|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 19 2015 12:53 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 12:51 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I can't wait until we decide not to let people into the country from the Middle East at all because they get even less screening than these refugees. Better not let in people that look Middle Eastern, either, since they could be terrorists too; even if they were born in the U.S., they might have radicalized. Then we'll have great legs to stand on when it comes to negotiating deals, right Donald? Deals with what? No nation in the world is going to turn down the spending power of the U.S. "We were going to buy billion of dollars of shit off you but not anymore." Get real.
Ah yes, I forgot. Soft power doesn't exist except in the form of money. It doesn't affect negotiations negatively at all when other countries think your policies with respect to other countries, immigrants, and refugees are borderline insane. Of course. That's how geopolitics works.
Of course they'll keep "buying shit." People buy shit from China despite them constantly abusing human rights. But they won't do much else (and the world is about slightly more than buying shit).
Edit: It's clear enough by your reply that we completely disagree about what the world is today, so I'll stop trying to convince you that my reality is the right one and just hope the American people don't think that all that matters is if people "buy our shit."
|
On November 19 2015 13:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 12:53 bo1b wrote:On November 19 2015 12:51 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I can't wait until we decide not to let people into the country from the Middle East at all because they get even less screening than these refugees. Better not let in people that look Middle Eastern, either, since they could be terrorists too; even if they were born in the U.S., they might have radicalized. Then we'll have great legs to stand on when it comes to negotiating deals, right Donald? Deals with what? No nation in the world is going to turn down the spending power of the U.S. "We were going to buy billion of dollars of shit off you but not anymore." Get real. Ah yes, I forgot. Soft power doesn't exist except in the form of money. It doesn't affect negotiations negatively at all when other countries think your policies with respect to other countries, immigrants, and refugees are borderline insane. Of course. That's how geopolitics works.
In the case of America, no it really doesn't. Maybe it does for Australia or a smaller nation, not so for a fucking superpower.
|
Meanwhile in America (not that you'll see it on the news)...
|
On November 19 2015 13:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 12:53 bo1b wrote:On November 19 2015 12:51 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I can't wait until we decide not to let people into the country from the Middle East at all because they get even less screening than these refugees. Better not let in people that look Middle Eastern, either, since they could be terrorists too; even if they were born in the U.S., they might have radicalized. Then we'll have great legs to stand on when it comes to negotiating deals, right Donald? Deals with what? No nation in the world is going to turn down the spending power of the U.S. "We were going to buy billion of dollars of shit off you but not anymore." Get real. Ah yes, I forgot. Soft power doesn't exist except in the form of money. It doesn't affect negotiations negatively at all when other countries think your policies with respect to other countries, immigrants, and refugees are borderline insane. Of course. That's how geopolitics works. Of course they'll keep "buying shit." People buy shit from China despite them constantly abusing human rights. But they won't do much else (and the world is about slightly more than buying shit). Edit: It's clear enough by your reply that we completely disagree about what the world is today, so I'll stop trying to convince you that my reality is the right one and just hope the American people don't think that all that matters is if people "buy our shit."
Way to completely reduce what I said to "buy our shit". That said what deals do you think are going to fall through with what nations? The entire world relies on both American money and the American military presence.
|
|
|
You're not actually suggesting that no one was interfering in Arab affairs before 1917, are you?
|
This shits been going on for more then a thousand years without American intervention.
|
|
|
This will be shown on the news after it escalates to an absurd point. Seems to be the narrative, horrible as that is.
|
The EU was murdering each on mass several times for in the mass hundreds years, your point? I hear Russia killed 10 million of their own people just over food. The idea that the Middle East held some monopoly on violence during any period of time is comical. Lets not even get into meddling in the Middle East after WW2 by almost every super power.
|
Too much talking past each other for me to want to discuss much;
on refugees, I maintain that we should fully fund the UNHCR camps before taking in refugees, as that's far more cost-effective and helps more people.
|
|
|
On November 19 2015 12:11 Deathstar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 12:09 Acrofales wrote:On November 19 2015 12:07 RenSC2 wrote:On November 19 2015 11:46 kwizach wrote:On November 19 2015 11:17 RenSC2 wrote:
The only thing it takes to get over this roadblock is to ignore political correctness on this issue. Respecting human rights is "political correctness", now? Let me fix your post: "The only thing it takes to get over this roadblock is to ignore any shred of human decency and empathy you might have left, and fully embrace bigotry and right-wing xenophobic myths". So proposing that we take in more immigrants than currently proposed is "ignoring any shred of human decency and empathy"? Not sure how you came to that conclusion. Reading comprehension fail? Logic fail? I suggest that we can do the most good as a country by taking in the women and children. Setting up planes or ships and getting those women and children across the Atlantic and setting them up in America. If we can get past the sexism of the solution, it actually ends up being a better solution for everyone... the able bodied men fleeing to Europe aren't leaving their mothers/sisters/wives/children in a warzone on the hopes that they'll eventually get proper clearance. Instead, those men know that their families are safe in America and can make the journey to Europe with confidence or stay and fight with confidence. Mhm, Im sure all those families you're proposing to split in half see it your way too. Yeah I'm pretty sure parents coming from third world war zones would not mind being separated from their son or daughter if it means their child can live a life in the US. Please think for just 5 seconds.
Wow.. look at you.. just.. wow... the gall and the superiority complex is too damn high. The fact that you can sit there and say things like that means you have literally never seen any kind of suffering let alone experienced it.
They dont care where their kids can live right now, all they care is that they are safe. You could send them to Timbuktu and thy would go if they could build a life but is that really what you in good conscious want to do?
And let me put it another way, do you really want to make a parent or family make that choice. Is a family so desperate to be willing to send their children away to give them a life, any kind of life sound like terrorist material? If they werent before, when you split that family you just made the first stitch in a suicide vest..
let me explain this to you in terms you can understand. You seem to think = bad guys come from outside your borders. But bad guys inside your borders, err just mentally ill. If thats not racist I dont know what is. Especially when the statistics agree with me.
The fact that you offer such simpleminded and "let them eat cake" solutions is just so out of touch it really worries me for America.
|
On November 19 2015 13:30 Plansix wrote:
The EU was murdering each on mass several times for in the mass hundreds years, your point? I hear Russia killed 10 million of their own people just over food. The idea that the Middle East held some monopoly on violence during any period of time is comical. Lets not even get into meddling in the Middle East after WW2 by almost every super power.
Post colonial meddling and cold war meddling has probably done more damage to the world indirectly then most everything else.
|
On November 19 2015 13:35 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 12:11 Deathstar wrote:On November 19 2015 12:09 Acrofales wrote:On November 19 2015 12:07 RenSC2 wrote:On November 19 2015 11:46 kwizach wrote:On November 19 2015 11:17 RenSC2 wrote:
The only thing it takes to get over this roadblock is to ignore political correctness on this issue. Respecting human rights is "political correctness", now? Let me fix your post: "The only thing it takes to get over this roadblock is to ignore any shred of human decency and empathy you might have left, and fully embrace bigotry and right-wing xenophobic myths". So proposing that we take in more immigrants than currently proposed is "ignoring any shred of human decency and empathy"? Not sure how you came to that conclusion. Reading comprehension fail? Logic fail? I suggest that we can do the most good as a country by taking in the women and children. Setting up planes or ships and getting those women and children across the Atlantic and setting them up in America. If we can get past the sexism of the solution, it actually ends up being a better solution for everyone... the able bodied men fleeing to Europe aren't leaving their mothers/sisters/wives/children in a warzone on the hopes that they'll eventually get proper clearance. Instead, those men know that their families are safe in America and can make the journey to Europe with confidence or stay and fight with confidence. Mhm, Im sure all those families you're proposing to split in half see it your way too. Yeah I'm pretty sure parents coming from third world war zones would not mind being separated from their son or daughter if it means their child can live a life in the US. Please think for just 5 seconds. Wow.. look at you.. just.. wow... the gall and the superiority complex is too damn high. The fact that you can sit there and say things like that means you have literally never seen any kind of suffering let alone experienced it. They dont care where their kids can live right now, all they care is that they are safe. You could send them to Timbuktu and thy would go if they could build a life. Are you seriously saying that you want to break up families and just ship a bunch of kids without any kind of parent here and break up family's. Even if one of those kids grows up with resentment you just brewed your own terrorist. Good job.
Or instead of having a knee jerk reaction you can look at where the refugees have gone, in what ratio of male:female:child and draw some conclusions about how much a first world nation is going to influence there end location.
|
On November 19 2015 12:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 12:35 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2015 12:14 Mercy13 wrote:On November 19 2015 11:54 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2015 11:48 farvacola wrote:
Being a coward in public is quite in fashion these days it would seem. I'll be honest. I really hope that democrats continue with this idiotic line of thought. Even Mother Jones gets it: Mocking Republicans over this—as liberals spent much of yesterday doing on my Twitter stream—seems absurdly out of touch to a lot of people. Not just wingnut tea partiers, either, but plenty of ordinary centrists too. It makes them wonder if Democrats seriously see no problem here. Do they care at all about national security? Are they really that detached from reality?
The liberal response to this should be far more measured. We should support tight screening. Never mind that screening is already pretty tight. We should highlight the fact that we're accepting a pretty modest number of refugees. In general, we should act like this is a legitimate thing to be concerned about and then work from there.
Mocking it is the worst thing we could do. It validates all the worst stereotypes about liberals that we put political correctness ahead of national security. It doesn't matter if that's right or wrong. Ordinary people see the refugees as a common sense thing to be concerned about. We shouldn't respond by essentially calling them idiots. That way lies electoral disaster. Source. This is actually a really good point. It's fun to get angry and yell at people on the internet, but if we want to change hearts and mind about refugees or Muslims in general, it would probably help to acknowledge their concerns even if they aren't very logical. Do you know who's laughing all of the way to the political bank right now? Donald Trump. This refugee issue is right in the wheelhouse of his immigration narrative. More importantly, it's an issue on which Trump is going to receive popular support. Between the evolution of the immigration debate in America and the development of rabid anti-political establishment sentiments in the electorate, I'm starting to wonder whether it is Trump's destiny to be president. Regardless of whether its due to serendipity of true political acumen, Trump has been at the cutting edge of these issues, which has fueled his success so far. It won't last, but you're right his consistent appeals to fear and bigotry will make him essentially untouchable in the primary. Hope you like Trump as he's probably going to win the Republican nomination. Would be a shame if 6 months from now we are hearing about how if only Republicans had nominated a "real conservative" (as if their constant refusal to nominate one isn't indicative that "conservatives" have little-no sway in the Republican party) they wouldn't be getting trounced nationally. As if the faults highlighted over a general wouldn't have been easily knowable prior, but republicans just didn't care. EDIT: Just a friendly reminder, Bernie Sanders is already beating Trump in a heads up race.
What does this mean?
A) conservatives don't think they control the party, it's the liberals who seem to think the "crazies" run it.
B) Trounced by whom? Aside from the presidency, they control more of the national, state, and local government than any time in recent memory.
On November 19 2015 13:43 Kickstart wrote:
They wouldn't if people turned up to vote. 30% voter turnout and of that 30% you can be sure the vast majority are angry old citizens who are nostalgic about the glory days of america and want to see her great again.
That's why republicans won't win the presidency, because people will show up and vote for that election.
Alternate realities don't count as "trounced."
|
They wouldn't if people turned up to vote. 30% voter turnout and of that 30% you can be sure the vast majority are angry old citizens who are nostalgic about the glory days of america and want to see her great again.
That's why republicans won't win the presidency, because people will show up and vote for that election.
|
On November 19 2015 13:39 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 12:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 19 2015 12:35 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2015 12:14 Mercy13 wrote:On November 19 2015 11:54 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2015 11:48 farvacola wrote:
Being a coward in public is quite in fashion these days it would seem. I'll be honest. I really hope that democrats continue with this idiotic line of thought. Even Mother Jones gets it: Mocking Republicans over this—as liberals spent much of yesterday doing on my Twitter stream—seems absurdly out of touch to a lot of people. Not just wingnut tea partiers, either, but plenty of ordinary centrists too. It makes them wonder if Democrats seriously see no problem here. Do they care at all about national security? Are they really that detached from reality?
The liberal response to this should be far more measured. We should support tight screening. Never mind that screening is already pretty tight. We should highlight the fact that we're accepting a pretty modest number of refugees. In general, we should act like this is a legitimate thing to be concerned about and then work from there.
Mocking it is the worst thing we could do. It validates all the worst stereotypes about liberals that we put political correctness ahead of national security. It doesn't matter if that's right or wrong. Ordinary people see the refugees as a common sense thing to be concerned about. We shouldn't respond by essentially calling them idiots. That way lies electoral disaster. Source. This is actually a really good point. It's fun to get angry and yell at people on the internet, but if we want to change hearts and mind about refugees or Muslims in general, it would probably help to acknowledge their concerns even if they aren't very logical. Do you know who's laughing all of the way to the political bank right now? Donald Trump. This refugee issue is right in the wheelhouse of his immigration narrative. More importantly, it's an issue on which Trump is going to receive popular support. Between the evolution of the immigration debate in America and the development of rabid anti-political establishment sentiments in the electorate, I'm starting to wonder whether it is Trump's destiny to be president. Regardless of whether its due to serendipity of true political acumen, Trump has been at the cutting edge of these issues, which has fueled his success so far. It won't last, but you're right his consistent appeals to fear and bigotry will make him essentially untouchable in the primary. Hope you like Trump as he's probably going to win the Republican nomination. Would be a shame if 6 months from now we are hearing about how if only Republicans had nominated a "real conservative" (as if their constant refusal to nominate one isn't indicative that "conservatives" have little-no sway in the Republican party) they wouldn't be getting trounced nationally. As if the faults highlighted over a general wouldn't have been easily knowable prior, but republicans just didn't care. EDIT: Just a friendly reminder, Bernie Sanders is already beating Trump in a heads up race. What does this mean? A) conservatives don't think they control the party, it's the liberals who seem to think the "crazies" run it. B) Trounced by whom? Aside from the presidency, they control more of the national, state, and local government than any time in recent memory.
There's an old rumor that if only Republicans nominated a conservative they would win a presidential race, which is imo delusional as conservatives can't even win their primary.
Trounced in the presidential election.
|
Canada11340 Posts
On November 19 2015 13:43 Kickstart wrote:
They wouldn't if people turned up to vote. 30% voter turnout and of that 30% you can be sure the vast majority are angry old citizens who are nostalgic about the glory days of america and want to see her great again.
That's why republicans won't win the presidency, because people will show up and vote for that election.
30%? That's terrible. I thought out 60% numbers were bad in past elections (even our high water mark this election isn't THAT great, except my region had a super high turn out when compared nationally.) If most of the power is supposed to reside at the State level, how is voter turn out so low? 
|
On November 19 2015 13:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 13:39 Introvert wrote:On November 19 2015 12:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 19 2015 12:35 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2015 12:14 Mercy13 wrote:On November 19 2015 11:54 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2015 11:48 farvacola wrote:
Being a coward in public is quite in fashion these days it would seem. I'll be honest. I really hope that democrats continue with this idiotic line of thought. Even Mother Jones gets it: Mocking Republicans over this—as liberals spent much of yesterday doing on my Twitter stream—seems absurdly out of touch to a lot of people. Not just wingnut tea partiers, either, but plenty of ordinary centrists too. It makes them wonder if Democrats seriously see no problem here. Do they care at all about national security? Are they really that detached from reality?
The liberal response to this should be far more measured. We should support tight screening. Never mind that screening is already pretty tight. We should highlight the fact that we're accepting a pretty modest number of refugees. In general, we should act like this is a legitimate thing to be concerned about and then work from there.
Mocking it is the worst thing we could do. It validates all the worst stereotypes about liberals that we put political correctness ahead of national security. It doesn't matter if that's right or wrong. Ordinary people see the refugees as a common sense thing to be concerned about. We shouldn't respond by essentially calling them idiots. That way lies electoral disaster. Source. This is actually a really good point. It's fun to get angry and yell at people on the internet, but if we want to change hearts and mind about refugees or Muslims in general, it would probably help to acknowledge their concerns even if they aren't very logical. Do you know who's laughing all of the way to the political bank right now? Donald Trump. This refugee issue is right in the wheelhouse of his immigration narrative. More importantly, it's an issue on which Trump is going to receive popular support. Between the evolution of the immigration debate in America and the development of rabid anti-political establishment sentiments in the electorate, I'm starting to wonder whether it is Trump's destiny to be president. Regardless of whether its due to serendipity of true political acumen, Trump has been at the cutting edge of these issues, which has fueled his success so far. It won't last, but you're right his consistent appeals to fear and bigotry will make him essentially untouchable in the primary. Hope you like Trump as he's probably going to win the Republican nomination. Would be a shame if 6 months from now we are hearing about how if only Republicans had nominated a "real conservative" (as if their constant refusal to nominate one isn't indicative that "conservatives" have little-no sway in the Republican party) they wouldn't be getting trounced nationally. As if the faults highlighted over a general wouldn't have been easily knowable prior, but republicans just didn't care. EDIT: Just a friendly reminder, Bernie Sanders is already beating Trump in a heads up race. What does this mean? A) conservatives don't think they control the party, it's the liberals who seem to think the "crazies" run it. B) Trounced by whom? Aside from the presidency, they control more of the national, state, and local government than any time in recent memory. There's an old rumor that if only Republicans nominated a conservative they would win a presidential race, which is imo delusional as conservatives can't even win their primary. Trounced in the presidential election.
Oh, so you meant past/future. Not current. I was confused by "getting trounced."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
