of Americans are in the same boat. We speak out against and we say, "Yeah, we need to stop these radicals because they are harmful and dangerous", but what do we actually do? These peaceful population are against the radicals that are bring down the image of their religion and burdening them with hate from the entire world just as much as I am or you are. However, are they responsible for risking their lives and lives of their children any more than we are to fight them against those causing harm?
I personally believe that what the Muslim women said about not being able to fight ideology like radicalism is true. Even if we destroy every last one of the believers now, someone in the future is going to have the same ideas that they are having now and the whole issue will start again (maybe with a different religion or race)
What do you think?
Hm, what I think.
I've seen quite a bit of denouncing going on against the Islamic State and being threatened in response.
I have yet to see any sort of concrete retaliation against one of their own, or as ISIS calls it, the "apostates" and "traitors"
I live among a size-able community whom identify as Muslim, and anyone I know whom is one is just tired or does not want to be associated with whatever shit-storm the terrorists are doing.
Jihad itself is mentioned in their book and as long as it's there you'll probably have people who think it's a fantastic idea to wage a holy war on every other group or person or thing with a differing faith/opinion/belief system so yes in every scenario there's no a guarantee in being free of radicalized individuals.
I am not sure what else anyone is expecting.
Bad ideas get promoted all the time, veiling behind a Holy book is a very sneaky (take any example), but not surprising tactic to use as an excuse to get rid of any or all dissenting voices/ideologies.
This convenience is I think, what is so enticing to people who just want to take revenge/take up arms and kill people.
When you're so convinced that you're doing God's work and eradicating unbelievers (and also really fucking high on drugs, based on a lot of first-hand experiences from combat vets/others who have had their brush with these guys on deployment), you get less and less concerned about whom in particular you target because well they have the wrong way of thinking and that's enough for you to put a bullet in their head.
I've seen quite a bit of denouncing going on against the Islamic State and being threatened in response.
I have yet to see any sort of concrete retaliation against one of their own, or as ISIS calls it, the "apostates" and "traitors"
I live among a size-able community whom identify as Muslim, and anyone I know whom is one is just tired or does not want to be associated with whatever shit-storm the terrorists are doing.
Jihad itself is mentioned in their book and as long as it's there you'll probably have people who think it's a fantastic idea to wage a holy war on every other group or person or thing with a differing faith/opinion/belief system so yes in every scenario there's no a guarantee in being free of radicalized individuals.
I am not sure what else anyone is expecting.
Bad ideas get promoted all the time, veiling behind a Holy book is a very sneaky (take any example), but not surprising tactic to use as an excuse to get rid of any or all dissenting voices/ideologies.
This convenience is I think, what is so enticing to people who just want to take revenge/take up arms and kill people.
When you're so convinced that you're doing God's work and eradicating unbelievers (and also really fucking high on drugs, based on a lot of first-hand experiences from combat vets/others who have had their brush with these guys on deployment), you get less and less concerned about whom in particular you target because well they have the wrong way of thinking and that's enough for you to put a bullet in their head.
I think we also have to remember this isn't the first religion/ideals based war. Hundreds of years ago in was actually the Christian faith that was going at it among themselves and different sects of the same faith (I think it was Catholic vs Protestant? Maybe? Someone correct me if i'm wrong). That all wroked itself out, I hope this will to.
To many innocent people from all over have died
To many innocent people from all over have died
Indeed they did.
Jerusalem was stormed and all that jazz. And also yes that happened, Catholics at loggerheads with the Protestants in Ireland (notably).
And yes again, too many have been killed over unbelievably selfish and petty reasons.
Jerusalem was stormed and all that jazz. And also yes that happened, Catholics at loggerheads with the Protestants in Ireland (notably).
And yes again, too many have been killed over unbelievably selfish and petty reasons.
But then to bring it back to the topic of the OP, how should we take all of this and implement it into our immigration policy. It is a lot to consider.
I think Trump is right when he says countries need to have laws that set borders and others need to respect that (I have not see or heard any of his actual plans to deal with this besides the famous Wall). However, we also need to consider the intentions that these immigrants have when they come over here.
I do believe that a large portion, if not the majority, of those immigrating are actually fleeing violence and seeking refugee. They have no intentions of taking away from citizens of the places that they are going to. All they want is safety for themselves and their families.
But then how do we balance this with the poverty issues that we already face?
I don't know much about politics, but this is what I think makes this such a tough debate that almost never ends because there is always going to be someone who believes something else
I think Trump is right when he says countries need to have laws that set borders and others need to respect that (I have not see or heard any of his actual plans to deal with this besides the famous Wall). However, we also need to consider the intentions that these immigrants have when they come over here.
I do believe that a large portion, if not the majority, of those immigrating are actually fleeing violence and seeking refugee. They have no intentions of taking away from citizens of the places that they are going to. All they want is safety for themselves and their families.
But then how do we balance this with the poverty issues that we already face?
I don't know much about politics, but this is what I think makes this such a tough debate that almost never ends because there is always going to be someone who believes something else
Heh, I know close to jack-shit about policies too.
Offering asylum to refugees is good and nice and all. And no one is going to call you an ingrate or bigot for that.
However, right now Europe is getting bum-fucked thanks to the sheer amount and rate at which they are literally streaming in, it's unbelievable.
And the fact that the media has had blackouts (Look at Germany) and cover-ups elsewhere on anything that infringes the agenda/image that the migrants are 'just asylum seekers/peaceful immigrants blah blah" is very very sickening.
Greece was already in bad shape, and when they took them in well I'm not sure how to describe it.
Yes a good majority of them are genuinely fleeing for their lives, but I don't think this mixture of misunderstanding and completely short-sighted planning/execution will ever work.
You can only house these people for so long, and in the event they don't ever integrate or contribute to society should they choose to remain there (if any country even allows them unlimited refuge) what can you even do about that.
Some have returned after being disillusioned, since clearly the countries aren't prepared to handle them (some can't stand the food they're literally given for free out of goodwill, among a whole list of 'complaints').
Of course, with the good comes the bad and this is no exception.
Common sense would dictate having just not some sort of border defense/patrol/checkpoint enforcement but a highly reliable and efficient one. (Which, in almost all respects cannot cope)
You want to try to filter whom you can and cannot take in.
And I honestly don't believe it works well as far as 'background' checking goes, I mean these guys are literally from some Middle Eastern country and it's either a yes or no thing when it comes down to it.
Makes sense since you only make an educated discernment/guess at BEST.
How'd you know this dude wasn't just fleeing for real and the next woman is a legit radical who just wants to infiltrate ? Even better if they have a child tagged along.
Not even any room for discrimination excuses here, just simple and clear common sense and pragmatism.
Still the fact remains that once the genuine asylum-seekers actually get there and find out it is NOT what they were expecting/told of what can even be done for these people except ask them to make do, and increasingly at the expense of the economy and more ?
Offering asylum to refugees is good and nice and all. And no one is going to call you an ingrate or bigot for that.
However, right now Europe is getting bum-fucked thanks to the sheer amount and rate at which they are literally streaming in, it's unbelievable.
And the fact that the media has had blackouts (Look at Germany) and cover-ups elsewhere on anything that infringes the agenda/image that the migrants are 'just asylum seekers/peaceful immigrants blah blah" is very very sickening.
Greece was already in bad shape, and when they took them in well I'm not sure how to describe it.
Yes a good majority of them are genuinely fleeing for their lives, but I don't think this mixture of misunderstanding and completely short-sighted planning/execution will ever work.
You can only house these people for so long, and in the event they don't ever integrate or contribute to society should they choose to remain there (if any country even allows them unlimited refuge) what can you even do about that.
Some have returned after being disillusioned, since clearly the countries aren't prepared to handle them (some can't stand the food they're literally given for free out of goodwill, among a whole list of 'complaints').
Of course, with the good comes the bad and this is no exception.
Common sense would dictate having just not some sort of border defense/patrol/checkpoint enforcement but a highly reliable and efficient one. (Which, in almost all respects cannot cope)
You want to try to filter whom you can and cannot take in.
And I honestly don't believe it works well as far as 'background' checking goes, I mean these guys are literally from some Middle Eastern country and it's either a yes or no thing when it comes down to it.
Makes sense since you only make an educated discernment/guess at BEST.
How'd you know this dude wasn't just fleeing for real and the next woman is a legit radical who just wants to infiltrate ? Even better if they have a child tagged along.
Not even any room for discrimination excuses here, just simple and clear common sense and pragmatism.
Still the fact remains that once the genuine asylum-seekers actually get there and find out it is NOT what they were expecting/told of what can even be done for these people except ask them to make do, and increasingly at the expense of the economy and more ?
I cannot speak directly for any of these people, but for those who are honestly trying to seek asylum in the European nations, I think that if they had a choice they would rather stay in their homes. But the problem is that they can't without huge risks due to war.
One example of this is a video that my ethics teacher showed us about the US use of cluster bombs against "terrorists". The problem with these is that if you step on it, you die. It doesn't matter if you are a guy holding a gun or a child running and playing. I think one of the statistics given was the over 80% of those killed from cluster bombs are noncombatants (You can see for yourself: https://vimeo.com/8771101). Which is mind blowing. How are we still using these sorts of tactics when we are achieving these results.
I think that instead of making this huge big fuss about how many people we let into the country, we should be putting focuses on solving these issues that are driving them to emigrate
One example of this is a video that my ethics teacher showed us about the US use of cluster bombs against "terrorists". The problem with these is that if you step on it, you die. It doesn't matter if you are a guy holding a gun or a child running and playing. I think one of the statistics given was the over 80% of those killed from cluster bombs are noncombatants (You can see for yourself: https://vimeo.com/8771101). Which is mind blowing. How are we still using these sorts of tactics when we are achieving these results.
I think that instead of making this huge big fuss about how many people we let into the country, we should be putting focuses on solving these issues that are driving them to emigrate
I absolutely agree.
Yeah pretty much bombs have no conscience/mind of their own so yes you get turned into a fine mist of red if you happen to step on a mine or get hit by launched projectiles..
Also yeah the 'focus' is what is driving these people out their own country, the collateral damage (even with strict ROEs mind you, which can only do so much) is frankly scary.
There's no good solution to this, as far as I can see.
I don't know a whole lot, but the basic operating mindset is that you can neither negotiate nor co-exist with these guys who just want you, the person beside you, your family and your dog dead.
This violence will always breed more of it's kind.
I've read a lot of accounts on the war against 'terror' and it's like these extremists have no end to them.
I like to think half of them are actually not so willing to pick up a weapon and shoot it as much as they are just tired, stuck and forced to for their own lives/sakes or perhaps their families sake.
I'm gonna take a guess and say that threats and all that nonsense is a staple recruitment effort especially in the hardest hit areas or where there is most activity since manpower constantly needs to be renewed. (Children have been on the front for a while too and how else would they be there in the first place if not for gross indoctrination/force)
Yeah pretty much bombs have no conscience/mind of their own so yes you get turned into a fine mist of red if you happen to step on a mine or get hit by launched projectiles..
Also yeah the 'focus' is what is driving these people out their own country, the collateral damage (even with strict ROEs mind you, which can only do so much) is frankly scary.
There's no good solution to this, as far as I can see.
I don't know a whole lot, but the basic operating mindset is that you can neither negotiate nor co-exist with these guys who just want you, the person beside you, your family and your dog dead.
This violence will always breed more of it's kind.
I've read a lot of accounts on the war against 'terror' and it's like these extremists have no end to them.
I like to think half of them are actually not so willing to pick up a weapon and shoot it as much as they are just tired, stuck and forced to for their own lives/sakes or perhaps their families sake.
I'm gonna take a guess and say that threats and all that nonsense is a staple recruitment effort especially in the hardest hit areas or where there is most activity since manpower constantly needs to be renewed. (Children have been on the front for a while too and how else would they be there in the first place if not for gross indoctrination/force)
This is completely true. I read an article (don't remember where) that said that poverty does not cause terrorism. Instead, it promotes terrorism since children and families have no other form of work than what is provided by the terrorist organization. Furthermore, the terrorist organization actually have social services like health care to provide to the locals in their areas. This is how they get so much force behind them. The local see the terrorist groups as a sort of big brother or protector and allow to take control.Faust wrote:
I'm gonna take a guess and say that threats and all that nonsense is a staple recruitment effort especially in the hardest hit areas or where there is most activity since manpower constantly needs to be renewed. (Children have been on the front for a while too and how else would they be there in the first place if not for gross indoctrination/force)
This is not the first time this happened. It is actually a complete reenactment of the Cold War with the terrorist being communist. The US is trying to stop the spread of influence, but only this time it turned hot very, very quickly.
I would actually be interested in seeing what these radicals believe in, because there is no doubt that they are fighting for a cause that they believe to be worth dying for. And I am almost certain it is not for the reasons that we pin on them (paradise and virgins and all that bullshit)
Whatever it is, it's basically a pit you're digging yourself into. Once you start and get far enough you cannot come out.
Also deserters are killed pretty much, provided you don't escape successfully.
Now I've seen reports of fighters getting sick and tired and going back to their countries, and nothing ever since.
Honestly that in itself is a problem both ways in that why allow these people back and why did the cells ever let the men abandon their posts, surely they are hinging on the potential for them to spread the ideology (and what better way than to send back experienced and battle-hardened vets of their shit war?)
Also deserters are killed pretty much, provided you don't escape successfully.
Now I've seen reports of fighters getting sick and tired and going back to their countries, and nothing ever since.
Honestly that in itself is a problem both ways in that why allow these people back and why did the cells ever let the men abandon their posts, surely they are hinging on the potential for them to spread the ideology (and what better way than to send back experienced and battle-hardened vets of their shit war?)