Archive

Trump vs. Hillary (NO OTHER OPTIONS)

  • Spock
    ptown_trojans_1;1801210 wrote:He is worse. That is the point.
    yea and you voted for Obama cause of his foreign policy experience......so please enlighten us on how he is worse?
  • QuakerOats
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/22/anatomy-terror-threat-files-show-hundreds-us-plots-refugee-connection.html
  • O-Trap
    You know how the vast majority of gun owners don't cause problems, and so the majority of them wish to be treated as law-abiding and willing to play nicely in our society?

    It's a lot like how the vast majority of refugees don't cause problems, and so the majority of them wish to be treated as law-abiding and willing to play nicely in our society.
  • QuakerOats
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/23/supreme-court-blocks-obama-immigration-plan.html
  • FatHobbit
    O-Trap;1801305 wrote:You know how the vast majority of gun owners don't cause problems, and so the majority of them wish to be treated as law-abiding and willing to play nicely in our society?

    It's a lot like how the vast majority of refugees don't cause problems, and so the majority of them wish to be treated as law-abiding and willing to play nicely in our society.
    I think it's funny people on both sides don't seem to get this. I've seen people post this message trying to defend their point and then still argue against the other side. People are either only responsible for their own actions or they are not.
  • Belly35
    O-Trap;1801305 wrote:You know how the vast majority of gun owners don't cause problems, and so the majority of them wish to be treated as law-abiding and willing to play nicely in our society?

    It's a lot like how the vast majority of refugees don't cause problems, and so the majority of them wish to be treated as law-abiding and willing to play nicely in our society.
    where the stats on the "majority of refugees" don't cause problems or is this just a opinion base thought.....
  • O-Trap
    Belly35;1801327 wrote:where the stats on the "majority of refugees" don't cause problems or is this just a opinion base thought.....
    Per the Migration Policy Institute, a total of approximately 784,000 refugees have been accepted into the US since 9/11/2001. In the same report, it says that 3 have been charged with plotting a terrorist attack.

    Using these numbers, 0.000383% of refugees can be said to have been found at least suspicious enough to charge them of terrorist activity.
  • queencitybuckeye
    O-Trap;1801332 wrote:Per the Migration Policy Institute, a total of approximately 784,000 refugees have been accepted into the US since 2001. In the same report, it says that 3 have been charged with plotting a terrorist attack.

    Using these numbers, 0.000383% of refugees can be said to have been found at least suspicious enough to charge them of terrorist activity.
    For that, the right wants to discriminate against an entire religion, and the left wants to ignore due process.
  • O-Trap
    queencitybuckeye;1801335 wrote:For that, the right wants to discriminate against an entire religion, and the left wants to ignore due process.
    Precisely.

    Makes me want to fucking move to Mauritius.
  • Heretic
    queencitybuckeye;1801335 wrote:For that, the right wants to discriminate against an entire religion, and the left wants to ignore due process.
    With neither side willing to even move one iota on their stance, while expecting the other side to completely cave in to their will. The blind leading the blind around and around and around and around and...you get the point.
  • QuakerOats
    O-Trap;1801332 wrote:Per the Migration Policy Institute, a total of approximately 784,000 refugees have been accepted into the US since 9/11/2001. In the same report, it says that 3 have been charged with plotting a terrorist attack.

    Using these numbers, 0.000383% of refugees can be said to have been found at least suspicious enough to charge them of terrorist activity.
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/23/liberal-study-unintentionally-reveals-nationwide-illegal-alien-crime-spree/


    Whoops
  • O-Trap
    Um ... Refugees != illegal immigrants. You do know this, yes?

    Are we afraid of refugees because we think they're terrorists or because we think they're criminals? The two are not interchangeable.

    Also, the article you're citing takes hilarious liberties in pushing the narrative where the author wants it to go. For example, the GAO broke down the sorts of crimes committed:



    There's a distinction to be made between crime and violent crime. Breitbart fails to make that distinction ... shocking, I know.
  • QuakerOats
    No more shocking (actually much less shocking) than your uber-liberal think tank propaganda, I mean 'findings'.
  • QuakerOats
    I guess you don't get it though. The vast majority of Americans don't mind immigration, so long as it is legal and those coming in are properly vetted. However, the open borders policy of the liberal politicians who purely seek political gain with their stance is not only disgusting from the political calculus standpoint, but it goes against the wishes of the The People, and it is a damn slap in the face of all the good immigrants who went through the process in a lawful way.

    When you then add in the additional situation we find ourselves in of having terrorists take advantage of refugee flows, the potential threats expand greatly. You can cite all the figures you want, but it is not so much the numbers from 9/11 to now that matter; it is what is going to happen in the future based on the mass flooding into this country in the last couple of years (WITH NO END IN SIGHT).
  • O-Trap
    QuakerOats;1801370 wrote:No more shocking (actually much less shocking) than your uber-liberal think tank propaganda, I mean 'findings'.
    Statistics themselves don't lean. If we're trying to pitch them a certain way (a la the article you cited), they can be used that way, but the "uber-liberal" think tank just provided statistics and offered no implications from them. If you want to suggest that they're incomplete, that's one thing, but numbers themselves don't lean.

    Another difference is that a think tank's findings are often vetted and, in this case, supported by statistics cited by the Government Accountability Office. Politically-driven media is hardly the same.

    If you need further evidence, or you just don't like the stats above, try these:

    National Institute of Health:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2911240/

    National Bureau of Economic Research:
    http://www.nber.org/papers/w13229
    http://www.nber.org/papers/w6067

    Peer-Reviewed Article in the Journal of Criminal Justice (abridged):
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235215000483

    Peer-Reviewed Article in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences:
    http://ann.sagepub.com/content/641/1/99

    Peer-Reviewed Article in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology:
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10940-016-9294-9

    Peer-Reviewed Article from the American Law and Economics Review:
    http://aler.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/1/220.full

    Pew:
    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/15/crime-rises-among-second-generation-immigrants-as-they-assimilate/

    Peer-Reviewed Article from the American Sociological Review:
    http://asr.sagepub.com/content/81/2/290


    Again, we're not talking about illegal aliens here. That is not the topic of discussion. The topic is LEGAL immigrants ... more narrowly, refugees, but at the very most, legal immigrants at large.
  • O-Trap
    QuakerOats;1801372 wrote:The vast majority of Americans don't mind immigration, so long as it is legal and those coming in are properly vetted.
    Refugees are legal and intensely vetted. It's actually impressive.
    QuakerOats;1801372 wrote:However, the open borders policy of the liberal politicians who purely seek political gain with their stance is not only disgusting from the political calculus standpoint, but it goes against the wishes of the The People, and it is a damn slap in the face of all the good immigrants who went through the process in a lawful way.
    Refugees go through the process the lawful way, by and large.
    QuakerOats;1801372 wrote:When you then add in the additional situation we find ourselves in of having terrorists take advantage of refugee flows, the potential threats expand greatly.
    Here we are. The crux.

    The statistics indicate that what you're describing is simply not happening at nearly the rate you seem to think it is.
    QuakerOats;1801372 wrote:You can cite all the figures you want, but it is not so much the numbers from 9/11 to now that matter; it is what is going to happen in the future based on the mass flooding into this country in the last couple of years (WITH NO END IN SIGHT).
    Then tell us, oh Oatstradamus, what is going to happen in the future? I'll put it in my signature and we can wait to see if it happens.

    As you can see, Tiernan's fears about what would happen with Ebola were not in line with reality.

    The best way to predict future results is past results.

    And the past results indicate that immigrants do not cause an uptick in terrorism or crime.
  • Heretic
    QuakerOats;1801370 wrote:No more shocking (actually much less shocking) than your uber-liberal think tank propaganda, I mean 'findings'.
    Lulz-worthy, coming from the dude whose "findings" came from Breitbart.
  • like_that
    Heretic;1801382 wrote:Lulz-worthy, coming from the dude whose "findings" came from Breitbart.
    I'm convinced that Quaker is the reason that ptown thinks so highly of himself on this site and groups every Hillary hater into the same category. When he refers to "you guys," he actually is just referring to Quaker.
  • Heretic
    like_that;1801386 wrote:I'm convinced that Quaker is the reason that ptown thinks so highly of himself on this site and groups every Hillary hater into the same category. When he refers to "you guys," he actually is just referring to Quaker.
    I wouldn't be surprised. Kind of like taking Isadore and saying every left-winger is the same way. Then it turns into more of an "everyone react to the 'out there whacko"' instead of actually coming up with intelligent thoughts.
  • QuakerOats
    O-Trap;1801377 wrote:The best way to predict future results is past results.

    Not really, and especially not really with the new terror phenomenon. We never had a 9/11, before 9/11, so 'past results' were certainly no indication of what occurred. Terrorists move about and take advantage of every lapse we give them. We know many are here already; we have foiled hundreds of attacks. But with the massive influx of the last couple of years, you can bet we are in for a rude awakening. We have tens of millions out of work, millions more pouring in, and zero leadership ----- great recipe.
  • Spock
    today is a great example of how much better Trump would be than HC. Brexit is looked at by trump in a business and management sense.

    Hiliary is looking at it as something political.
  • gut
    Spock;1801465 wrote:today is a great example of how much better Trump would be than HC. Brexit is looked at by trump in a business and management sense.

    Hiliary is looking at it as something political.
    I see it as an interesting referendum on federal vs. state rights and governance. Obviously not apples-to-apples, but if you view the countries as "states" of the EU you do see similarities with concerns over state rights.

    And, naturally, that is NOT a direction leftists that believe strongly in central governance want to go.
  • majorspark
  • FatHobbit
    gut;1801466 wrote:I see it as an interesting referendum on federal vs. state rights and governance. Obviously not apples-to-apples, but if you view the countries as "states" of the EU you do see similarities with concerns over state rights.

    And, naturally, that is NOT a direction leftists that believe strongly in central governance want to go.
    Something I find interesting. Who runs the eu? I don't think they vote on it, so really the people have no voice as far as I can see. I understand why the uk would not want to have to answer to a non elected group in another country.
  • gut
    FatHobbit;1801473 wrote:Something I find interesting. Who runs the eu? I don't think they vote on it, so really the people have no voice as far as I can see. I understand why the uk would not want to have to answer to a non elected group in another country.
    They directly elect the European Parliament every 5 years, with seats apportioned to member countries....so that works very much like our Congress. And I believe that is the primary legislative and approval body.

    Then there is a European Council consisting of the individual heads of state...not sure how that plays out, but something like our President (by committee). They elect their President of the Council (whom, I'm sure surprising to many, is NOT Angela Merkel).

    There is also a Council representing the member states. This functions somewhat like a Congressional committee and does a lot of the heavy lifting to propose stuff....but approval lays with the EC and EU Parliament.


    That's all I know from a few google searches. Suffice to say I think my comparing it to state rights here is very appropriate. Boils down to the UK being at the mercy of generally a simple majority of EU countries (it's weighted representation aside).

    Of course, it's a newer system and national sovereignty obviously a much bigger and stronger issue here than our states. Still, I generally feel the people of CA should have no say on how people in OH live when it bears no impact on the people of CA.