The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

Well catering to people is understandable, it just gets a little.. Shifty once things start flip flopping. I actually am a person who realizes *gasp* politicians are people too and _can_ have their opinions changed... However when said opinion changes over the course of weeks, months, or other short time spans it's well.. It feels dishonest.

So apparently most Republican Presidential Candidates and many Republican Governors are saying that they'll refuse Syrian Refugees, or only accept Christian ones. What the **** is wrong with these people? Not only have they made asses out of themselves, and America, but they sure showed the morality of their "religious values."

I'm moving to Canada. Or anywhere else for that matter. Jeez.

Edit: as an Ohioan, I'm so glad we got rid of Gerrymandering (supposedly, that is). I hope Kasich realizes that even the conservatives don't like him much.

Kasich's approval rating is the 60% area, no?

In other news, down to 14!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bobby-jindal-drops-out_560a8993e4b0768126ff0e01

Apparently so. As far as I know, nobody really seems to care about him (aside from the very socialist Government teacher in my HS). He doesn't seem to do much that is controversial, which is probably good. (I think he was against Obamacare, but everybody around me is against it for one reason or another [usually poor reasons]) I still hope he doesn't get far in the Presidential elections.

So far, my opinions are that I hope the Republicans pull their heads out of the sand, open up their eyes and stop shoving their noses up the butts of businessmen, and that Hillary will come down from the clouds. I haven't heard anything bad about Sanders yet, which makes me wary. Either he's more honest (that'd be shocking) or he's pandering to his followers very well (Plus reddit seems to like him. Somebody give me something he's done that people don't like.)

xD you obviously missed the southpark episode relating to this year's presidential campaign ! go watch it!

being for abortion but he actually handled that like a royal champ when he went campaigning in Texas.

To be clear: the republicans are stopping Syrian refugees because they are concerned for the safety of their citizens. Not because they want to sxrew over the Syrians. They swore an oath to protect the citizens of their respective states, not the whole damn Earth.

The democrats seem to be painting the Reds in a bad light for this for political gain.

I don't want those refugees in our country. Not because I'm an *** and hate people in need, but because allowing a group of people known for spawning hateful and destructive movements to enter the USA is foolish and naive.

Are they all extreme? No. They aren't. But they aren't standing up to the extremists, either.

While it may not be the intention, it is a result to those that are trying to not get screwed over by their own country already.

Statistically, the odds of extremists in general isn't particularly high, and the odds of them claiming to be refugees to enter the US are probably lower. From there, assuming that the vetting process isn't perfect, but isn't totally useless either, you're looking at a very low probability of allowing anybody who is interested in trying anything into the country.

Just for reference: Most terrorist attacks are not Muslim. In fact, they're the second lowest value, while still remaining statistically relevant. Jewish attacks are marginally more common, with Left Wing Extremists being significantly more common and Latino attacks holding around 41% of all terrorist attacks. This is data from 1980 to 2005, so I suspect that there is a significant disproportion when looking at 200-2005, but Muslim Extremists are still not the most popular groups to initiate a terrorist attack. FBI terror attack list, 1980-2005. As far as I can tell, we're more likely to get up and shoot our classmates or neighbors than to be attacked by a Syrian refugee.

Edit: I can't find agreeing numbers on the rate of extremists or violent extremists. I've seen from 25% to <1%, both being "at risk of becoming violent extremists."

The intent is to protect innocent American lives from terror, but the data doesn't support the focus. Especially when nobody seems to care that there are multiple mass shootings by Americans, on Americans every year.

Kinda hard to stand up to extremism when they've got organization and firepower and you lack both. To deny the starving women and children fleeing the war that has destroyed everything they've known and love entry because of the possibility that a couple of terrorists will be mixed in with them is treating them all like terrorists. The five year old orphan is not a terrorist Mered, and denying these refugees entry over islamaphobia is just what Daesh wants, how they will gain. If you don't want terrorists, don't exacerbate the situations of those affected by it and targeted by them for recruits.

The entire premise of preventing terrorist attacks through paranoia is complete and utter bullshit.

You can't stop terrorism in general. If somebody wants to kill random targets at specific place, they can. It's just a matter of time and planning. Best you can do is have security at high profile events to limit juicy targets for murderous scumbags.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

Pages 19-23 are all I used, there might be more useful info later.

Homocides made up in 2013, according to this 16,121 deaths in the US out of 2,596,993. If 9/11, an event with a death toll that far outstrips any other recent terror attacks to my knowledge, were to happen again in that year... it would still be under the number of suicides by firearm, let alone treatable diseases.

I would much rather our country pour money into preventing reasonably preventable deaths instead of campaigning through fear mongering. With just the money involved in campaigning, we'd probably save more lives than we risked. Not even bringing up government spending in the name of "preventing terrorist attacks".

While I agree with the message of this post, utilizing women and children has been a thing for a while now. Who's going to strip search a kid, and how likely is a child to sqeal if they don't even know what's going on?

Lol.

There are plenty of other countries out there. Why does the usa have to take on any refugees at all? Plenty of countries have the infrastructure and space for them. We don't exist in a vacuum. If a state makes the decision to allow or deny the refugees, we shouldn't demonize them for it. It's their call and either choice is made with good reason.

That's why we have the state system. It allows our people to make their own choices instead of relying on the Feds.

Please don't repeat the junk hyperbole the media puts out if you can help it. It really wears on you after a while.

Yes but it happens that the USA are kinda ... not entirely unrelated to the reason people decide to leave certain areas.
Also the simple concept of "you have a lot of stuff, so you should share it".
Also yes sure there are a lot of other countries out there. Know what? They use the same argument "but why could not somebody else do...". That's an argument of the lazy really. Somebody else please solve my problems!

If there is one thing the terrorists are really really afraid of is losing their enemy. The enemy that drops bombs at them. The enemy that denies to help to the people they terrorize. If they lose that they will lose their only real argument to get anybody to join them: A perceived common enemy.

So really the worst thing that can happen as a reaction to terror attacks is countries stopping their help for refugees and doing some quick "look we're taking revenge" bomb attacks.

A clear prejudice against millions of people based on the actions of a bunch of criminals.

And lessons learned from Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and the continuing fight for Israel's survival. I'm not making that statement lightly. It's based in considerable history with that specific section of the world.

The people on the Gaza strip VOTED to bring in Hezbollah, and now it's a wasteland ruled by militants. The families of the men and women who fight with the Daesh didn't raise those people to love their neighbor no matter how far away they are. They were raised in a culture that holds grudges for generations. They STILL hold the West responsible for the Crusades, and they relate those times to the recent regime-altering invasions perpetrated by international coalitions in their territory. It's pathetic. Did we step out of line? I don't know for sure. After all, they LET their brothers strike at the richest city in the world in 2001. They killed over 3000 people that day, and they continue to sow bloodshed over and over and over.

I'm not saying we should make them our sworn enemy and try to eradicate the entire radical Islamic movement. I'm saying that (with the exception of Israel), we should completely pull out of the Middle East and let them figure out their own problems. Let's isolate them from the rest of the world and just leave. They can have their oil - we don't need it anymore. Give us a few years to get to the stars and we won't have to worry about these primitive cultures anymore.

speechless

well let me say this: We're pretty close to polar opposites in terms of political views.

Why? It's my opinion. I'm not racist or anything - just cautious. Let's not feed the beast that bites the hand.

Yeah and your opinion is so utterly wrong in my eyes it makes me not even know where to start telling you it's wrong. Basically imho views like yours are the core of the problem at large.

But THATS THE PROBLEM.

RIGHT THERE.

You just stated it.

You are so set in your mindset that you can't imagine my viewpoint. That means one of two things:

1. You haven't met people with my opinion(ish) before (unlikely)
2. You haven't done enough research to begin the process of understanding (probable)

Either of these is a problem, and sometimes it's forced ignorance. Not saying that's you, but the failure of imagination when it comes to a view that you disagree with is why the **** is hitting the fan. People are afraid of the unknown, and they need to get over it.

same back at you word by word

How do you mean?

You are so set in your mindset that you can't imagine Colin's viewpoint. That means one of two things:

1. You haven't met people with Colin's opinion(ish) before (unlikely)
2. You haven't done enough research to begin the process of understanding (probable)

Either of these is a problem, and sometimes it's forced ignorance. Not saying that's you, but the failure of imagination when it comes to a view that you disagree with is why the **** is hitting the fan. People are afraid of the unknown, and they need to get over it.

No, I mean where I dismissed his viewpoint due to my own lack of imagination.