|
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 24 2015 04:43 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2015 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:
I can't believe that people are making a fuss about 10k per year, what about those "tired and poor that are yearning to breath free?" The fuss isn't even about the 10k anymore. Before Obama opened his mouth most people agreed that we should take those refugees. Then he condescended to concerns that something like 80% of the nation had about vetting them instead of saying, "we shall double our efforts [to ensure no terrorists hide among the refugees]" and created a large backlash. Now, either that was intentional and he thought it was some sort of shrewd political move, or he is in an adviser bubble of people who are disconnected from the world. I assume he thought it was some sort of shrewd move, like some Democrats think this recent pivot to gun control and the "terrorist watchlist loophole" is a shrewd move. Also how they think splitting hairs about "radical Islam" vs. "Jihadi" vs. "Islamic extremist" is somehow a winner. Plus the nonsense about "doing what ISIS wants." At this point, Obama's rhetoric and tone is such that its actually plausible to extrapolate that he would trade 9,999 dead Americans for the 10,000 refugees, which no informed person actually thinks he believes. But that is why there is a "fuss."
There's a reason Bush didn't refer to "radical Islam" either. It supports the narrative peddled by ISIS and other terrorist groups that there is a war between Islam and the West. Not to mention that a lot of Muslims probably consider themselves "radical" even if they don't support violence. Sort of like Christian fundamentalists. We need the support of people like that to beat ISIS.
|
And so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their
interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing
showing up because we have no record of them
Words of Obama-appointed FBI director Comey on the difficulty of screening refugees in the failed state. You can't go to the corresponding offices in Syria and check out somebody's story. The concerns are well-founded, despite the propaganda otherwise. I don't know how Obama thought lines about fear and paranoia would fly, or reciting widows and orphans over and over. It might've worked in the past, or still works with GOP leadership, but it won't cower regular Americans wary of the ramifications.
|
On November 24 2015 05:16 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2015 04:43 cLutZ wrote:On November 24 2015 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:
I can't believe that people are making a fuss about 10k per year, what about those "tired and poor that are yearning to breath free?" The fuss isn't even about the 10k anymore. Before Obama opened his mouth most people agreed that we should take those refugees. Then he condescended to concerns that something like 80% of the nation had about vetting them instead of saying, "we shall double our efforts [to ensure no terrorists hide among the refugees]" and created a large backlash. Now, either that was intentional and he thought it was some sort of shrewd political move, or he is in an adviser bubble of people who are disconnected from the world. I assume he thought it was some sort of shrewd move, like some Democrats think this recent pivot to gun control and the "terrorist watchlist loophole" is a shrewd move. Also how they think splitting hairs about "radical Islam" vs. "Jihadi" vs. "Islamic extremist" is somehow a winner. Plus the nonsense about "doing what ISIS wants." At this point, Obama's rhetoric and tone is such that its actually plausible to extrapolate that he would trade 9,999 dead Americans for the 10,000 refugees, which no informed person actually thinks he believes. But that is why there is a "fuss." There's a reason Bush didn't refer to "radical Islam" either. It supports the narrative peddled by ISIS and other terrorist groups that there is a war between Islam and the West. Not to mention that a lot of Muslims probably consider themselves "radical" even if they don't support violence. Sort of like Christian fundamentalists. We need the support of people like that to beat ISIS.
Really, what you are saying is that this narrative failed long before Obama adopted it...
|
On November 24 2015 05:14 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2015 04:55 KwarK wrote:
If people were concerned that NASA might accidentally damage heaven with their activities would you have Obama promise to the US people that he'll tell NASA to be extra careful not to break anything as they fly towards the celestial curtain draped over the earth?
The "real talk, no pandering" crowd seems to very much want people to pander to their feelings. Come to the President with actual problems you're going to demand he address, not unfounded fears. Or if you are going to bring unfounded fears then don't be too surprised when he dismisses them. It's bad politics to call idiots idiots, maybe Obama should have made up some bullshit about how he'd have anti terrorist sniffer dogs smell each asylum seeker before they were let in, but this time he chose to call a spade a spade. Except he was pandering, to his own base. Its totally misrepresenting his comments to call then "truth telling" or the like, they were emotionally charged anti-Republican comments. On top of that, there is the inconvenient fact that he has consistently downplayed the threat of ISIS, even the morning of the Paris attacks. My assessment is that he thinks he is staying the course he laid out as the "Arab spring" began to foment, which many would say that the narrative he initially committed to has proceeded approximately opposite to how he predicted. And to be honest, the "trust me, I'm the President" line doesn't work when that happens.
The attacks were ongoing that morning. He didn’t downplay anything. He said he didn’t know, which was likely true as as well. The President doesn’t get to guess who is behind any attack on any nation. That is being responsible, not downplaying.
|
On November 24 2015 05:20 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2015 05:16 Mercy13 wrote:On November 24 2015 04:43 cLutZ wrote:On November 24 2015 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:
I can't believe that people are making a fuss about 10k per year, what about those "tired and poor that are yearning to breath free?" The fuss isn't even about the 10k anymore. Before Obama opened his mouth most people agreed that we should take those refugees. Then he condescended to concerns that something like 80% of the nation had about vetting them instead of saying, "we shall double our efforts [to ensure no terrorists hide among the refugees]" and created a large backlash. Now, either that was intentional and he thought it was some sort of shrewd political move, or he is in an adviser bubble of people who are disconnected from the world. I assume he thought it was some sort of shrewd move, like some Democrats think this recent pivot to gun control and the "terrorist watchlist loophole" is a shrewd move. Also how they think splitting hairs about "radical Islam" vs. "Jihadi" vs. "Islamic extremist" is somehow a winner. Plus the nonsense about "doing what ISIS wants." At this point, Obama's rhetoric and tone is such that its actually plausible to extrapolate that he would trade 9,999 dead Americans for the 10,000 refugees, which no informed person actually thinks he believes. But that is why there is a "fuss." There's a reason Bush didn't refer to "radical Islam" either. It supports the narrative peddled by ISIS and other terrorist groups that there is a war between Islam and the West. Not to mention that a lot of Muslims probably consider themselves "radical" even if they don't support violence. Sort of like Christian fundamentalists. We need the support of people like that to beat ISIS. Really, what you are saying is that this narrative failed long before Obama adopted it...
The narrative that there is a war between Islam in the west hasn't failed, it's one of ISIS's primary recruiting tools. I don't understand your comment.
|
United States43814 Posts
On November 24 2015 05:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +And so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their
interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing
showing up because we have no record of them Words of Obama-appointed FBI director Comey on the difficulty of screening refugees in the failed state. You can't go to the corresponding offices in Syria and check out somebody's story. The concerns are well-founded, despite the propaganda otherwise. I don't know how Obama thought lines about fear and paranoia would fly, or reciting widows and orphans over and over. It might've worked in the past, or still works with GOP leadership, but it won't cower regular Americans wary of the ramifications.
Do you think the fear of Syrian refugees is proportionate to the threat? Would you say the average American fears Syrian refugees more than, say, being in a car accident?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the american muslim community is upstanding. problem is you have a lot of ill informed youth listening to propaganda and conspiracy stuff. this lunatic fringe is then exploited by isis operatives through opaque means of communication. at least in the u.s. it's isolated young persons being turned, with their families giving tips on them to the govt. general anti-muslim rhetoric is entirely counterproductive.
the identifier is probably extreme anti-americanism with a dash of jew hating, not islam. these guys are motivated by hate and imaginary evil rather than positive identification with any particular way of life.
|
also given the fact that about anything is a bigger threat than Islamism everybody should be more worried about the sovereign citizens reproducing than accepting a few refugees. I mean if 1-2k Salafists in a community of 5 million Muslims are too much of a threat we need to exile every community in every country.
|
My random guess is that truckers are what you are looking for when you want people who pose an actual threat to your life. Or possibly just car drivers in general.
I think terrorists rank in the threat factor at roughly the level of drowning in your bathtub, at least that was the case when i last did some numbers on this.
|
|
|
On November 24 2015 05:50 Nyxisto wrote:
also given the fact that about anything is a bigger threat than Islamism everybody should be more worried about the sovereign citizens reproducing than accepting a few refugees. I mean if 1-2k Salafists in a community of 5 million Muslims are too much of a threat we need to exile every community in every country.
2/3 of young turks in Germany supported the salafist recruiting efforts a few years ago. Given this I highly doubt that the number is 1-2k out of 5 million. Maybe 1-2 active terrorists but (often silent) supporters will probably be significantly higher.
http://m.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/a-850346.html
Problems with muslim immigrants seem to increase from generation to generation and given the birth rates even small scale immigration should be heavily regulated.
|
On November 24 2015 05:54 Simberto wrote:
My random guess is that truckers are what you are looking for when you want people who pose an actual threat to your life. Or possibly just car drivers in general.
I think terrorists rank in the threat factor at roughly the level of drowning in your bathtub, at least that was the case when i last did some numbers on this.
I suppose it depends on what you count as terrorism. If you're counting people like the white supremacist who shot up that church and events like that it ticks it up a decent amount. Of course when Obama mentioned we had to worry about people out of those groups the same people freaking out over refugees said it was ridiculous.
Radical Islamists were also indicted more frequently than non-Muslim extremists and served longer sentences
Since 9/11, white right-wing terrorists have killed almost twice as many Americans in homegrown attacks than radical Islamists have, according to research by the New America Foundation.
Source
Sounds familiar. There is no doubt Americans are shit at putting threats into proportion. There is also no doubt the right has used that irrational level of fear for political gain.
In all reality the wave of refugees probably have less of a criminal element than the waves of Europeans who fled Europe into the North America when the US was first forming. I think the modern numbers put it at about 10% of European immigrants were convicted criminals.
Oh BTW turns out Trumps propaganda did come from a Neo-Nazi... We should all assume pushing Neo-Nazi propaganda would end Trumps run right? + Show Spoiler +
the original source of the graphic appears to be a neo-Nazi who praises Adolf Hitler in his profile
|
Nate Silver's article is a red herring. Yes, Polls aren't the be all and end all, but expecting undecided/uninformed voters to break along dramatically different lines than polling is dangerous. There are lots of undecided/uninformed voters, but without data/analysis where they're likely to vote is anyone's guess.
Realistically Trump's biggest problem isn't voters/polling, it's the establishment. There is zero chance the establishment will support Trump up until it becomes Trump vs Hillary, and even then they'll probably decide to focus on Senate/House races and write off the Presidency. At some point in the next 10 weeks the establishment is going to start pushing people to drop out in an attempt to consolidate opposition to Trump behind a single opponent. If it's Trump vs The Clown Car then Iowa and New Hampshire are his to lose, but if it's Trump vs Rubio then he might actually lose despite strong polling.
|
On November 24 2015 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote: There is no doubt Americans are shit at putting threats into proportion.
Ikr going by statistics we should be afraid of black people... considering they're by far the most likely to kill in our society.
|
On November 24 2015 07:37 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2015 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote: There is no doubt Americans are shit at putting threats into proportion. Ikr going by statistics we should be afraid of black people... considering they're by far the most likely to kill in our society.
The country is afraid of black people. Which is one reason black folks don't buy the hysteria over middle eastern terrorists. That irrational fear is used against them regularly.
The thing is white folks should be FAR more afraid of other white people as they kill more white people than anyone else.
|
|
|
Just saying blacks kill at 8 times the rate of whites according to the doj.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
or get a gun and not afraid of anything
|
On November 24 2015 07:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2015 07:37 heliusx wrote:On November 24 2015 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote: There is no doubt Americans are shit at putting threats into proportion. Ikr going by statistics we should be afraid of black people... considering they're by far the most likely to kill in our society. I think the stats show I should really fear white people a lot more, tbh. http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-violent-crime/
Yes you should, depending on where you live of course!
|
On November 24 2015 07:49 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2015 07:43 Plansix wrote:On November 24 2015 07:37 heliusx wrote:On November 24 2015 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote: There is no doubt Americans are shit at putting threats into proportion. Ikr going by statistics we should be afraid of black people... considering they're by far the most likely to kill in our society. I think the stats show I should really fear white people a lot more, tbh. http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-violent-crime/ Yes you should, depending on where you live of course!
Yes if you are a white person in America you should fear white folks (using this line of thinking). No one turns more white people into victims of violence than white folks. But rather than deal with the real threats to the safety of white folks politicians and bigots would rather focus on "the other".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
