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.
I'm sure that that has everything to do with Trump and nothing to do with people who are independently stupid and superstitious.
the same xenophobic fearmongering is at play. are you so obtuse that you want an explanation of how 'trump's america' is related to trump as a political phenomenon?
I'm sure that that has everything to do with Trump and nothing to do with people who are independently stupid and superstitious.
the same xenophobic fearmongering is at play. are you so obtuse that you want an explanation of how 'trump's america' is related to trump as a political phenomenon?
So why call it 'Trumps America' when 'Bush's America' is a much better description since it was under his term that America started a campaign to keep its citizens scared in order to take away their freedom.
I'm sure that that has everything to do with Trump and nothing to do with people who are independently stupid and superstitious.
the same xenophobic fearmongering is at play. are you so obtuse that you want an explanation of how 'trump's america' is related to trump as a political phenomenon?
A Jewish-Arab American woman is suing a United States airline and the Transportation Security Administration for discrimination and racial profiling after authorities strip searched and removed her from an airplane.
Ohio resident Shoshana Hebshi, 36, said she was returning from a visit with her sister in California on Sept. 11, 2011, when armed men boarded her plane and arrested her.
Hebshi was escorted off of Frontier Airline flight 623 after it landed on Sept. 11, 2011 at Detroit Metropolitan Airport. She was held for hours, questioned and strip searched, according to CBS News.
I'm sure that that has everything to do with Trump and nothing to do with people who are independently stupid and superstitious.
let's draw a Venn diagram of those two groups, I wonder what the result is
Not really sure what your point is? There's definitely some overlap but it's not like that has anything to do with this at all.
On May 08 2016 02:14 Simberto wrote: Also, another great example of how overhyped terrorism is. People are so afraid of something so incredibly rare it's absurd.
Rare enough that you shouldn't assume everyone who looks Muslim is a terrorist and should be treated with a massive degree of suspicion. Not so rare that it wouldn't be wise to keep an eye out and have a reasonable degree of scrutiny of those who support an ideology that all too commonly leads to terrorism.
There is obviously some more reasonable middle ground. However, given the choice between a Trump-style ban on all Muslims and a Merkel-style "open the floodgates and let millions of refugees from who knows where come in" I don't see it as too unreasonable to prefer the former.
I'm sure that that has everything to do with Trump and nothing to do with people who are independently stupid and superstitious.
the same xenophobic fearmongering is at play. are you so obtuse that you want an explanation of how 'trump's america' is related to trump as a political phenomenon?
So why call it 'Trumps America' when 'Bush's America' is a much better description since it was under his term that America started a campaign to keep its citizens scared in order to take away their freedom.
because trump's america is trending. i don't even know. what's the point of this question?
I'm sure that that has everything to do with Trump and nothing to do with people who are independently stupid and superstitious.
the same xenophobic fearmongering is at play. are you so obtuse that you want an explanation of how 'trump's america' is related to trump as a political phenomenon?
So why call it 'Trumps America' when 'Bush's America' is a much better description since it was under his term that America started a campaign to keep its citizens scared in order to take away their freedom.
Bush never divided the domestic population. Bush on September 20, 2001:
"I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends. It is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them."
Say what you want about security but this is not as dangerous as Trump's tribalism
This is really depressing: Sanders claiming that there will be a contested convention, and suggesting that the nomination fight was rigged. Can someone tell Bernie that he’s in the process of blowing his own chance for a positive legacy?
Here’s how the narrative could have run: although he fell short of actually getting the nomination, Sanders did far better than expected, giving him and his movement a good claim to have a big say in the Democratic agenda for 2016 and perhaps setting the movement up as the party’s future. But to take that position — to turn defeat in the primary into a moral victory — he would have had to accept the will of the voters with grace.
What we’re getting instead is an epic descent into whining. He dismissed Clinton victories driven by black voters as products of the conservative Deep South; he suggested that his defeat in New York was unfair because it was a closed primary (you can argue this case either way, but requiring that you identify as a Democrat to choose the Democratic nominee is hardly voter suppression — arguably caucuses are much further from a democratic process); then, with the big loss in the mid-Atlantic primaries,he has turned to a sort of fact-free complaint that any process under which Bernie Sanders loses is ipso facto unfair, and superdelegates should choose him despite a 3 million vote deficit.
At this point it’s as if Sanders is determined to validate everything liberal skeptics have been saying all along about his unwillingness to face reality — and all of it for, maybe, a few weeks of additional fundraising, at the expense of any future credibility and goodwill. Isn’t there anyone who can tell him to stop before it’s too late?
At that point, Sandernistas are sabotaging the chances to see any of Sanders idea becoming mainstream (which we need really badly because most of them are really good), and all they are working for is negative campaigning against Clinton that will simply benefit Trump. Useful idiocy, again. Sad.
What do you find good about that piece of writing?
I find Krugmans blogs very disappointing whenever I read them. Very light on sources and good analysis. Some of the bloggers on Bloomberg which I read frequently are not as famous as Krugman but put in a lot more effort into their blogs.
On May 08 2016 02:14 Simberto wrote: Also, another great example of how overhyped terrorism is. People are so afraid of something so incredibly rare it's absurd.
Rare enough that you shouldn't assume everyone who looks Muslim is a terrorist and should be treated with a massive degree of suspicion. Not so rare that it wouldn't be wise to keep an eye out and have a reasonable degree of scrutiny of those who support an ideology that all too commonly leads to terrorism.
It really isn't. Go look at actual numbers about the threat of terrorism. The chance you will be a victim is unbelievably tiny. your talking about an order of 1 in 3.5 million or worse. Your more likely to get killed by your toaster then a terrorist Source
I'm sure that that has everything to do with Trump and nothing to do with people who are independently stupid and superstitious.
the same xenophobic fearmongering is at play. are you so obtuse that you want an explanation of how 'trump's america' is related to trump as a political phenomenon?
So why call it 'Trumps America' when 'Bush's America' is a much better description since it was under his term that America started a campaign to keep its citizens scared in order to take away their freedom.
Bush never divided the domestic population. Bush on September 20, 2001:
"I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends. It is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them."
Say what you want about security but this is not as dangerous as Trump's tribalism
We were not talking about dividing the population but about unrealistic Muslim fears and while Trump certainly plays off of them the exact same feeling have been very prevalent ever since 9/11. The math teacher getting pulled off a plane could have just as easily happened in 2002 and similar cases have happened repeatedly over the last decade.
I'm sure that that has everything to do with Trump and nothing to do with people who are independently stupid and superstitious.
the same xenophobic fearmongering is at play. are you so obtuse that you want an explanation of how 'trump's america' is related to trump as a political phenomenon?
So why call it 'Trumps America' when 'Bush's America' is a much better description since it was under his term that America started a campaign to keep its citizens scared in order to take away their freedom.
Bush never divided the domestic population. Bush on September 20, 2001:
"I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends. It is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them."
Say what you want about security but this is not as dangerous as Trump's tribalism
You arguments rely on one quote from Bush, which is akin to saying Trump actually like Mexicans based on the one picture he gave of him eating taco or whatever.
On May 08 2016 02:39 Gorsameth wrote: We were not talking about dividing the population but about unrealistic Muslim fears and while Trump certainly plays off of them the exact same feeling have been very prevalent ever since 9/11. The math teacher getting pulled off a plane could have just as easily happened in 2002 and similar cases have happened repeatedly over the last decade.
Yes, it's a fact of the war on terror era but up until now politicians, especially in the US were responsible enough to not turn a matter of security into an issue that is going to divide the national population along ethnic or religious lines. This is absolutely poisonous and countless times more dangerous than the terrorist threats itself, and ironically the actual goal of the terrorists
@WhiteDog:
I think that's pretty representative of his stance on the issue over the years. I don't think he's ever attacked American Muslims.
On May 08 2016 02:39 Gorsameth wrote: We were not talking about dividing the population but about unrealistic Muslim fears and while Trump certainly plays off of them the exact same feeling have been very prevalent ever since 9/11. The math teacher getting pulled off a plane could have just as easily happened in 2002 and similar cases have happened repeatedly over the last decade.
Yes, it's a fact of the war on terror era but up until now politicians, especially in the US were responsible enough to not turn a matter of security into an issue that is going to divide the national population along ethnic or religious lines. This is absolutely poisonous and countless times more dangerous than the terrorist threats itself, and ironically the actual goal of the terrorists
@WhiteDog:
I think that's pretty representative of his stance on the issue over the years. I don't think he's ever attacked American Muslims.
On May 08 2016 02:14 Simberto wrote: Also, another great example of how overhyped terrorism is. People are so afraid of something so incredibly rare it's absurd.
Rare enough that you shouldn't assume everyone who looks Muslim is a terrorist and should be treated with a massive degree of suspicion. Not so rare that it wouldn't be wise to keep an eye out and have a reasonable degree of scrutiny of those who support an ideology that all too commonly leads to terrorism.
It really isn't. Go look at actual numbers about the threat of terrorism. The chance you will be a victim is unbelievably tiny. your talking about an order of 1 in 3.5 million or worse. Your more likely to get killed by your toaster then a terrorist Source
So you're trying to say that in a nation with rather significant security measures with a very small Muslim population, it's best not to have security measures because of a low occurrence of terrorism?
You can also look at Iraq which has thousands of incidents of terrorism each year. Not exactly comparable, but no less meaningful than your own number.
Is your point that there shouldn't be a degree of scrutiny applied to individuals who are expected to be more likely to support ISIS and domestic terrorism? Certainly it's fair to wonder what that degree should be, but to say that it's best not to even pay attention to that is just straight up irresponsible.
On May 08 2016 02:39 Gorsameth wrote: We were not talking about dividing the population but about unrealistic Muslim fears and while Trump certainly plays off of them the exact same feeling have been very prevalent ever since 9/11. The math teacher getting pulled off a plane could have just as easily happened in 2002 and similar cases have happened repeatedly over the last decade.
Yes, it's a fact of the war on terror era but up until now politicians, especially in the US were responsible enough to not turn a matter of security into an issue that is going to divide the national population along ethnic or religious lines. This is absolutely poisonous and countless times more dangerous than the terrorist threats itself, and ironically the actual goal of the terrorists
@WhiteDog:
I think that's pretty representative of his stance on the issue over the years. I don't think he's ever attacked American Muslims.
He designed half the muslim world as ennemy tho.
I'm no fan of the Iraq war but it was never a war against Muslims or the Iraqi people but a failed attempt at nation building. The goal wasn't to wage war on any population as a whole or to punish Muslims or whatever
On May 08 2016 02:14 Simberto wrote: Also, another great example of how overhyped terrorism is. People are so afraid of something so incredibly rare it's absurd.
Rare enough that you shouldn't assume everyone who looks Muslim is a terrorist and should be treated with a massive degree of suspicion. Not so rare that it wouldn't be wise to keep an eye out and have a reasonable degree of scrutiny of those who support an ideology that all too commonly leads to terrorism.
It really isn't. Go look at actual numbers about the threat of terrorism. The chance you will be a victim is unbelievably tiny. your talking about an order of 1 in 3.5 million or worse. Your more likely to get killed by your toaster then a terrorist Source
So you're trying to say that in a nation with rather significant security measures with a very small Muslim population, it's best not to have security measures because of a low occurrence of terrorism?
You can also look at Iraq which has thousands of incidents of terrorism each year. Not exactly comparable, but no less meaningful than your own number.
Is your point that there shouldn't be a degree of scrutiny applied to individuals who are expected to be more likely to support ISIS and domestic terrorism? Certainly it's fair to wonder what that degree should be, but to say that it's best not to even pay attention to that is just straight up irresponsible.
I'm saying that the chance of the Muslim looking guy next to you doing something weird is actually planning a terrorist attack while on a domestic American flight is so hilariously low that there is basically no reason to act upon it.
Which is entirely different from saying 'no one should do anything ever'. We have intelligence agencies for that sort of thing. We don't need paranoid housewives helping out.
On May 08 2016 02:39 Gorsameth wrote: We were not talking about dividing the population but about unrealistic Muslim fears and while Trump certainly plays off of them the exact same feeling have been very prevalent ever since 9/11. The math teacher getting pulled off a plane could have just as easily happened in 2002 and similar cases have happened repeatedly over the last decade.
Yes, it's a fact of the war on terror era but up until now politicians, especially in the US were responsible enough to not turn a matter of security into an issue that is going to divide the national population along ethnic or religious lines. This is absolutely poisonous and countless times more dangerous than the terrorist threats itself, and ironically the actual goal of the terrorists
@WhiteDog:
I think that's pretty representative of his stance on the issue over the years. I don't think he's ever attacked American Muslims.
He designed half the muslim world as ennemy tho.
I'm no fan of the Iraq war but it was never a war against Muslims or the Iraqi people but a failed attempt at nation building. The goal wasn't to wage war on any population as a whole or to punish Muslims or whatever
On May 08 2016 02:39 Gorsameth wrote: We were not talking about dividing the population but about unrealistic Muslim fears and while Trump certainly plays off of them the exact same feeling have been very prevalent ever since 9/11. The math teacher getting pulled off a plane could have just as easily happened in 2002 and similar cases have happened repeatedly over the last decade.
Yes, it's a fact of the war on terror era but up until now politicians, especially in the US were responsible enough to not turn a matter of security into an issue that is going to divide the national population along ethnic or religious lines. This is absolutely poisonous and countless times more dangerous than the terrorist threats itself, and ironically the actual goal of the terrorists
@WhiteDog:
I think that's pretty representative of his stance on the issue over the years. I don't think he's ever attacked American Muslims.
He designed half the muslim world as ennemy tho.
I'm no fan of the Iraq war but it was never a war against Muslims or the Iraqi people but a failed attempt at nation building. The goal wasn't to wage war on any population as a whole or to punish Muslims or whatever
Axis of Evil.
which also targeted the regimes of the respective countries, not the population. In fact the "we need to liberate the oppressed people of Iran/Iraq etc.. is the whole justification for the stuff in the first place
On May 08 2016 02:14 Simberto wrote: Also, another great example of how overhyped terrorism is. People are so afraid of something so incredibly rare it's absurd.
Rare enough that you shouldn't assume everyone who looks Muslim is a terrorist and should be treated with a massive degree of suspicion. Not so rare that it wouldn't be wise to keep an eye out and have a reasonable degree of scrutiny of those who support an ideology that all too commonly leads to terrorism.
It really isn't. Go look at actual numbers about the threat of terrorism. The chance you will be a victim is unbelievably tiny. your talking about an order of 1 in 3.5 million or worse. Your more likely to get killed by your toaster then a terrorist Source
So you're trying to say that in a nation with rather significant security measures with a very small Muslim population, it's best not to have security measures because of a low occurrence of terrorism?
You can also look at Iraq which has thousands of incidents of terrorism each year. Not exactly comparable, but no less meaningful than your own number.
Is your point that there shouldn't be a degree of scrutiny applied to individuals who are expected to be more likely to support ISIS and domestic terrorism? Certainly it's fair to wonder what that degree should be, but to say that it's best not to even pay attention to that is just straight up irresponsible.
I'm saying that the chance of the Muslim looking guy next to you doing something weird is actually planning a terrorist attack while on a domestic American flight is so hilariously low that there is basically no reason to act upon it.
Which is entirely different from saying 'no one should do anything ever'. We have intelligence agencies for that sort of thing. We don't need paranoid housewives helping out.
Oh, if that's all you're saying, then I definitely agree.