The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: TheDrake on October 15, 2016, 01:31:17 PM

Title: Trump on National Security
Post by: TheDrake on October 15, 2016, 01:31:17 PM
Set aside all the other stuff about Trump, one of the big reasons people support Trump is on national security. He regularly shifts back to ISIS, even when questions put to him are about domestic policy.

So, looking only at that facet of his policy, I see a number of things that make me doubt he would have done better.

At a rally, he made this statement:

Quote
"And by the way, with Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats and they make gestures that our people -- that they shouldn't be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water,"

Based on this, I have to conclude that he would have easily started the war in Iraq himself. Iraq regularly fired upon our aircraft. I don't think he would have used a limited response like striking radar installations based on various other statements like these:

Quote
“We’re fighting a very politically correct war... And the other thing is with the terrorists, you have to take out their families. They, they care about their lives. Don’t kid yourself. But they say they don’t care about their lives. You have to take out their families.

Quote
Everybody believes in the Geneva Convention until they start losing and then it’s okay, let’s take out the bomb.

There is the support of generals to consider. He boasts of the 88 generals that have supported him. But Mitt Romney had 500 backing him. It doesn't feel like very overwhelming support. Meanwhile Clinton has very similar numbers backing her.

He has no military background whatsoever, and whenever he is pressed for details he falls back on this type of answer:

Quote
All I can tell you it is a foolproof way of winning, and I’m not talking about what some people would say, but it is a foolproof way of winning the war with ISIS.

Quote
ISIS will be gone if I’m elected president. And they’ll be gone quickly.

Quote
I know more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe me.

If he does have a secret plan, is it genocide?

We certainly know that Trump is not interested in diplomacy. That's not his style, and I can't recall him ever talking about building coalitions.

He has an unfathomable view on military spending and how much it can accomplish.

Quote
I'm gonna build a military that's gonna be much stronger than it is right now. It's gonna be so strong, nobody's gonna mess with us. But you know what? We can do it for a lot less.

He seems to favor pre-emptive strikes.

Quote
I would rather see Japan having some form of defense, and maybe even offense, against North Korea.

So, when I look at the evidence, I'm simply not sure why so many of his supporters think that he would make America safer, or stabilize the greater community of nations.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: rightleft22 on October 15, 2016, 01:59:56 PM
Trumps core supporters are enthralled. Reason we are told is the tool of the intellectual elite.
 
Trump tells each audience what they want to hear and it does not mater when he contradicts himself, even in front of his followers, they stick to what the wanted to hear as what Trump "actually meant". Trump will make America Great again (a statement that doesn't mean anything) and safer via force.
 
Trumps enthralled followers will tell  you not to pay attention to the rhetoric, it doesn't matter what Trump says, but what he stands for. When asked what he stands for they repeat back the rhetoric your not supposed to pay attention to.

Anyone who still thinks whats happening is about politics or policies is deceiving themselves.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: AI Wessex on October 15, 2016, 02:50:54 PM
He's becoming so rabidly unhinged that he's already declared the election a fraud and said he would not concede if he loses.  He's a step away from advocating armed rebellion and many of his most avid followers are already there.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: rightleft22 on October 15, 2016, 06:27:13 PM
I find it difficult to cut through Trumps hyperbole and identify his position on national security. In one minute he says he would keep the US out of conflicts and then in the next minute talks about shooting boats out of the water

If the issue of national security is a concern for a voter I think they have to look at how Trump handles situations.
Trumps business negotiation, self promotion, campaign style is to be offensive. When someone says something you don't like hit them back harder and the next day play the victim. All offense no defense, no compromise. I can't see how his national security policies would be different?

Based on his statements and preference (history) favoring offence I understand his policy to be one of maintaining such a large military that no one would consider messing with Him/American and if they did hit them so hard that they never do it again.

One could/should debate if such a policy would make America safe and great again (what ever great again means”

On ISSIS although he hasn’t said it, there have been hints. I suspect his policy would be to give Russia and Syrian dictator a free hand. Arguably this could work in ending the problems in Syria. Likely at the cost of many lives and a loss of American influence in the region.

That may not be a concern if the plan is for the US to builds its walls and hunkers down behind them. Safe and sound

On one hand you have a kind of appeasement. Let Russia have a free hand to do as they will and then on the other bend China, Mexico, Iran… to his will though offensive force.

But then psychologically I don’t think Trump could handle the returning body bags. I don’t think he could face and be a comfort to the mothers of the fallen.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: rightleft22 on October 15, 2016, 06:46:57 PM
If I understand Trump has to main positions

Trump would hand control of the economy to Corporations by freeing them from tax and regulation.  Small government intervention
But increase protective services, police, FBI, CIA, Military, corrections…. Big government intervention.

That has always been my confusion with the GOP. They are the party of family values and small government. Yet historically Government has gotten bigger under GOP leadership as they try to enforce their family values on everyone. 

I don’t know, its to confusing.  I keep ending up in conversations were people talk about wanting the government out of his business (there wallet) while wanting government to enforce there values as they see them. The Corporations will take care of the roads, hospitals, charities, maybe even the police, firefighters…. The market Gods will keep them honest.  A Libertarian Dream of everyone living as the want as long as everyone wants the right way.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: Fenring on October 15, 2016, 06:52:17 PM
On ISSIS although he hasn’t said it, there have been hints. I suspect his policy would be to give Russia and Syrian dictator a free hand. Arguably this could work in ending the problems in Syria. Likely at the cost of many lives and a loss of American influence in the region.

A "free hand"...in Assad's own country? Yes, how crazy, to not deny a leader's ability to police his own borders. We need not say anything good about Assad to also assert that it's absurd to speak of his "free hand" as if he didn't have the right to defend his own country. As for Russia, this isn't the cold war. If Syria welcomes them as a friend it's no one's business to send troops in to break up that party. No country has the right to deny other nations having good relations with each other.

It is reasonable to suggest it could end the problem in Syria, although it's hard to say for sure, but less reasonable to suggest that "cost of many lives" and "loss of American influence" are some kind of argument against respecting another country's borders. Whose lives, anyow? ISIS fighters? America does not need to protect them. The human shields they hide behind? That is regrettable, but the only other option is to let them run freely and wreak havoc, if, in fact, they are a legitimate threat. It would be one thing if they were a passive resistance group and Assad was trying to maliciously wipe out. But according to MSM and Presidential rhetoric for years ISIS is a menace that needs to be wiped out. Accordingly, it should be no surprise that the prospect of collateral damage doesn't change that fact, even though it does put a human price on achieving that goal. Maybe the price is too high, but that is a different argument and not to do with whether going after ISIS is in principle the right thing to do.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: TheDeamon on October 15, 2016, 10:29:11 PM
Trump would hand control of the economy to Corporations by freeing them from tax and regulation.  Small government intervention

Government regulations almost invariably favor large corporations. Ditto for complicated tax codes. Large companies are the only ones able to payroll the small armies of accountants and lawyers needed to navigate those waters. They're also the only ones large enough to get a reasonable return on investment with that small army because of their economy of scale.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: JoshCrow on October 15, 2016, 10:45:55 PM
A "free hand"...in Assad's own country? Yes, how crazy, to not deny a leader's ability to slaughter his own non-combatant citizens.

FTFY.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: Fenring on October 16, 2016, 12:49:20 AM
A "free hand"...in Assad's own country? Yes, how crazy, to not deny a leader's ability to slaughter his own non-combatant citizens.

FTFY.

Let's assume for the moment that actually has occurred, of which I'm not convinced. But let's say you are 100% correct about that. Even that statement has no bearing on whether or not the ISIS forces should be attacked. Unless you are arguing that Russia is not only helping Assad to target ISIS and other terrorists, but is also murdering Syrian non-combattants just for the hell of it? I've never seen any evidence they are doing that. Don't forget the issue that was raised was Trump potentially letting Russia and Assad have their way with the terrorists unopposed and the collateral damage that could result, in addition to loss of American influence there. If, on the other hand, you want to talk about Assad's alleged crimes against his own people prior to all of this, then you've changed the subject and you have two simple alternatives: invade Syria with an army and remove Assad, or leave him alone to run his country how he sees fit (for better or worse). The former option is the one that's been used so far, with "army" being replaced with "proxy army", but it's much the same reality.

But what you did just above is mix metaphors, as it were, and to insinuate that preventing Assad from repelling terrorists is the same as preventing him from killing his own people. So far no one has done anything to prevent Assad from killing his own people that I know of, but they have done plenty to prevent him repelling terrorists. Russia coming into the picture changed that and they took back territory. The east and west Aleppo situation is much regrettable, but it sounds like the terrorist side is by far the worse of the two. Maybe that's small consolation, but the alternative is to make all of Syria the terrorist side. Pick your poison.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: DJQuag on October 16, 2016, 01:31:52 AM
A "free hand"...in Assad's own country? Yes, how crazy, to not deny a leader's ability to slaughter his own non-combatant citizens.

FTFY.

Yeah, if those citizens were living under ISIS it'd probably be nothing but ice cream and sunshine all around.

If the choice is murderous secular dictator, or murderous religious nutjobs, I'll take the former every time.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: AI Wessex on October 16, 2016, 09:41:57 AM
Fenring:
Quote
A "free hand"...in Assad's own country? Yes, how crazy, to not deny a leader's ability to police his own borders.

JoshCrow:
Quote
A "free hand"...in Assad's own country? Yes, how crazy, to not deny a leader's ability to slaughter his own non-combatant citizens.

Increase in communications and global awareness has far outpaced our ability to know what sense to make of things in far-off countries.  We have no formal authority to interfere, but it's questionable that we have the moral authority to interfere, either.  I think before we can really answer that question we have to understand why we won't even resolve our own problems:

Obama:
Quote
Understand, our police officers put their lives on the line for us every single day. They've got a tough job to do to maintain public safety and hold accountable those who break the law.

Orwell:
Quote
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: Greg Davidson on October 16, 2016, 11:01:44 AM
Quote
Government regulations almost invariably favor large corporations. Ditto for complicated tax codes. Large companies are the only ones able to payroll the small armies of accountants and lawyers needed to navigate those waters. They're also the only ones large enough to get a reasonable return on investment with that small army because of their economy of scale.

Overstatement. First, many regulations do not apply to companies with less than 50 employees.  Secondly, I am not sure that child labor laws favor large corporations, nor occupational health and safety laws, etc.  I could go along with a statement that large corporations actively work to shift regulations to their own benefit. And while they collaborate at times with both political parties, there is a differential level of collaboration with Republicans to shift the laws in their favor (which is why Democrats are the ones who often lead the fight for things such as the Consumer Finance Protection Board against universal opposition from Republicans).
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: AI Wessex on October 16, 2016, 11:30:39 AM
This is almost too pathetically funny, but this apparently isn't the first time Trump has claimed that an election he's not winning must therefore be rigged. I read these tweets this morning by Trump about the 2012 Emmy's:

Quote
Lots of people agree that the Emmy's were a joke --got bad ratings-- no credibility!
...Emmy's telecast is way down & lowest telecast on record among young adults. Emmys have no credibilty. Should have nominated Apprentice again!
...The Emmys are all politics, that's why, despite nominations, the Apprentice never won -- even though it should have many times over.

There are tweets very similar in tone from 2013 and 2014.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: rightleft22 on October 16, 2016, 12:25:15 PM
Its a very disturbing and potentially dangerous personalty trait for someone with power
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 16, 2016, 02:38:28 PM
Are y'all on a different internet from mine? Does yours not have the leaked email about Hillary forces talking about Obama forces engaging in voter fraud in the Colorado primary?

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3563

"High importance. I met with Jim and Mike in Denver. They are both old friends of the Clintons and have lots of experience. Mike hosted our Boulder Road Show event. They are reliving the 08 caucuses where they believe the Obama forces flooded the caucuses with ineligible voters. They want to organize lawyers for caucus protection, election protection and to raise hard $. They are not just Colorado focused and have good contacts in the region Mike is likely to talk to WJC about this in the near future. Marlon and Brynne, can you respond to the org chart request and give them some points of contact. Marc can you reach out to them on the lawyer election protection issues. Thanks."
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: yossarian22c on October 16, 2016, 03:03:22 PM
So an adviser in a private email raising concerns about potential ineligable voters at a caucus is the same as the candidate repeatedly saying that the election will be rigged if he loses (when polls show that he is likely to lose).  It isn't even close to the same thing Cherry and it makes the way he has referenced 2nd amendment solutions all that more insidious.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: DJQuag on October 16, 2016, 03:05:18 PM
To be fair the only evidence in that email is the Clinton belief that it MUST have been ineligible people swinging the caucus Obama's way. And I'll certainly believe that that might have been said, because a hell of a lot of people thought that Clinton was the crowned heir apparent in 08, just the same as they do now.

It doesn't make it true. It only shows that Clintonistas believed it. Do you make it a habit to believe what they say?
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: Greg Davidson on October 16, 2016, 03:30:39 PM
I will also note that a caucus is not run with the same rigor as an election
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: NobleHunter on October 16, 2016, 03:34:53 PM
It doesn't seem like the primaries in general are run with any rigor.

Crazy-ass-system.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: rightleft22 on October 16, 2016, 08:54:01 PM
It is a crazy ass system.

I'm also flabbergasted that the political specialists and advisers are so crappy at their jobs.
Perhaps everyone are so caught up in overthink and optics that they lost sight of what they are looking at.

"Yes, but if he knows I know he knows, he may do (X) instead of (Y). But what if he knows more than I think he does? He could be acting like he only knows that I know he knows, when in fact he knows that I know he knows I know he knows!"
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: scifibum on October 17, 2016, 12:37:41 PM
Trump has given a lot of indications that he thinks a show of strength is the most important consideration, more important than international law and more important than whether we are provoking an undesired response.

He also has no plan with regard to ISIS.  Literally no plan.  He gets away with a lot of bluster, and he think he sounds credible when he mentions his secret infallible plan because he surrounds himself with people who treat him like he's credible.  And he's got a loyal base who are either a) dumb enough not to recognize his lack of a plan, who equate wealth with competence in any arena, or b) so bothered by Clinton that they don't care how bad Trump is. 

So yeah, he is probably thinking of big bombs and waving away the civilian casualties.  Or he's thinking of throwing his legal team at it. 

BTW, I think he thinks he can get military strength for a lower price the same way he gets buildings built for a lower price: by agreeing to pay one price and then paying a lower price instead.  Business genius, there.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: Fenring on October 17, 2016, 12:44:33 PM
He also has no plan with regard to ISIS.  Literally no plan.

"No plan" would be far better than the plans that have been executed so far.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: NobleHunter on October 17, 2016, 12:46:24 PM
He also has no plan with regard to ISIS.  Literally no plan.

"No plan" would be far better than the plans that have been executed so far.
Blink Blink. Really, how?
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: scifibum on October 17, 2016, 12:53:00 PM
He also has no plan with regard to ISIS.  Literally no plan.

"No plan" would be far better than the plans that have been executed so far.

I think not invading in 2003 would have left everything in a preferable state to now, but I don't know if inaction toward ISIS would have been justifiable.  But I think I accept more of the mainstream wisdom about what is happening with ISIS than you do, so it's hard to compare our views.

But either way, Trump's no plan is still worse, since he still has a goal which I think he would try to carry out: wiping them out.  It's possible generals would be able to talk sense into him, but he's shown no willingness to take and follow advice from his current lieutenants, so it's not a safe bet.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: Fenring on October 17, 2016, 01:01:08 PM
Quote
"No plan" would be far better than the plans that have been executed so far.
Blink Blink. Really, how?

In context of "the fight against ISIS" supplying weapons to terrorists (even so-called moderate ones) that end up in the hands if ISIS is far worse than doing nothing and letting Assad route them. The fact is that it was distinctly not the primary U.S. policy in that area to fight against ISIS, but rather to fight against Assad while speaking negatively about ISIS. In context of "the fight against Assad" one could argue that this was partially successful. In context of "the fight against ISIS", completely counter-productive.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: D.W. on October 17, 2016, 01:25:17 PM
Normally not one to use the FTFY label but...

Quote
"A plan of inaction" would be far better than the plans that have been executed so far.

FTFY
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: DJQuag on October 17, 2016, 01:54:30 PM
If Saddam Hussein were alive and in power, there isn't an ISIS.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: Fenring on October 17, 2016, 02:37:15 PM
Quote
"A plan of inaction" would be far better than the plans that have been executed so far.

FTFY

Heh, well yes, that's what I meant to imply. I phrased it that way just to play on the "no plan" quote from the previous post.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: AI Wessex on October 17, 2016, 03:30:15 PM
If Saddam Hussein were alive and in power, there isn't an ISIS.
Sadly, that's probably true, but it's impossible to extrapolate from 2003 until today what might have happened. fwiw, I opposed any action in Syria because of the high uncertainty. We didn't know who to arm or what their real objectives were.   Not a good context for a committed policy. Sometimes *censored* happens whatever we try to do.   Libya is another case in point.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: TheDrake on October 17, 2016, 04:13:32 PM
Trump also appears to have an "arm everyone" strategy, as expressed with respect to Taiwan, Japan, Korea. So, I surmise he would have given weapons and training to the Taliban precursors in Afghanistan, Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.

Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: D.W. on October 17, 2016, 04:19:00 PM
Sell, sure.  Give?  Not so sure.  :P
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 17, 2016, 04:28:59 PM
I wonder if things would be different for the Tibetan people right now if they would have had the bomb before China invaded, conquered, and for the last few decades colonized them.

Also things would certainly be different for Ukraine if they hadn't been so foolish as to trust us when we told them that if they gave up their nukes we'd protect them from Russia. That was so gullible it's almost hard to feel sorry for the fools. I'm just kidding in a way that's not funny there. I do feel sorry for them. Obviously they shouldn't have trusted us with their national security. Tibet shouldn't have trusted the international community either. And neither should Japan or Taiwan. The proven track record justifies arming yourself to protect yourself because nobody else can be counted on to do it.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: NobleHunter on October 17, 2016, 04:42:06 PM
Also things would certainly be different for Ukraine if they hadn't been so foolish as to trust us when we told them that if they gave up their nukes we'd protect them from Russia. That was so gullible it's almost hard to feel sorry for the fools. I'm just kidding in a way that's not funny there. I do feel sorry for them. Obviously they shouldn't have trusted us with their national security. Tibet shouldn't have trusted the international community either. And neither should Japan or Taiwan. The proven track record justifies arming yourself to protect yourself because nobody else can be counted on to do it.
We (the West) never told Ukraine we'd protect them. Whining to the Security Council is about as far from "protection" as I can imagine. That's all they were guaranteed to get. If they had nukes, maybe they'd be a bunch of craters in Eastern Europe right now.

There were, like, half-a-dozen close calls in the Cold War. How many more are you willing to risk?
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 17, 2016, 04:58:28 PM
I trusted my doctor...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/07/ben-carson/carson-says-usprotection-promises-led-ukraine-give/

"Ukraine was a nuclear-armed state. They gave away their nuclear arms with the understanding that we would protect them."

— Ben Carson on Thursday, August 6th, 2015 in the first Republican debate

That was actually my understanding from many years ago though too.

I have to believe Ukraine thought they were getting some sort of protection too.

Ah, here it is, further on in the article. It looks like they just got lawyered and good too.

""State Department lawyers thus took careful interest in the actual language, in order to keep the commitments of a political nature," Pifer wrote. "U.S. officials also continually used the term ‘assurances’ instead of ‘guarantees,’ as the latter implied a deeper, even legally-binding commitment of the kind that the United States extended to its NATO allies."

I guess the Russians had their lawyers read over the fine print and properly parse it all and came to the technically correct, and as it turns out just completely correct, interpretation that they could take Crimea and we wouldn't really do anything about it but squirm and squeal a little bit, which is indeed all we've done.

This actually makes my point even stronger though. Whatever assurances you might think you have, you don't.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As to the last question, well yes absolutely I'm against nuclear weapon proliferation. As an American, why wouldn't I be? It doesn't make me any safer if more people have them. But I'm not willing to give ours up, ever. And if I were a citizen of another country at risk of being invaded or attacked, then the shoe would be on the other foot.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: D.W. on October 17, 2016, 05:02:43 PM
My only objection to what cherry puts forward as I think the defense of yourself should VERY heavily favor conventional weapons/forces.  I think we are ALMOST past nuclear weapons as being an issue.  I actually think that within say 2 decades we will see nations play chicken with the "nuclear deterrent" and I think the results will be an unwillingness to use nukes, even in defense against invasion.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: TheDrake on October 17, 2016, 05:03:24 PM
Well, if Iraq had nuclear weapons we probably would not have invaded them. And now North Korea has the ability to defend themselves from a potential invasion. Nukes for everyone, what could go wrong?

The idea of the Dalai Lama nuking the Chinese is just about the strangest thought I've had on the subject of Tibet. He did, in fact, defend India's right to nuclear weapons, but he has never supported armed resistance against China.

As far as the Tibetans go, one has to wonder if the guerrilla training and arms given to the Tibetans didn't cause them more harm than good. The Lhasa uprising resulted in the death of over 80,000 people, and ultimately accomplished little.

Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: NobleHunter on October 17, 2016, 05:06:39 PM
Quote
I have to believe Ukraine thought they were getting some sort of protection too.
I have rather more faith in the Ukrainian's reading comprehension. A treaty that says complain to the Security Council where the Russians have a veto is very different from, say, an attack on one is an attack on all. There's a reason they weren't allowed to join NATO.

Everyone knew those assurances weren't worth the paper they were written on.

It actually makes you less safe if more people have nukes. A fact Trump seems to be ignorant of.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: TheDrake on October 17, 2016, 05:40:59 PM
With respect to Ukraine, they never had functional nuclear weapons. Russia had control of the weapons on Ukrainian soil. All of the command codes were still in Russian hands. So they didn't exactly give up a nuclear deterrent, and had they tried to keep physical possession, it might well have sparked a military action by Russia in order to recover them.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 25, 2016, 01:07:53 AM
Trump is absolutely correct that the vetting process Hillary insists will work in fact does not work and puts Americans in grave danger.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/10/24/iraqi-terror-suspects-latest-examples-flawed-refugee-vetting-system-say-critics.html

"Two Iraqi men who allegedly lied their way past U.S. immigration officials and continued their terrorist-related activities after being admitted as refugees are the latest evidence that a flawed screening process is putting Americans at risk, critics say.

Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab, 23, moved to the U.S. in 2012, only to return to the Middle East twice to fight for Al Nursra, was allegedly recorded by the FBI boasting about executing members of the Syrian Army and their Russian allies. Wiretaps, made while he moved from Arizona to Wisconsin and then California, captured him stating he wanted to return to Syria because he was "eager to see blood.”

Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab was allegedly caught on tape boasting about killing for Al Qaeda. (Associated Press)

But when Al-Jayab sat for his interview with U.S. Customs and Immigration Services officials, he lied about his past – and his true intentions, say law enforcement officials. Al-Jayab is being held in Chicago for attempting to support a terrorist group, and also faces charges in California for lying to investigators about living in Syria.

Faraj Saeed Al Hardan, a Palestinian born in Iraq, lived in refugee camps in Iraq and Jordan before moving to Houston in 2009. The nephew of a legendary Al Qaeda bomb maker, he last week pleaded guilty to plotting and training to bomb and shoot up two Houston malls, including the prestigious Galleria. During a hearing on Monday, the 24-year-old pleaded guilty to attempting to assist the Islamic State group beginning two years ago."

Hillary is a dangerous person with a dangerous policy and it will surely get Americans killed unnecessarily.

Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: AI Wessex on October 25, 2016, 06:25:36 AM
If I understand what the story says, these men were caught. That suggests that they somehow got past the immigration process yet we still have the means to detect and deal with them. Since no screening process is perfect, that's encouraging. Also, one of them has been here since 2009 and committed no crimes,  also encouraging.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: Wayward Son on October 25, 2016, 12:29:41 PM
Quote
Trump is absolutely correct that the vetting process Hillary insists will work in fact does not work and puts Americans in grave danger.

Define "grave danger." :)

No vetting system is perfect, and any suggestions to make it better are appreciated.  But Trump doesn't want to improve the vetting system; he wants to just shut it down, because of this "grave danger."

We're in more danger from the thousands of armed criminals, psychos, anti-government crazies, and people blinded by anger already in this country than from the few foreign terrorists that manage to sneak in.  If you are truly concerned with making this country safer for our citizens, let's get the number of gun deaths down to international levels first before closing our borders to refugees.

Trump is a sniveling, cowering coward who would sacrifice women and children to starvation, exposure or ISIS in order to make himself maybe 0.1 percent safer.  This is no "grave danger."  This is an appeal to emotion and prejudice not based on facts.  And people--men, women, and children--will suffer because of this irrational fear.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: yossarian22c on October 28, 2016, 12:02:43 AM
Quote
Trump is absolutely correct that the vetting process Hillary insists will work in fact does not work and puts Americans in grave danger.

Trump is a sniveling, cowering coward who would sacrifice women and children to starvation, exposure or ISIS in order to make himself maybe 0.1 percent safer.  This is no "grave danger."  This is an appeal to emotion and prejudice not based on facts.  And people--men, women, and children--will suffer because of this irrational fear.

More like reducing the probability of an attack anywhere by 0.1%.  He has made himself maybe 0.00000001% safer, and I still think both of those of being generous with how much safer we are by rejecting all refugees.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 28, 2016, 01:47:38 AM
Neither Trump nor I are concerned with making ourselves personally safer by keeping out ISIS terror cells who will infiltrate refugee populations if they are large enough just as they did in Europe. The terrorists in Brussels who blew up an airport and metro station didn't target anyone in government or some random guy posting stuff on the internet from his house in the suburbs. Neither Trump nor I are the ones put in danger so it's hardly brave of us to allow in refugees when we know some of them are likely to be ISIS operatives. They aren't after us. By the same token it's hardly cowardice to want to keep them out instead of bringing them within easy striking distance of their favorite prey so they can kill and maim our women and children. Bravery isn't being willing to sacrifice your own country's women and children to terrorism, to put them on the front lines, because that's what every train station, airplane, subway, and mall food court is to these people.

As for leaving them to die over there that's not necessary either. There are more options available than bringing them straight to America or leaving them in the countries that other Muslims are destroying by fighting amongst themselves as they've been doing for over a thousand years. In fact, by not bringing them to America we can help many times more of them reach a safe place as I've seen numbers indicating it takes up to $12,000 to bring them here but only $2000 to relocate them somewhere safe over there.

Not to mention don't we have enough refugees coming from Central and South America already that we are apparently responsible for taking in? How many Latinos fleeing desperate conditions in their own home countries are we sending to Saudi Arabia and Qatar and other Arab countries? And if we are taking in refugees from all over the world there are millions we could take in who will starve to death or die of easily treatable diseases around the world who pose absolutely no terror threat whatsoever.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: Greg Davidson on October 28, 2016, 02:22:27 AM
Quote
y the same token it's hardly cowardice to want to keep them out instead of bringing them within easy striking distance of their favorite prey so they can kill and maim our women and children.

No, cowardice is when you look at every Muslim and see a terrorist.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: TheDrake on October 28, 2016, 09:30:15 AM
That calculus is missing some terms. You also have to consider:

If all refugees are denied help from the US, how much more likely is it that someone might be recruited from within the citizen population? Or from within other populations? Those people will be "clean" on any background check because they are newly minted terrorists.

How many refugees might be likely to aid in anti-terror efforts by reporting on what they see?

How many people who can't enter as refugees would enter on other visas?


And that is just on the security impact.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 28, 2016, 12:05:20 PM
The question you have to ask is do you want America to look more like Europe with the massive terrorist attacks they've experienced due to letting in too many refugees too fast. Seeing a terrorist in every Muslim isn't cowardice. It's just paranoia. But not admitting that some Muslims are terrorists is naivete or even just being dishonest. Insisting that letting American women and children get blown up and shot and stabbed to death on our streets and in our malls is worth it to save the lives of the refugees is a calculation each person can make for themselves. If there is a way to save the refugees without risking our own women and children that seems like the most obvious solution.

I also notice a certain arrogance and even hubris when it comes to Islam and Muslims. Liberals seem to think that if we just let them into America and expose them to our own values and civilization which are obviously superior to their own then they will just naturally and necessarily assimilate into our society like every other group has done. There is never any thought given to the possibility that Islam may actually be the superior force.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: rightleft22 on October 28, 2016, 12:20:45 PM
Reading your comment I don’t understand how anyone in Europe has not been killed yet!

As for massive attacks against its own people the US is doing pretty good already. No one seems care enough to do anything about that… maybe reason enough to ban all Americans from leaving the US.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: TheDrake on October 28, 2016, 01:35:52 PM
But not admitting that some Muslims are terrorists is naivete or even just being dishonest. Insisting that letting American women and children get blown up and shot and stabbed to death on our streets and in our malls is worth it to save the lives of the refugees is a calculation each person can make for themselves. If there is a way to save the refugees without risking our own women and children that seems like the most obvious solution.

Kids get killed by drunk drivers too, but a return to Prohibition probably isn't the best plan. It sounds like you are putting zero value on taking in refugees, except to themselves. I've already listed some of the ignoble self-serving reasons why bringing in refugees is a good idea for propaganda and intelligence. Comparing our system of handling refugees to, say, Germany is not particularly useful. I can't think of anyone advocating the adoption of the Merkel plan.

Taken to the extreme, where does the fear bring us? WW2 style internment camps for resident Muslims in the US? After all, several terrorist acts have been carried out by citizens. Better safe than sorry, neh?

And if we can save thousands of Muslim refugees, but it means that there will be one or two attacks with loss of life, and we choose not to... doesn't that pretty much set itself up as a recruiting poster that America considers foreign lives to be worthless?
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 28, 2016, 06:48:36 PM
Can't we save thousands more Muslim refugees by supporting their relocation to other Muslim countries?

"... doesn't that pretty much set itself up as a recruiting poster that America considers foreign lives to be worthless?"

Not worthless, one word. But perhaps worth less, two words, than the lives of American women and children, yes.

Maybe we could have saved Somalia back when we invaded with the U.N. force but we decided that those millions of lives were worth less than the thousands of American troops we would lose in the effort. Their lives were apparently not even worth one Black Hawk Down.

That's Trump's whole point. Put America first. We can still help them but there is no reason to endanger our own civilians and subject them to completely predictable and preventable terrorist attacks in the process. We just help them over there.

It's not even a question of the lives of thirty thousand Syrian refugees being worth less than the lives of thirty American women and children. That would be a good question though.

Hillary's answer is that if it costs thirty Americans their lives to help thirty thousand Syrians come to America it's worth it. Trump's position is that it's not.

But that's not even the question because we could actually save the lives of more Syrians and other refugees by not bringing them to America because bringing them here is so much more expensive.

Make our next arms deal with Saudi Arabia conditioned on them accepting in some Muslim refugees. Many Muslim countries have huge populations of foreign guest workers, for instance from the Philippines, so it's not like they don't have jobs available. It's almost like they aren't accepting any because they prefer using this crisis, just like ISIS is, to spread Islam across the world. And when we fall for it that just incentivizes them to extend the crisis situation, escalate it, and keep making more of them if possible.

I'm glad the FBI caught the latest couple of Muslim terrorists who infiltrated in with the refugee population but there are two obvious problems with that. One is that they may not catch the next one because that's the "beauty" of the lone wolf attacks. These guys talked to an informant. The next guy might not. And the second problem is this is taking away FBI resources that could go to solving other crimes and tackling other problems. It's not like we don't have enough as it is.

And that brings us back to the issue of drunk drivers and heart disease and second hand smoking deaths, driver by shootings, random murders in gang initiations, domestic violence homicides, and falling down in your bathtub. We've got enough problems as it is without adding more. And it's not like the victims of terrorism were going to die some time soon anyway by some other means. Why send them to their graves when we don't have to?

This all seems very similar to what happened in Britain.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

"The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett."
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 28, 2016, 06:55:38 PM
And the refugees along with the terrorists amongst them and the American lives lost are just one part of the issue. The second part is how it eventually changes America for the worse as we've seen in Europe and Britain where terrorism is the new normal. I don't think it's quite gotten to that point here yet and I'd rather it not.

If the loss of American lives in direct attacks by ISIS terror cells infiltrating the refugee populations is still worth it, is terrorism becoming the new normal in America, forever, also an acceptable price to pay?

http://www.dailywire.com/news/9308/londons-muslim-mayor-terror-attacks-part-and-michael-qazvini#

"Terror attacks are “part and parcel of life in a big city,” Khan told the Evening Standard just hours after police foiled multiple terror attacks in New Jersey and New York.

Once hailed as a “progressive” Muslim that would inevitably challenge regressive Islamists, Khan is now echoing an excuse shared by European leaders across the West. After a series of terror attacks in France, the French Prime Minister told his countrymen that France “will have to live with terrorism.” In other words, terrorism is the new normal."
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: D.W. on October 28, 2016, 08:06:53 PM
Eventually we'll ban all religion and start taking our Prozium daily.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: TheDrake on October 29, 2016, 12:29:24 AM
By these types of arguments, should the UK have banned Irish from entering the UK during the troubles? Should they now? After all, there have been several incidents perpetrated by the RIRA to the present date. Could that have undermined the peace agreement between the UK and the Provisional Irish Republican Army?

I don't go for an "America first" argument, I think more along the lines of "Humanity first". That doesn't necessarily warrant military action in support of people abroad. I think humanity would generally like to see less of our missiles, bullets, and bombs in their part of the world, whether fired by us or by people we sold them to.


Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 29, 2016, 07:07:59 AM
So since the British couldn't, wouldn't, or just didn't keep Irish terrorists out of their country then we have to let Muslim terrorists into our country? I don't know much if anything about the Troubles except for maybe a few movies I've seen about it and what I remember from them is that it was pretty much a police state the likes of which we are now beginning to see in Europe with soldiers on the streets. Like I said, I don't want that becoming the new normal over here.

I guess another way to put it is sure we can let terrorists into America and have bombs going off all the time, semi trucks rampaging into streets crowded with pedestrians, snipers taking pot shots at random people, small aircraft flying into buildings, and all with either soldiers or militarized police patrolling all over the place but that's not my preference if there is any way to avoid it. Oh yeah, and let's also not forget the latest ISIS plan to train and release serial killers across America as well. Instead of shooting up a mall or blowing up a marathon they will pick us off one or two at a time until an FBI task force over a period of years or maybe even decades finally manages to track a few of them down. Their defenders will say so what? We have serial killers here too already and always have so why discriminate against the Muslims ones trained by ISIS that we set loose here because we wanted to stick it to the haters with diversity?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1929676/isis-to-send-wannabe-serial-killers-to-the-west-in-bloody-new-terror-tactic/

"They want their followers to buy a knife, slaughters innocents, then dispose of the knife and start over again.

In an article in the terror group’s Rumiyah magazine they even give advice on what types of knives to use – suggesting striking in secluded places after dark to avoid detection, reports the Daily Express.

They urge would-be jihadis to overcome their squeamishness by using knives instead of guns – because it is easier to carry out large numbers of murders without getting caught.

ISIS chiefs believe random serial killer-style stabbings are almost impossible for security services to detect compared to shootings and bombings, which require coordination and specialist equipment."


Did the Irish terrorists ever do that? If not then maybe that's at least one difference.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: AI Wessex on October 29, 2016, 11:17:30 AM
Quote
I guess another way to put it is sure we can let terrorists into America and have bombs going off all the time, semi trucks rampaging into streets crowded with pedestrians, snipers taking pot shots at random people, small aircraft flying into buildings, and all with either soldiers or militarized police patrolling all over the place but that's not my preference if there is any way to avoid it.
Cherry, as you know better than any of the rest of us, we face a far more grave threat at home from domestic terrorists.  These are the people that you rub elbows with at Trump rallies (or you talk to, or you read emails or posts from) who have threatened to take up arms against our own government in a jihad that is far more a danger to our way of life.  The foreign Muslim terrorists you are afraid of are not attacking our government, but "sending us a message".  I'm not sure what the message is that seemingly random and rare attacks convey, but we know exactly what the Trump terrorists are trying to accomplish.

It is not stretching the truth at all to say that you seem quite comfortable about that avowed threat to our country, even while screaming about the threat that unknown foreigners represent.  I'm comfortable saying that because the Trump terrorists themselves say the very same thing.

If Trump loses, do you think it would be permissible to take up arms against your neighbors?
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: TheDrake on October 29, 2016, 12:09:54 PM
So since the British couldn't, wouldn't, or just didn't keep Irish terrorists out of their country then we have to let Muslim terrorists into our country?

Northern Ireland was as you describe. There was widespread support for the IRA at the time. Quite a lot of the IRA had UK citizenship already, just as many of the attacks in America, like San Bernadino, involved US citizens from birth. Targets spread to the UK, and the UK started using desperate measures including "enhanced interrogation" to get confessions (see Guildford Four).

Note also that the Paris attacks were done by EU nationals (French, Belgian) - not refugees. It is so much easier to recruit people already in place with lives and credentials than to manufacture a refugee background. Severe measures improve recruiting and funding. Just like the US Irish community was a source of funding and support for the IRA, albeit of disputed scope. The harder the British cracked down, the more money and recruits the IRA got.

You are still missing the main calculus - by denying the entry of X people, Y of which are terrorists, do we encourage the recruitment of Z terrorists from within the citizen population of the US? Or do we send them all packing en masse as well, or wipe them out in the manner of Stalin?

Then there's the intelligence value that you still don't acknowledge. Refugees from Syria can provide valuable information and cooperate with FBI for internal monitoring.

Sometimes I wonder how many Americans, particularly Trump supporters, would be willing to push a button that would instantly kill 1.6 billion Muslims around the world. Just because that would Americans safer, after all. Except for the 2.75 million Muslim Americans.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: TheDeamon on October 29, 2016, 12:24:24 PM
Well, 1.6 Billion fewer humans would certainly help in the fight against climate change.  :o
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 29, 2016, 03:45:22 PM
Regarding the domestic terrorists we already have, why make a bad situation worse by adding more ISIS terrorists into the mix than we have to? To help out suffering people? For the sake of diversity?

There are tens of millions of Hindus suffering in India just as badly as the Syrians and sometimes even worse. Why not help them instead? Many face entrenched discrimination because of the technically illegal caste system, dooming them to a life of poverty and sometimes even sex slavery. I don't believe in that system and am certain these people have as much human potential as any of us. They will contribute just as much to our country in terms of becoming business owners, doctors, lawyers, scientists, IT workers, and whatever, and with zero possibility of being ISIS terrorists. If they can come in and get citizenship then they won't be competing against Americans since they will be Americans. And we probably have fewer Hindus in America than Muslims anyway so they are due a representation bump as it is. When the number of Hindu terrorist attacks in America start to outnumber the Muslim terrorist attacks, then we can start thinking about allowing in more Muslims than Hindus again. And it doesn't have to just be Hindus. Buddhists are underrepresented as well and also pose zero danger, well if you don't count the Richard Gere types.

I'm just not getting what this fascination is with danger and the embrace of death like we have seen in Europe that follows welcoming too many Muslims too quickly. Do you think that doing so will teach us tolerance when the Muslims we invite in start killing us in almost daily terrorist attacks? I would be more concerned that such an approach is even more likely to cause a backlash. Or do you think the danger is over-hyped and America will see less Islamic terrorism than Europe? So far it looks like we've only had less because we have not invited as many Muslims in as they have, and already we've had more than enough as it is. We should focus on assimilating the Muslim population we have now and making sure that works out, and to be honest works out better than it has so far. Then we can think about what to do next. In the meantime there are plenty of much less dangerous ways to pursue the goals of diversity and helping our fellow human beings around the world.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: AI Wessex on October 29, 2016, 03:57:11 PM
Quote
Regarding the domestic terrorists we already have, why make a bad situation worse by adding more ISIS terrorists into the mix than we have to? To help out suffering people? For the sake of diversity?
What you should do is obvious: bring down the hammer hard on these people who say out loud that they will take matters into their own hands if Trump loses.  You can't see the nose in front of your face.  There are 1000's of Trump supporters who have publicly threatened to overthrow our government.  You're ok with that but you're worrying about *possible* acts of terrorism from people we bring here to save their lives.

You live in a surreal world where you can't see what's right in front of you in stark daylight while you whine that you are terrified of the dark.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 29, 2016, 04:19:26 PM
"Take matters into their own hands" is pretty vague. You're going to lock someone up for that?

Possible acts of terrorism? More like inevitable. And promised by ISIS who say what you want about them has so far managed to keep such promises.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 29, 2016, 07:36:57 PM
This is also part of national security, and there is a high degree of probability that Obama is culpable for paralyzing hundreds of American children when he let in tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors and purposefully distributed them throughout our school systems without a thought or care about the potential diseases they might spread and to which some of them may be for the most part immune.

Of course this article won't mention the connection. Maybe it's just a coincidence in timing but not likely seeing as how this is much more common in Latin America and was much more rare in the U.S. until Obama threw caution, common sense, and any thought for the safety of American children to the wind and flung the borders wide open.

Of course our government will deny any possible links. They won't even seriously look for the links because to find them would be too politically explosive.

This is all just another indication that good intentions often come at a devastating cost.

Now I know some will demand proof of the link. Of course I don't have it. If people want to insist the timing was entirely coincidental then so be it. It's up to everyone to decide that for themselves. Or it they want to insist that improving the lives of tens or hundreds of thousands of suffering non-American children is definitely worth this price, and in fact in this is even a very small price to pay, then that's something people can judge for themselves as well.

There are thousands of unaccompanied minors and other illegals still being detained and to my knowledge they aren't being tested for this. That's the first thing Trump should do. Obviously if they test positive they should be given treatment as necessary but it may also be the case that they require no treatment and instead are asymptomatic carriers. What should be done then? Just send them into our public schools to paralyze more of our children the way Obama did? Hopefully a treatment can be developed so they would no longer be a danger to others.

A full and independent investigation of the CDC also needs to take place to make sure there wasn't any sort of coverup and also find out why they haven't insisted on more testing of unaccompanied minors before exposing American children to the dangers they may be carrying. Maybe they did insist on it but were denied by the Obama administration. We need to find out exactly what went on there.

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-polio-paralysis-20160823-snap-story.html

"Many suspect that enterovirus D-68 — which gave hundreds of people a severe cold in 2014 — also caused the paralysis outbreak that year. Some of the paralyzed children had enterovirus D-68 in their system, and researchers have found that injecting mice with enterovirus D-68 paralyzes them."

http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/cdc-speaks-on-enterovirus-link-to-illegal-alien-kids/

"However, evidence buried in peer-reviewed medical journals provides support for the argument enterovirus D-68, or EV-D68, in the United States was a relatively rare disease. The EV-D68 epidemic occurred only after the surge this year of unaccompanied alien children illegally crossing the border from Latin America, a region where the virus is more prevalent among young children."
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: AI Wessex on October 29, 2016, 07:55:42 PM
"Take matters into their own hands" is pretty vague. You're going to lock someone up for that?

Possible acts of terrorism? More like inevitable. And promised by ISIS who say what you want about them has so far managed to keep such promises.
I was very clear that they have said they will declare war on the government.  Can you not hear what they (and perhaps you) are saying and understand that that is no different from the Isamist extremist jihadists you are so terrified of?

They scream that stuff out at every Trump rally, so it's not something you can pretend to be unaware of.  For some inexplicable reason you see nothing wrong with alt-right terrorist rhetoric.  Pretend that the US is under attack from ISIS all you want.  The threat from within is orders of magnitude greater.  Until you condemn it you would have to be considered a supporter, just like you think every Muslim is a secret ISIS supporter.

Quote
This is also part of national security, and there is a high degree of probability that Obama is culpable for paralyzing hundreds of American children when he let in tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors and purposefully distributed them throughout our school systems without a thought or care about the potential diseases they might spread and to which some of them may be for the most part immune.
More of your paranoid fantasy.

Quote
Of course this article won't mention the connection. Maybe it's just a coincidence in timing but not likely seeing as how this is much more common in Latin America and was much more rare in the U.S. until Obama threw caution, common sense, and any thought for the safety of American children to the wind and flung the borders wide open.
How and when did he do that?  I love that bolded part because it's so you.  They didn't mention it, which reinforces your absolute conviction that it's true.  But a more objective reader might say they would have mentioned it if it were true.

Quote
Of course our government will deny any possible links. They won't even seriously look for the links because to find them would be too politically explosive.

This is all just another indication that good intentions often come at a devastating cost.
Yep, once again they deny it, which can only mean that it's not only true, but they don't want you to know it. 

Quote
Now I know some will demand proof of the link. Of course I don't have it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: TheDrake on October 31, 2016, 11:21:16 AM
cherry, I haven't seen you address my arguments that taking in refugees improves intelligence efforts and reduces the ability of extremists to recruit. It also helps us to recruit people in country, like all the translators who worked for us in Iraq and were then given asylum. Some of these people earn their ticket by helping us.

Of course if we were operating on altruism, we could pick any number of people seeking asylum. And we do. The biggest refugee countries are Burma, Iraq, Somalia, and Congo. Burma had 18k, Syria had 1.7k.

Refugees and Asylees in the United States (http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/refugees-and-asylees-united-states)

Go back to WW2, and you'll see that we had similar fears that Jews were going to infiltrate our country and be blackmailed into working as agents for Germany, something that seems pretty ridiculous now, at least to me.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 31, 2016, 12:29:20 PM
To some extent that seems like inviting in people to solve a problem caused by us inviting them in to solve it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3886742/IS-claims-responsibility-knife-attack-Germany-left-boy-16-dead-teenage-girlfriend-injured.html

"- Suspect remains at large following fatal stabbing of teenager in Hamburg
  - Man approached the couple from behind and stabbed boy several times
  - Girlfriend, 15, was injured after she was pushed into the Outer Alster Lake
  - ISIS news agency Amaq has claimed responsibility for the attack"

Now we have ISIS inspiring lone wolf serial killers like this guy who is just getting started.

So Germany has lots of other Muslims who will help them to find this guy that got in when they invited those other Muslims to their country thereby solving the same problem they caused. I'm not sure how they puts them ahead.

Helping us fight the war on terror in other countries should be done by the Muslims in those countries. If they aren't willing to fight for their own countries then who needs them? If they are the good liberal Muslims we are promised, then their own countries need them over there much more than we need them here right now.

As it is, we've got millions of Muslims now in America, the overwhelming majority of whom should already be patriotic enough to help us fight Islamic terrorism. There is no reason to bring in more from terrorist countries when we can't know their loyalties. We should concentrate on the Muslims we already have. Are there not enough of them willing to help us fight terrorism as it is? If the American citizen Muslims won't step up to the plate then relying on foreign Muslims to step up in their stead seems like getting ahead of ourselves. But the American citizen Muslims are stepping up to help and do their patriotic duty. That's why we don't need to bring in tens of thousands more right now from terrorist countries.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: D.W. on October 31, 2016, 01:14:15 PM
There's two things going on right now.  Or maybe just one thing and one symptom.

People are fleeing strife in general and radical Islam in particular.  Some are fearful of these refugees because they may be terrorists trying to blend in and find an opportunity to inflict harm upon "their enemies". 

People are also fleeing from failed states.  And I don't just mean the ones in chaos due to conflict.  I mean places of limited to no opportunity, sometimes lacking infrastructure when compared to places like Europe and the U.S.  The western world has a lot going for it compared to the places these refugees are coming from.  An end to conflict does nothing to lessen the appeal of these places and the opportunities in the places they are fleeing to. 

Some see hope, others just become jealous.  In steps religious extremism to prey upon the latter.  Why are some willing to die for if not kill themselves for their cause?  Because they lack hope. 

Killing hope seems a dangerous bid for peace.   

P.S. you may as well substitute religious radicals with drug cartels and toss in Mexico as well when discussing this topic.  This is the "global economy" waking up and deciding they too should have what the first world countries do.  Telling them to start at the beginning and do it themselves (while also being good sports and doing so more green-ly than WE did) is just not gonna be persuasive.  Particularly not if their country was used to fuel our own growth. 
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 31, 2016, 03:19:45 PM
There is nothing to disagree with there. There is no doubt that for probably at least 2-3 billion of the world's population the United States would be a much preferable place to be than where they are now. Maybe even 3-5 billion of the world's 7.4 billion people. Maybe even more.

So the question is how many can we take in at a time?

We have legal limits on immigration on the books right now. Why is that?

Whatever the reasons are for those limits, should we just ignore them? Why not change the law then and make it legal for anyone who can get here to instantly have legal status instead of ignoring the law like Obama is doing and Hillary proposes?

I'm on the side that says there are valid reasons for those limits to immigration, limits that are already more generous by far than any other nation on Earth.



Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: AI Wessex on October 31, 2016, 04:25:24 PM
Quote
I'm on the side that says there are valid reasons for those limits to immigration, limits that are already more generous by far than any other nation on Earth.
There are, but you make this point as a smokescreen.  How many of those limits exist to deter extremism and terrorism on US soil?  I remind you that if you want to root out those things, you could fill up a lot of buses with people who go to Trump rallies.  Out of 10,000 or so at each rally, if only 1% of the attendees are anti-American crazies, that's still 100 people per pop.  Getting rid of them would create even more openings for additional immigration of people who would appreciate living here, as you point out.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: TheDrake on October 31, 2016, 06:22:30 PM
I'm on the side that says there are valid reasons for those limits to immigration, limits that are already more generous by far than any other nation on Earth.

I agree, it makes sense to limit immigration, but per capita the US is far from the most generous in accepting migrants.

Portugal, Spain, Italy, Norway and the UK all have higher migration inflows. Ireland has taken in Muslims at a rapid clip, now totalling 1.1% of the population, roughly equivalent to our own. And I have yet to hear about Muslim knife attacks there.

Other countries like Australia have large populations, partly due to their passage of the Racial Discrimination Act. This replaced the White Australia policy, which sounds a lot like what Trump wants to implement.

I'm all for controlled immigration as a necessary protection against disruption, but the criteria should be education, need, health, mental stability, and other objective criteria rather than religion, country of origin, or other discriminatory policies.

article (http://www.npr.org/2014/10/29/359963625/dozens-of-countries-take-in-more-immigrants-per-capita-than-the-u-s)
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: TheDeamon on October 31, 2016, 09:47:42 PM
If only those were the criteria used.

Regardless, it can't be used if you don't control your borders and don't try to enforce your immigration laws to start with.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: TheDrake on October 31, 2016, 10:12:09 PM
Our borders are 8,000 miles long, not including coastline. It just isn't practical to "seal" the borders, against drugs, immigrants, or anything else you'd like to keep out. You can and should try, but when people are so desperate they will hide in shipping containers, tanker trucks, and the like, you have to expect people will come here. Allowing more legal immigration would reduce the trafficking, abuse, and swindling in the process, and allow for better inspection of the people coming into the country.

This hardly applies to would-be terrorists with no known record, since they could get a simple tourist or student visa, much like the 9/11 hijackers. 

Naturally, this would play into the idea of not allowing anyone into the country. North Korea does a pretty good job of that. Those that do come in get jailed if they take pictures. They get deported or worse if they say anything against the state. Everyone is a potential spy. I'd personally rather have a few stabbings than take that road.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 31, 2016, 11:05:51 PM
How does allowing more legal immigration help the people who still aren't allowed to come here? Do they see someone else who was suffering get in and figure it balances the cosmic karma for the poverty and violence in the lives of their own children?

Is that like how we admonish our children not to waste food because there are children starving in Africa and it makes the starving children cry to imagine that somewhere in the world another child is wasting food and also makes them happier knowing that the same child cleaned off their plate instead?

Allowing more legal immigrants only stops those lucky ones from coming here illegally. It does nothing to stop the ones we still deny.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: TheDeamon on October 31, 2016, 11:14:05 PM
Is that like how we admonish our children not to waste food because there are children starving in Africa and it makes the starving children cry to imagine that somewhere in the world another child is wasting food and also makes them happier knowing that the same child cleaned off their plate instead?

In tangential information. The global hunger/starvation calculation by the World Food. Programme currently puts it at 12.9% of the population in "the developing world." In the United States, hunger rates amoung children are believed to be as high as 25%. Amoung the U.S. general population, it's somewhere between 1:7 and 1:8 (14.2% and 12.5% respectively)
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: yossarian22c on October 31, 2016, 11:19:44 PM
Cherry,
Would you support planting land mines along the border?  Having drones bomb people who try to cross illegally?  Those are the only ways I can really think of to keep people from walking over.  Walls only make smuggling more expensive, the border is just too long to have guards posted every couple miles watching surveillance cameras ready to jump into jeeps and track people across mostly rugged desert terrain.  That doesn't even touch those who come and overstay visas.  We don't have to stop enforcing immigration law just because its hard but don't act like Trump is going to stop the flow.  The only way to do that is to make America a less prosperous place to live (so people don't want to come in the first place).
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 31, 2016, 11:46:14 PM
Australia has a good idea which they are applying to the boat refugees. Anyone caught here illegally is on the permanent list of people who can never come here again and will always be deported when caught. Also get rid of birthright citizenship and all benefits for all illegals. Make illegal mean illegal again and stop rewarding law breakers. Any employer knowingly hiring illegals has all of their business assets confiscated just like a drug dealer who loses a car or house, pierce the corporate veil and send the employers who knowingly hire illegals to prison for a few years the same as we would other parties to fraud. All we really have to do is just apply the law forcefully instead of whimsically. We could make huge progress on securing the borders without hiring even one more border patrol agent.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: TheDeamon on October 31, 2016, 11:46:21 PM
Biggest thing we could do to help secure the border is to seriously look at our failed "war on drugs" as a LOT of the human trafficking that is happening on our southern border is as mules/distractions/side business operations for the cartels and smugglers. Cut their big paycheck, the smaller one will discourage a lot of them.

Increasing enforcement along the border in meaningful and effective ways also helps. Encouraging interagency cooperation along the border between Federal, State, and local agencies should be encouraged. Rather than harshly firewalled as it currently is... At the insistence of the Democrats.

There are a number of other things as well.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 01, 2016, 01:28:07 AM
Merkel is Germany's Hillary Clinton and these are the results:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/727263/Angela-Merkel-migrant-crisis-worsens-as-Germany-descends-into-lawlessness

"During the first six months of 2016, migrants committed 142,500 crimes, according to the Federal Criminal Police Office.

And the country has been hit by a spate of horrendous violent crime including rapes, sexual and physical assaults, stabbings, home invasions, robberies, burglaries and drug trafficking...

... Migrants committed 208,344 crimes in 2015, according to a confidential police report leaked to Bild.

This figure represents an 80 per cent increase since 2014 and is equivalent to 570 crimes committed by migrants every day, or 23 crimes each hour, in 2015 alone.

The report added: "The growing sense of lawlessness is substantiated by an October 24 YouGov poll which found that 68 per cent of Germans believe that security in the country has deteriorated during the past several years.

"Nearly 70 per cent of respondents said they fear for their lives and property in German train stations and subways, while 63 per cent feel unsafe at large public events."
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: AI Wessex on November 01, 2016, 07:20:52 AM
How does allowing more legal immigration help the people who still aren't allowed to come here? Do they see someone else who was suffering get in and figure it balances the cosmic karma for the poverty and violence in the lives of their own children?
Another dark fantasy that justifies your xenophobia.

Quote
Is that like how we admonish our children not to waste food because there are children starving in Africa and it makes the starving children cry to imagine that somewhere in the world another child is wasting food and also makes them happier knowing that the same child cleaned off their plate instead?
Not quite sure how this analogy is supposed to pertain to the point.  A better analogy would be what Republicans in Congress have been doing for decades, deny services to people in desperate need because *some* might get more than they deserve or might game the system.  I suppose the only people who are pure of heart and purpose are those who want to keep all immigrants out and overthrow the government.

Quote
Allowing more legal immigrants only stops those lucky ones from coming here illegally. It does nothing to stop the ones we still deny.
Right, feeding someone who is hungry only encourages other hungry people to believe you won't let them starve to death.  They are fools, apparently.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: Wayward Son on November 01, 2016, 10:40:59 PM
You keep talking, Cherry, about the lawlessness in Germany and Europe, about their horrible terrorist attacks, how we don't want to be like them.

You keep forgetting, Cherry, that people are safer in Europe than in American.

The rate of murders--including from terrorist attacks--is still far lower in Europe than in the United States.

So when you talk about us not wanting to become like Europe, what exactly are you talking about?  You're obviously not talking about us becoming more secure than Europe.  ;)
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: TheDeamon on November 02, 2016, 12:16:56 AM
Then you just open up the option that we're violent enough over here as it is, we don't need to be importing more of it.  8)
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 02, 2016, 05:24:27 AM
Exactly. I was gonna just let it go because I'm sure I've made that point already but I'm glad it just got reiterated.

As you just said, if terrorists come around knocking on our door selling their crazy violence, then to quote Jack Nicholson, "Sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here."

And as for Europe being so safe, well that's nice so why ruin it?

Is there supposed to be some sort of world quota system for violence we're imposing so that if Muslim countries have too much violence and Europe has too little and not meeting its quota we need to equalize them? Maybe tackle some of that white privilege? 
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: AI Wessex on November 02, 2016, 09:57:56 AM
Quote
As you just said, if terrorists come around knocking on our door selling their crazy violence, then to quote Jack Nicholson, "Sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here."
Would this be a new US immigration policy?
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: rightleft22 on November 02, 2016, 01:30:04 PM
Quote
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”
– Hermann Goering
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: Fenring on November 02, 2016, 02:11:47 PM
Quote
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”
– Hermann Goering

An excellent quote, to apply to administrations for both parties.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: Wayward Son on November 02, 2016, 02:34:03 PM
Then you just open up the option that we're violent enough over here as it is, we don't need to be importing more of it.  8)

Exactly. I was gonna just let it go because I'm sure I've made that point already but I'm glad it just got reiterated.

As you just said, if terrorists come around knocking on our door selling their crazy violence, then to quote Jack Nicholson, "Sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here."

Which is a fair point, if you assume that they are at least as violent as we are, if not more so.  I doubt that assumption is true, especially when a vast majority of refugees are women, children and old men.  But it is certainly one that cannot be definitively proven either way.

But the point you are missing is the price of refusing to allow these refugees in. 

Remember, they are refugees.  They don't have homes or businesses.  Most are living in camps.  They have no status in the places they are staying.  A vast majority are living off charity.  They don't know, from one day to the next, if they will be forcibly moved or cut off from any form of aid.

And then you want us to say to them, "Hey, we don't want you here, because a few of you might be as dangerous as we are, because your children might grow up to be as murderous as we are, so we'd rather you stay in your tents far away from us."

Millions of people have been displaced because of the conflict in Syria.  And we're too afraid to let a few thousand into our country because we can't guarantee 100 percent that some of them won't start killing people like we do every day.  ::)

Well, you can't guarantee that my next-door neighbor won't shoot me tomorrow.  So I want a much better reason than that for denying help to people in need.

Quote
And as for Europe being so safe, well that's nice so why ruin it?

Is there supposed to be some sort of world quota system for violence we're imposing so that if Muslim countries have too much violence and Europe has too little and not meeting its quota we need to equalize them? Maybe tackle some of that white privilege? 

I am glad for your concern for the Europeans, but I thought we were talking about the U.S.  And when you use Europe as an example of violence we don't want to see here, I think it's worth pointing out that we have worse violence than they are experiencing, even with their terrorist attacks.  So I have to question whether it is the violence per se that you are worried about, or if it is something else.  Because, apparently, it isn't really the safety of Americans--the men, women and children on the streets--that is your utmost concern.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: rightleft22 on November 02, 2016, 03:45:21 PM
Quote
An excellent quote, to apply to administrations for both parties.
Interesting the projection is strong with this one
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: Fenring on November 02, 2016, 04:57:55 PM
Quote
An excellent quote, to apply to administrations for both parties.
Interesting the projection is strong with this one

The implication being that...I, personally, instill fear in the populace to effect control?
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: TheDeamon on November 02, 2016, 06:09:36 PM
Which is a fair point, if you assume that they are at least as violent as we are, if not more so.  I doubt that assumption is true, especially when a vast majority of refugees are women, children and old men.  But it is certainly one that cannot be definitively proven either way.

The live up to my handle and play devil's advocate for a moment. Children become adults, and if there are underlying issues present, providing them refuge may not be sufficient. A Genghis Khan reference may be apt, the women aren't wholly innocent in this. If they've been indoctrinated in a culture of repression and violence, and in turn indoctrinate their children into it, leaving "the violent husband" behind does nothing.

It also ignores things like the Boston Marathon Bombers, who came in as refugees, became citizens, then did what they did. That refugee turned citizen/permanent resident crowd of children have been a demonstrated and proven rich recruiting ground for Islamic Extremists, even in the U.S.

It's "the California plague" writ on an international scale. Yes, people raised as Christians and otherwise have been "Islamified" and radicalized as well, but we know this population grouping in particular is highly susceptible to it.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: AI Wessex on November 02, 2016, 06:21:53 PM
More false equivalence.  There are millions of Muslims and Mideast immigrants in this country who are as good citizens as any white Christian male of European descent.  The number of so-called terrorist attacks (as opposed to hate crimes) is minuscule.   A black church was burned yesterday and "Vote Trump" was painted on the wall.  Was that done by a Muslim or Syrian?

I assume almost all such hate crimes and domestic terrorism attacks that aren't carried out by Muslims are carried out by people who are white and would call themselves Christians.  Why don't you start there to find the roots and causes of such crimes instead of denying people who are in fear for the lives or starving to death the relief that our country can offer?  I guarantee you that at least one of them will commit a serious crime one day, but the number will be far fewer than committed by those who don't "qualify" for membership in the group you want to exclude.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 02, 2016, 06:56:24 PM
"A black church was burned yesterday and "Vote Trump" was painted on the wall.  Was that done by a Muslim or Syrian?"

No, it was done by a Hillary supporter. And too obviously.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: TheDeamon on November 02, 2016, 07:04:05 PM
"A black church was burned yesterday and "Vote Trump" was painted on the wall.  Was that done by a Muslim or Syrian?"

No, it was done by a Hillary supporter. And too obviously.

Not to join the tin foil hat crowd on this one, but I'm pretty much at a coin toss as to the probability of which way that one ultimately turns out to have played out. Although the other press reports about low black voter turnout in early voting tends to add credence to the idea that it could have been staged to "motivate the vote" with the blacks by making the campaign more a "race issue" for them.

I highly doubt the Hillary campaign was involved however. But wouldn't be surprised if some part of the extended Democratic operative support mechanism didn't have a shadowy hand in play.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: AI Wessex on November 02, 2016, 08:16:45 PM
"A black church was burned yesterday and "Vote Trump" was painted on the wall.  Was that done by a Muslim or Syrian?"

No, it was done by a Hillary supporter. And too obviously.
OK, show me the evidence.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: Greg Davidson on November 02, 2016, 08:39:51 PM

So far there have been attacks on both traditionally Democratic and Republican locations that could have been the work of crazed partisans or false flag operations. Until there's proof it's not worth paying attention to.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 03, 2016, 07:36:10 AM
Pamela Geller recently quoted from Patrick Poole:

“A vandalism attack on the Islamic Cultural Center of Fresno on Christmas Day was immediately branded by Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer as a ‘hate crime,’ and the ‘Islamophobia’ grievance industry began to gear up in response. Now that a suspect has been arrested, the narrative is quickly collapsing. This video report by KSEE24 describes the damage done to the mosque...

“Seven windows were broken and bleach was poured on an American flag inside of the center. But police announced today that the suspect arrested in the attack is 28-year-old Asif Mohammad Khan, who, according to news reports, is a Muslim who used to attend the mosque and did the attack in response to bullying by some in the mosque. In response, Dyer has quickly had to walk back his knee-jerk ‘hate crime’ talk.”

I'm not giving a link to this story because the page is harsh but there are enough details there to verify it independently.

Here's another one:

http://politicaloutcast.com/black-church-members-terrorized-by-threatening-racist-signs-from-a-black-man/

"A Colorado Springs man was arrested after police believe he left racist messages outside a church.

Vincent Broughton, 44, who is black, is facing charges for committing a bias-motivated crime and disorderly conduct.

The signs were posted outside the New Covenant church that is predominately attended by African Americans. One sign references the KKK. Another reads, “Black men beware, you are the target.”

The messages had the congregation on edge.

“We locked our doors this morning, so we were inside, but it shouldn’t be that way. You shouldn’t have to lock your doors in the church, it’s just… I’m speechless,” said Pastor Roland Joyner.

No major media picked up on the story. Does that shock you?"

And more: http://www.ornery.org/forum/index.php?action=post;topic=243.50;last_msg=9435

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/muslims-fake-hate-crimes-to-serve-political-agenda/

"Hype: As the attorney general threatens to prosecute Americans for anti-Muslim hate crime, Muslims are faking anti-Muslim hate crimes across the country to prop up the fiction that Muslims are victimized in the U.S.

The latest fabrication involves the torching of a Houston mosque on Christmas Day. The arson was quickly seized on by the national media and Muslim-rights groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which demanded that police investigate it as a hate crime.

"We urge law enforcement authorities to investigate a possible bias motive for this fire," CAIR's Houston chapter said in a statement.

Federal authorities did investigate, and they collared a suspect. Sorry, CAIR, he's not a Muslim-hating Trump supporter. He's a Muslim.

Not only that, he's a longtime member of the damaged Islamic Society of Greater Houston mosque, where he prayed five times a day, seven days per week.

Last Christmas, a similar incident was reported at a mosque in Fresno, Calif.; and in a similar rush to judgment, the media joined Muslim groups in accusing anti-Islamic bigots for the vandalism of the Islamic Cultural Center there.

Only, it turned out that the incident was not an act of "Islamophobia" at all.

As in Houston, the damage was self-inflicted by a member of the mosque. Police arrested Asif Mohammad Khan. They said that he was an admirer of Osama bin Laden.

These are hardly isolated cases of Muslim groups and their media apologists misleading the public about anti-Muslim hate crimes.

They are part of a long series of events — including pure fabrications — that serve to portray non-Muslims as threats and deflect attention away from Muslims as the real threats. Learning from other groups, they've discovered that racism can be blamed for almost everything.

• October 2014: Two Muslim activists released a video showing NYPD cops harassing and "racially profiling" Muslims just for wearing Islamic garb. The video went viral; CAIR demanded an investigation for discrimination. But the whole thing was staged. The cops weren't even real.

• June 2014: After three burned Qurans were found in front of a mosque in Dearborn, Mich., the imam there led a campaign to pass a local statute criminalizing the desecration of holy books. The media ran with it, and his crusade gained traction — until it was revealed that the Quran barbecuer was none other than a Muslim named Ali Hassan al-Assadi.

• April 2014: After murdering his wife, a Muslim man in El Cajon, Calif., made it look like an anti-Muslim bigot did the crime. He left a note with her body that read: "Go back to your country, you terrorist," which led the media to report the murder as an "Islamophobic" hate crime.

Some claimed that the slain wife was targeted for "wearing a hijab." CNN host Reza Aslan blamed conservative "Islamophobic f**ks" for the homicide — even after the truth came out that it was an Islamic honor killing, not a hate crime.

• August 2010: A Muslim high school girl in Ann Arbor, Mich., claimed that a mob physically attacked her in an apparent hate crime which included ethnic slurs and the forcible removal of her hijab.

The "alleged hate crime" prompted CAIR to lead a media blitz calling for investigations by state and federal authorities. Except the assault never happened. The girl was eventually charged and found guilty of disorderly conduct.

FBI data show that hate crimes against Muslims are actually rare, which probably explains the need to make them up.

Such hysteria over "Islamophobia" is merely used by terror-support groups such as CAIR to shut down debate over jihadism and the responsibilities of the Muslim community to reform violent Islam and call out the terrorists radicalized in its ranks."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426674/black-church-burnings-race-hoaxes-michelle-malkin

"Here we go again: another liberal narrative burned to a crisp. Over a two-week period in October, an arsonist targeted seven churches in the St. Louis area — including several in Black Lives Matter protest hotspot Ferguson, Mo...

Last week, police charged 35-year-old David Lopez Jackson, who is black, with setting two of the fires. “Forensic evidence linked him to the fire on Oct. 18 at Ebenezer Lutheran Church, 1011 Theobald Street,” the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported, and “video of his car near New Life Missionary Baptist Church, 4569 Plover Avenue, links him to the fire there on Oct. 17, police Chief Sam Dotson said.” Jackson is a suspect in the other fires, and additional charges are pending.

RELATED: Church Burnings: Falsified History Repeats Itself The arrest follows another black-church-hate-crime spree-gone-bust in my adopted hometown of Colorado Springs. In late June, after a pair of churches received menacing notices (“Black men, be aware, you are the target,” read one), black suspect Vincent Broughton admitted to posting the ugly signs. And yes, Colorado Springs is also the home of the January 2015 NAACP office bombing that wasn’t. The smoke-blowing never ends."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you want hard evidence just be patient.

It's quite obvious this was another liberal false flag operation.

Sometimes what is obvious doesn't end up being the reality. Perhaps there is a very small chance that this was actually the stupidest Trump supporter ever who did this even though it would of course only be used against Trump, as it has. But the odds are much better, approaching near certitude, that a Trump hater did this knowing full well that the liberal media would quickly blame Trump supporters, as they have. I heard a long story on NPR this evening about this Vote Trump church burning and what struck me was that nowhere in the story did they even mention the possibility of a Trump hater doing this to garner exactly the type of sympathy it has. Also nowhere in the story were the facts mentioned about how many other types of crimes like this were in fact self inflicted hate crimes. This is why the media has absolutely no credibility.

And when these crimes do turn out to be faked, they NEVER go back and correct the record with the force they used to promote their agenda the first time.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: AI Wessex on November 03, 2016, 08:13:36 AM
Quote
Pamela Geller recently quoted from Patrick Poole:
Cherry, you have to understand that quoting Pam Geller is like drinking out of a toilet.  You just saved me from having to read the rest of your post to find out if it contained a shred of reliable information.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 03, 2016, 08:17:31 AM
And... you're welcome.

Yes, most of the sources of information were like that but that's to be expected because as I noted the mainstream media doesn't report the facts that don't fit their narrative.

When the police find out that a Trump hater perpetrated this latest crime you probably won't see it in the regular media either, certainly not if you blink.

Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: AI Wessex on November 03, 2016, 08:23:33 AM
Of course, if you read only right-wing, fear-mongering and otherwise extremist sites instead of what ordinary people do you will get a different picture of the world.  I suspect if one of those sites ever posted a story favorable to any of the people you despise you would immediately become suspicious of their "truthfulness" and wonder if they'd been infiltrated.  You'd have to add them to the list of places to "clean up" when the time comes.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: D.W. on November 03, 2016, 09:14:33 AM
While I can't say I'm on board with cherry's assessment at the end of the list of stories, it does make a VERY important point that we need to stop as a country assuming that a situation fits neatly into a narrative we want to have happened.  It's not always Islamophobia.  It's not always a hate crime.  It's not always racism.  It's not always a bad cop. 

The news outlets need to grab eyeballs and put them on web pages.  They are going to try and push our buttons.  We can't seem to help ourselves and we play along.  Not sure what we can do about that at this point.  What we CAN do is read those stories and watch those videos with a skeptics eyes and ears.  It's OK to agree that all of those things listed above need addressed and fixed.  It's not OK to assume you know the entire story as soon as you have identified the victims and or those involved in the incident. 

(Hint:  We call that profiling.)
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: rightleft22 on November 03, 2016, 10:14:24 AM
Circular reasoning and or Non sequitur logic makes dialog impossible
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: AI Wessex on November 03, 2016, 10:33:47 AM
While I can't say I'm on board with cherry's assessment at the end of the list of stories, it does make a VERY important point that we need to stop as a country assuming that a situation fits neatly into a narrative we want to have happened.  It's not always Islamophobia.  It's not always a hate crime.  It's not always racism.  It's not always a bad cop. 

The news outlets need to grab eyeballs and put them on web pages.  They are going to try and push our buttons.  We can't seem to help ourselves and we play along.  Not sure what we can do about that at this point.  What we CAN do is read those stories and watch those videos with a skeptics eyes and ears.  It's OK to agree that all of those things listed above need addressed and fixed.  It's not OK to assume you know the entire story as soon as you have identified the victims and or those involved in the incident. 

(Hint:  We call that profiling.)
Well, the world could be flat.  Why don't we ask someone who believes that it is and they can tell us all about their evidence.  Then the rest of us can chase down all the crap and nonsense leads they throw out and patiently explain why the facts are not really facts or why their trusted soothsayers are not saying sooth.  Good liars use a kernel of truth as the seed for their theories, so that's enough to rebut the rebuttals.  But whatever you do you do knowing that you'll never dislodge them from their "truth" about the matter, because all evidence that says otherwise is false, part of a conspiracy to enslave their minds and the work of l-l-l-liberals, Jews and Communists.  Actually, Communists should not be on that list since Trump has embraced Putin and people like Cherry are suddenly "realizing" how wrong they've been to distrust him.  And Putin is not a Communist like Hillary is, so you can still vilify her for holding her Communist views.

In this particular example Cherry started off by citing someone he considers an icon of reason and beacon of truth, Pam Geller.  She is a proven liar and propagandist for far right ideology and conspiracy theories.  Among other finely reasoned views she has offered is that Hillary Clinton will invoke Sharia law to shut down Breitbart as soon as she is elected.  Don't even think you can prove her wrong, btw.  Geller happens to be a writer for Breitbart herself who regularly makes up false stories to demonize anyone and everyone left of the extreme right fringe, so if you talk about circular reasoning, you can start with that.

Or you can just walk away and hope that people who think like that never get so frustrated that they decide they have to kill democracy in order to save it.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: D.W. on November 03, 2016, 10:51:53 AM
People we dislike, who's agendas differ radically from our own can still make valid points.  "Don't jump to conclusions" is not a politically biased piece of propaganda.  It's just damn good advice.   ::)

Now if their advice is, "Mistrust everyone who tells you something that isn't me!  Well then you get to test our that critical thinking and skepticism they told you to practice.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: Mynnion on November 03, 2016, 11:11:06 AM
A confession from a Trump supporter  ;)  http://www.wlwt.com/article/arrest-made-in-manure-drop-at-warren-co-democratic-headquarters/8051656 (http://www.wlwt.com/article/arrest-made-in-manure-drop-at-warren-co-democratic-headquarters/8051656)
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: rightleft22 on November 03, 2016, 01:31:14 PM
Quote
People we dislike, who's agendas differ radically from our own can still make valid points.  "Don't jump to conclusions" is not a politically biased piece of propaganda.  It's just damn good advice.

I agree however it appears to me anyway, that both sides in dialog need to start from this place, and that does not appear to be the case.

Even as I read that I find my asking myself if I’m making the same mistake. That perhaps I am overlooking something… and knowing that

It becomes so dammed difficult when engaged in dialog with a person that uses the type of rhetoric that a boy like Trump uses.   For example anytime one acknowledges the kernel of fact in a Trump statement it is used against any attempt to go deeper. 

How do you have dialog with someone that says?
I trust Trump because I don’t trust Hillary.
I don’t trust the media except the media I trust. Facts that don’t fit my narrative are not facts or relevant

The trick is to accuse the other of doing everything you’re doing, while sincerely denying you’re doing the same, more often than not because you can’t see your own shadow

There is no possible dialog and my number one reason that I think Trump is a dangerous
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: D.W. on November 03, 2016, 02:45:25 PM
I don't have any good suggestions for you.  Here's a bad one.  Resize the window and scroll to the side so you can't see the name of the poster.  Maybe you'll bring less baggage with you and just read what they said instead of trying to fit it into a box that's comfortable.

Reading political discussion forums is like panning for gold anyway.  Except it's normally not silt and mud that we have to wash away hoping to find something of value...  :) 
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 03, 2016, 05:35:39 PM
That one seemed like it was probably legit to me from day one. False flags can include bombings, arson, and of course vandalism but nobody is going to dump a huge pile of that to gin up sympathy and frame their political opponents especially with something like that which doesn't do much to make anyone feel sorry for you.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: TheDeamon on November 03, 2016, 05:37:34 PM
The manure one sounds funny because it's an accurate commentary, for either side.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 03, 2016, 05:51:16 PM
And let's not forget that Hillary gave as good as she got.

Hillary bus caught illegally dumping poop in street
'Toilet paper was scattered everywhere, and there was a foul smell'
Published: 10/18/2016 at 5:17 PM

http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/hillary-bus-caught-illegally-dumping-poop-in-street/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

It looks like Trump was right about massive undetected voter fraud too.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/03/voter-fraud-california-man-finds-dozens-ballots-stacked-outside-home.html

"Jerry Mosna was gardening outside his San Pedro, Calif., home Saturday when he noticed something odd: Two stacks of 2016 ballots on his mailbox.

The 83 ballots, each unused, were addressed to different people, all supposedly living in his elderly neighbor’s two-bedroom apartment.

“I think this is spooky,” Mosna said. “All the different names, none we recognize, all at one address.”

His wife, Madalena Mosna, noted their 89-year-old neighbor lives by herself, and, “Eighty people can’t fit in that apartment.”

They took the ballots to the Los Angeles Police Department, but were directed to the post office. They felt little comfort there would be an investigation, and called another neighbor, John Cracchiolo – who contacted the Los Angeles County Registrar's office."
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 03, 2016, 06:21:33 PM


http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/11/02/france-closes-4-mosques-for-promoting-radical-ideology.html

"France closes 4 mosques for promoting 'radical ideology'
Published November 02, 2016 Associated Press
Facebook Twitter   Email

PARIS –  France's interior minister has ordered the closure of four mosques that allegedly espoused a 'radical ideology,' the latest such shutdowns among dozens since the Nov. 13 Paris attacks nearly a year ago.

A state of emergency in France allows for the closing of places of worship where the preaching risks provoking hate, violence or acts of terrorism.

Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve ordered the mosques in the Paris region closed on Wednesday. A ministry statement did not name the mosques, located east, west and north of the city.

"Under cover of religion, these places held meetings that in reality were aimed at promoting a radical ideology," the statement said.

Dozens of mosques where radicalism allegedly thrived have been closed and non-citizens, including imams, expelled since the attacks that killed 130 people."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the tolerant and liberal French have had to take this draconian step that's saying something. They are trying to teach us something the easy way but some people only like to learn things the hard way.

It probably would have been much easier for France to keep the problem out in the first place with proper vetting than it will be to fix their problem now. We need to learn from their failures, and in a case like this failure typically means citizens murdered in a terrorist attack.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: AI Wessex on November 03, 2016, 07:11:59 PM
Quote
It looks like Trump was right about massive undetected voter fraud too.
You keep stepping on your own message.  You call 83 ballots "massive"?  There are almost 18 million registered voters in California, so this amounts to 0.00046% of the total, and neither you nor the article has any idea who the votes would have been cast for.  So maybe it would have all been Trump votes, in which case maybe it wouldn't seem like such a big deal to you. 

The article also says that the Heritage Foundation has "verified" 430 cases of voter fraud.  They don't say over what time period or in what elections they discovered this 5x greater amount of massive fraud.  If that's in California, that's still a teeny weeny tiny number.  If it's nationwide, that's even teenier weenier tinier.  If it's over 3 election cycles it's about as teeny weeny tiny as it can possibly get. In other words, that's about as far from "massive" as you can get, but if it seems "massive" to you then it explains why you're so utterly terrified of Muslim terrorism in this country, which also occurs a teeny weeny tiny number of times.  If you were a finance officer in an 18,000,000 person company you'd probably spend all day every day looking for expense reports to reject for spending $0.05 more on a cup of coffee than they should have.

Quote
Hillary bus caught illegally dumping poop in street
Not nice, but in what bizarre way is that the same thing as a self-proclaimed Trump supporter dumping horse manure at a Democratic Party office? 

The kind of logical skills you are applying to the whole election strike me as what a person who locks himself in a car might possess.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: D.W. on November 03, 2016, 11:58:26 PM
I don't know which is stranger.  That the ballots that guy found doesn't strike you as the exact type of thing that someone would create a hoax of as you were just discussing, or that AI dismisses it s probably a legit story but such a small number that it's no big deal.   :o

Just... a few... more... days!

Then maybe the absurd implausible nuttiness I see on TV will be on programming that isn't suppose to be "news".  :(
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 04, 2016, 12:49:46 AM
There was a black lady in front of me at the checkout line talking to her boyfriend and she said that she can't wait until this whole election drama is finally over.

I couldn't help but think out loud, "At least that's something we can ALL agree on."
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: D.W. on November 04, 2016, 09:36:36 AM
I just hope that it does actually settle down.  After this long drawn out mud-wrestling match, it's hard to imagine "normal" returning.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: Fenring on November 04, 2016, 09:47:35 AM
I just hope that it does actually settle down.  After this long drawn out mud-wrestling match, it's hard to imagine "normal" returning.

This is surely the most extreme election in terms of voter polarization. Sure, many people veer automatically to the left or the right in any given election, but the level of polarization this time seems increased. For instance, I don't recall in the past hearing celebrities calling each other out publicly over whose side they're on. I've also seen multiple instances of people on my FB feed posting that anyone who would vote for Trump should unfriend them immediately. Can you imagine? I've actually not seen that same ultimatum made about anyone who would vote for Hillary, but to be fair the rhetoric against each candidate has not been symmetrical. Trump haters tend to villify the people who support him, while Hillary haters tend to villify her and not her 'supporters'.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: AI Wessex on November 04, 2016, 11:51:00 AM
Quote
I couldn't help but think out loud, "At least that's something we can ALL agree on."
As a general comment I think you use your "outside voice" more than you should; people are easily frightened.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: AI Wessex on November 04, 2016, 02:22:41 PM
Quote
Then maybe the absurd implausible nuttiness I see on TV will be on programming that isn't suppose to be "news".
Quite honestly, I don't expect this election to be "over" for a long, long time.  You won't have to tell your unborn kids about it; they'll be watching it on their VR implants in real-time.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: Greg Davidson on November 06, 2016, 01:52:29 AM
Quote
This is surely the most extreme election in terms of voter polarization.

Have you ever before seen an election where one candidate said he would direct the Justice Department to prosecute the other? Where the chant of "lock her up" (essentially borrowed from a Ukranian political campaign) is a prominent feature of one candidate's rallies? Where one candidate has encouraged violence against protesters?
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: AI Wessex on November 06, 2016, 09:02:10 AM
The thing is that Hillary is *not* a polarizing figure.  How can she be both polarizing and a career politician who would extend Obama's agenda?  Trump is making it that way single-handedly with an echo chamber of hard-core nationalists, ultra-conservatives and alt-right extremists.  Their target audience is the vulnerable weak-willed soft center of the American populace whose personal frustrations and disappointments can be exacerbated into anger and outrage.  Whatever you may think of Hillary's own vulnerabilities, her campaign has been framed about issues.  They have gotten lost in the discussion because Trump has made the contest entirely about himself, that he should be President because he is the bigger bully.

They once said about the Vietnam War, When will this national nightmare end?  We're still not quite past that.  They'll be saying it about the ruins of our national political system beginning November 9, with no end in sight.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: Fenring on November 06, 2016, 09:54:35 PM
The thing is that Hillary is *not* a polarizing figure.  How can she be both polarizing and a career politician who would extend Obama's agenda?

I think it would be fair to suggest that Hillary isn't intentionally making it a polarized election. That is worth something, I suppose, but then again since she's been a polarizing figure going back many years it could be argued that the DNC propping her up as "the" candidate was, in and of itself, all that was needed to make her a polarizing figure. The rest of her campaign could then rightly be seen as damage control to minimize that effect.

Putting aside for the moment her intentions, I'd say Hillary is indeed the most polarizing figure the Democrats have had running for office in a long time.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: Greg Davidson on November 07, 2016, 12:01:03 AM
Quote
I'd say Hillary is indeed the most polarizing figure the Democrats have had running for office in a long time.

Characterizing someone as "polarizing" imputes responsibility and agency on them for performing actions that create a polarizing effect.  I would argue that something else is going on. Hillary Clinton started positioning for the White House as one of the most popular political figures in the US (65% in the Gallup favorability ratings in 2011).  The logical counter-strategy from the Republicans is to take actions to drive down her favorability scores (she is also a below average politician in terms of interacting with the public, particularly in large groups - not nearly as good as Obama or Reagan or Bill Clinton, probably closer to the level of John Kerry or Mitt Romney, and not necessarily on the positive side of the two of them)

And this did not take place in a vacuum - the Republicans had already created a significant capability to demonize (as demonstrated by driving very large percentages of Republicans to believe that Barack Obama was an illegitimate President, a Muslim, and even at one point 26% of Republicans reported that they felt Obama may be the antichrist).   

So maybe a more accurate alternative interpretation is that the Republicans have finely honed their polarization capability, and Clinton is merely the current recipient of their overall strategic approach.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: Fenring on November 07, 2016, 12:26:03 AM
So maybe a more accurate alternative interpretation is that the Republicans have finely honed their polarization capability, and Clinton is merely the current recipient of their overall strategic approach.

I won't discount the possibility that there's a grain of truth in what you say, but if we're going to talk about balance of probabilities I would call into question the plausibility that the vast amount of people who positively hate Hillary only feel that way because they've succumbed to GOP brainwashing. Since this number includes swathes of Democrats who supported Bernie but would rather vote for Clinton than let Trump into the White House, it seems evident to me that it cannot merely be a question of propaganda.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: Greg Davidson on November 07, 2016, 01:17:22 AM
Quote
I would call into question the plausibility that the vast amount of people who positively hate Hillary only feel that way because they've succumbed to GOP brainwashing. Since this number includes swathes of Democrats who supported Bernie but would rather vote for Clinton than let Trump into the White House, it seems evident to me that it cannot merely be a question of propaganda.

What are the limits of propaganda? Well, 5 years ago a very well-known Hillary Clinton had a favorability rating of 65%. Her current negative stereotype is that her whole life she has been a corrupt, corporatist, felon. Why didn't most people believe that 5 years ago?

As another telling example of the power of propaganda, it seems you believe that Hillary Clinton gets an unusual level of her support from those who don't like her but even more strongly dislike Trump. I have heard that message repeated a lot. But it turns out not to be the case. 538 looked at ABC News polling that showed that 56% of Clinton supporters were for her (rather than against her opponent) - and it turns out that except for President Obama, that's about as positive as any previous non-incumbent candidate since 1980 (including Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan). http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-voters-arent-just-voting-against-trump/ (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-voters-arent-just-voting-against-trump/)

 
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 07, 2016, 05:58:26 AM
I'm curious about the ways that a Hillary Clinton Presidency will make America a better country. It would be nice to get some thoughts on that on record and see how they compare to the reality three or four years from now.

If I answer the same question about Trump I would say that the border would be more secure with a dramatic impact including hundreds of thousands less illegals crossing it and increased job opportunities for Americans along with wage increases at the bottom rung of the economic ladder as labor laws are enforced, Islamic terrorism would decrease along with police assassinations, the number of people out of the workforce and not even looking for a job will be reduced by millions of Americans who will find work once taxes go down and business regulations are loosened, and ISIS will be destroyed in short order in Syria as Trump aligns with the Russians with an agreement to let Assad stay in power and as ISIS falls in Syria it will be easier to crush elsewhere and the popularity of its brand will take a hit which will result in fewer terrorist attacks conducted in their name. I don't see big improvements from Trump on healthcare though I see Hillary only doubling down on Obamacare and escalating our pain.

I would note that the same exercise done for Obama would also be interesting and would seem to me to illustrate the great disappointment between the hype on the eve of his elections and the reality we are now experiencing as he is stepping out of office.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: AI Wessex on November 07, 2016, 07:17:11 AM
It's hard to respond to you, Cherry.  Trump hasn't been honest about what he will do, so it's always been a matter of shadow boxing to argue against him.  In other words, he wouldn't do any of the things you mentioned, so pretending that he would have had a glorious reign in office is pointless.

For one example in more relevant news, now Trump is trashing Comey as a partisan hack and part of the ginormous Democratic Party corrupt machine.  He said the opposite 9 days ago when Comey announced that he was going to look into the new emails and lavished praise on him for his bravery and honesty.  That's a good example of how he flips what he says depending on circumstances rather than reflect any committed belief.  It amazes me that you believe a word he says.  His surrogates are no better.

One thing to keep in mind is that everything that everybody on either side of this election has said will be remembered.  I suspect the careers of dozens of people on Trump's side have been destroyed, and that Trump's own business reputation is in the gutter.  The only people who will stick by him are white nationalists, the KKK, 3%ers, and people like them.  They'll be emboldened by Trump and therefore easier to keep track of in the future.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: Fenring on November 07, 2016, 08:46:53 AM
What are the limits of propaganda? Well, 5 years ago a very well-known Hillary Clinton had a favorability rating of 65%. Her current negative stereotype is that her whole life she has been a corrupt, corporatist, felon. Why didn't most people believe that 5 years ago?

May I assume your implication is that Wikileaks is working directly for the GOP?
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: AI Wessex on November 07, 2016, 08:57:40 AM
No, but you can assume that they have shared interests.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: D.W. on November 07, 2016, 09:27:24 AM
AI, you are wrong about the people who will stick by Trump.  I know several that don't fit into your categories.  I can't explain them, but I know them.  It MAY be fair to say they are mostly against Hillary and Democrats in general, but they aren't necessarily treating Trump like bad medicine necessary to prevent an illness.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: AI Wessex on November 07, 2016, 09:36:52 AM
AI, you are wrong about the people who will stick by Trump.  I know several that don't fit into your categories.  I can't explain them, but I know them.  It MAY be fair to say they are mostly against Hillary and Democrats in general, but they aren't necessarily treating Trump like bad medicine necessary to prevent an illness.
Fair enough, I was stretching to make a point.  But to continue what was on my mind, it would be fascinating to do a deep analysis of the people who actually voted for both Clinton and Trump after the election.  Cherry has pointed out what he strongly believes Trump would accomplish in his first four years.  What percentage of his voters actually believe he will build the wall he promised at the start of the campaign, since he no longer seems to talk about it.  Likewise, how many of Clinton's voters believe she will accomplish what she has campaigned on.  There are lots of other interesting questions that could be asked, as well, including as a sample:

* Do you accept the outcome of the election as legitimate?
* Did this election cycle inspire you to join an organized group to work toward the objectives promoted by your candidate?
* Given the new composition of the Senate and House, should they work cooperatively with the new President or withhold all support except for what they want?
* Should the House investigate the President for possible crimes committed before s/he was elected?
* ...
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 07, 2016, 11:25:35 AM
I wouldn't go so far as to say that a Hillary Presidency necessarily will result in a mushroom cloud but I guess that's just one more thing that separates me from Jill Stein.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/07/jill-stein-agrees-trump-hillary-clinton-presidency-nuclear-war-mushroom-cloud-waiting-happen/

“Hillary brought us Libya almost singlehandedly,” Stein explained in a Thursday Fox Business interview. She continued:

    And she has said that she will lead the charge with a no-fly zone in Syria, and that basically amounts to a declaration of war against Russia, who is there under international law, having been invited by the sitting government. Like it or not, Russia has the sanction of international law to be there. For us to go in and declare a no-fly zone means get ready for war with Russia. Both of us have 2,000 nuclear weapons on hair trigger alert. This is the most dangerous moment— according to the former president of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, who, two weeks ago, said this is the most dangerous nuclear moment ever."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do agree that Russia will not back down in Syria. The problem with Obama drawing red lines all over the place like a child playing with crayons is that nobody takes the U.S. seriously anymore which will double the danger if Hillary gets in there and actually is as serious as a heart attack and won't back down either.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: AI Wessex on November 07, 2016, 11:53:17 AM
Quote
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/07/jill-stein-agrees-trump-hillary-clinton-presidency-nuclear-war-mushroom-cloud-waiting-happen/
The two things wrong with that reference are highlighted.  Breitbart is an alt-right activism site and Jill Stein has proven to have a remarkably shallow understanding of both foreign policy and political practicalities.  It suggests to me that you are getting desperate when you have to reach so far out of the mainstream for an argument you want to agree with.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 07, 2016, 12:17:33 PM
I don't determine the validity of a point that is being made based solely on the person who is making it.

Her point stands independent of her person, and it's a very good point. I won't repeat it just because it's still right there and she made it quite clearly. I seem to remember someone else on here making the same point, that basically enforcing a no-fly zone against Russia in Syria is an act of war. I wonder if Hillary will go to Congress first.

Conversely, saying that you are going to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria and then not actually doing it is also problematic. Maybe Obama will share his crayons with her so she can continue his policy of drawing red lines in the sand all over the place over there and everyone else can for the most part just ignore them except for some generous people who may decide to humor Obama and Hillary like they are spunky little children by calling their pretty little red lines "cute".
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: AI Wessex on November 07, 2016, 12:25:14 PM
OK, if we start with this:
Quote
Hillary brought us Libya almost singlehandedly
we can dismiss whatever else that follows.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 07, 2016, 12:26:39 PM
Although I have to admit you do confirm another point that was made in the article. I wouldn't have to resort to fringe sources to quote Stein if the media acted as an honest broker.

"Stein agreed and said that the corporate media’s blackout of her campaign and their perpetuation “speaks volumes.” She said, “My campaign is a very inconvenient truth that there is a politics of integrity out there. … Every day, there are more revelations how both … [Trump and Clinton] are walking, talking scandal machines, and people are clamoring for something else.” She added, “The corporate media, the apologists for the Democrats and Republicans, and the political pundits are doing everything they can to intimidate people into voting for the system that’s throwing them under the bus.”

I don't think anyone can seriously deny that there has been a media blackout against Stein. The media is doing everything it can to get Hillary elected and they don't want any more liberal Democrats like Susan Sarandon getting peeled off because their conscious gets in the way.
Title: Re: Trump on National Security
Post by: AI Wessex on November 07, 2016, 12:33:20 PM
Quote
I don't think anyone can seriously deny that there has been a media blackout against Stein. The media is doing everything it can to get Hillary elected and they don't want any more liberal Democrats like Susan Sarandon getting peeled off because their conscious gets in the way.
You can make that case about her and every other candidate who didn't get the airtime they thought they deserved.  You can also make the case that organizations who support the candidates don't get enough airtime, like the KKK and other white nationalist groups, including the Daily Stormer, David Duke, the National Policy Institute, American Renaissance and the League of the South, among others.  They're all legitimate, so how come the mainstream media doesn't give them more attention?