The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

agnosto wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Tannhauser42 wrote:
I get that people are concerned and afraid for our security, and we should take a look and think about what we're doing, but when people like Ted Cruz say that it's only the Muslim refugees we should block but allow the Christian refugees, that's what gets me pissed off.

The Christians didn't just shoot up Paris for holy jihad.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
You're acting like we're not already doing our share.

And, as I said, it's kind of hypocritical to claim credit for those 20 million people as "doing our share" while many of the same people who oppose taking Syrian refugees also want to kick the other 20 million people out and build a giant border wall to keep them out.

Then you should talk to them.
If a refugee later goes on a spree, can I get your promise you'll personally visit the families of the bereaved and tell them you supported letting their killer in?

I'll play. How do you know they're Christian? Is there a holy water test? Weiner dog sniff-test? Touch them with a crucifix and see if they catch on fire?

This is an extravagantly good point. One way was noted. The bacon test. One must eat 1/3 of fried bacon. In order to show I am completely fair, I am willing to take this test daily, provided the government pay for it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Illegal immigration is an entirely separate issue. Please do not try and shoehorn your pet concerns into this discussion.

Says you.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

This is a terrible argument. Any system that allows people to enter the US, or even live in the US at all, has the potential to allow terrorists to enter.

Translation: Oh hold on now, I don't want to actually be responsible for the position I take.

Should we also ban tourists from entering the US, and insist that anyone who wants to allow the tourism industry to exist needs to personally apologize to the families of the victims if that happens to be the way that a terrorist enters the country?

Sounds good.

**Peregrine**

Frazzled wrote:
Translation: Oh hold on now, I don't want to actually be responsible for the position I take.

Your "responsibility" makes no sense at all. You're demanding a level of "responsibility" well beyond what anyone takes for any other policy that could allow a terrorist to be in the US. For example, will you personally apologize to the families of the victims every time a US citizen is responsible for an act of terrorism, or do you support the immediate removal of all US citizens from the US?

**Frazzled**

Peregrine wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Translation: Oh hold on now, I don't want to actually be responsible for the position I take.

Your "responsibility" makes no sense at all. You're demanding a level of "responsibility" well beyond what anyone takes for any other policy that could allow a terrorist to be in the US. For example, will you personally apologize to the families of the victims every time a US citizen is responsible for an act of terrorism, or do you support the immediate removal of all US citizens from the US?

Wait you're asking this of the guy who thinks 99.99999% of the human population is a waste of skin and potential threat to the sanctity of his yard?

WWCBNS?

What Would Chief Broken Nose Say?

**agnosto**

I like the bacon test; let's get that bad boy codified somewhere.

**Frazzled**

agnosto wrote:
I like the bacon test; let's get that bad boy codified somewhere.

On that we can agree.

**whembly**

Another indicator is that many ISIS folks are tweakers... users of several blended forms of amphetamine.

Test for amphetamine in the system.

*Bacon test is too funny... but, no not a good test.

**d-usa**

When Frazzled starts lying and making up stuff it's better to just walk away.

**sirlynchmob**

Frazzled wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Incorrect. Something like 30 governors are now against it.

I don't really see how "governors are against it" is an argument against what I said.

Majority thinks Syrian refugees make them less safe.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/16/us-france-shooting-usa-poll-idUSKCN0T528Y20151116#382j2XmsbwYECo7E.97

The majority also thought that gay marriages would cause hurricanes and other horrible things.

But WWJD, he had dinner with 12 people knowing one was a traitor, not even a suspected traitor. that's 8% of his table right there. At most you'd be looking at 1% of refugees being a part of ISIS, and any violence they cause first has to get past the skin color test. OK who's shooting up the school/mall/city now? What happened in france would only account for a small amount of the gun violence that already takes place in america by americans.

Now maybe if we had a more comprehensive gun control laws we could at least stop them from legally buying all the guns they want. But with every american already under surveillance, how much trouble could the refugees get into? Isn't that why the NSA is spying on everyone, to prevent terrorist activities?

You'd think with a gun for every person, and all those good guys with guns in the states, and the NSA monitoring everyone, Americans should have nothing to fear from anyone.

**agnosto**

And so the paranoia begins again. Poor couple guilty of being non-white and on an airplane:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-ar-bwi-flight-delayed-20151117-story.html

The four people removed Tuesday morning from a Spirit Airlines flight from BWI to Chicago amid concerns about a threat were released without charges after being questioned, Maryland Transportation Authority police said.

A passenger reported suspicious activity to the flight crew, which turned out to be a person watching a media report on their smart phone, said Sgt. Jonathan Green, a spokesman with the Maryland Transportation Authority, which patrols Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport.

"Everything added up to create a situation where she felt concerned," Green said of the witness. "Everything was done in the interest of safety."

Spirit Airlines flight 969 was taxiing out to take off when the passenger alerted a flight attendant, Spirit Airlines said in an earlier statement.

"Out of an abundance of caution," the airline said, "the plane returned to the gate."

Officers removed three men and one woman from the flight, Green said. He said the passengers who were questioned were a married couple, who were traveling with another family member. A fourth male passenger who was questioned was sitting near them.

All passengers on the 6 a.m. flight were deplaned for a brief time, a Spirit officials said.

Mike England, a spokesman with the Transportation Security Administration, said TSA personnel rescreened all the baggage on the flight including the bags of the four passengers who were pulled off.

"No threat was found," he said in a statement.

The aircraft and luggage was cleared by the Transportation Security Administration and the plane was later cleared to depart.

The flight, headed for Chicago O'Hare International Airport, was later cleared to depart and arrived late morning.

Another news outlet states that the passenger who alerted the flight crew was a woman who thought that one of the men was watching an ISIS video.... It would have been hilarious if it turned out to be an SNL skit or something equally ridiculous.

**Frazzled**

You think the NSA is spying on everyone to prevent terrorism?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
When Frazzled starts lying and making up stuff it's better to just walk away.

So you think the bacon law is not a good law? Can I have yours?

**Peregrine**

sirlynchmob wrote:
You'd think with a gun for every person, and all those good guys with guns in the states, and the NSA monitoring everyone, Americans should have nothing to fear from anyone.

Don't forget the selective use of the "terrorism" label. For example, when a white guy crashes a plane into a building as a political statement it's a joke and kind of understandable, not terrorism. And we don't have to be afraid of that!

**sirlynchmob**

Frazzled wrote:
You think the NSA is spying on everyone to prevent terrorism?

It is part of their mission statement
"This Agency also enables Network Warfare operations to defeat terrorists and their organizations at home and abroad, consistent with U.S. laws and the protection of privacy and civil liberties"

**Frazzled**

Don't forget the selective use of the "terrorism" label. For example, when a white guy crashes a plane into a building as a political statement it's a joke and kind of understandable, not terrorism. And we don't have to be afraid of that!

When did that happen? You're not talking about Austin are you?*

*When i heard it, at first I thought it was the Wife's stalker. The Wife had the same thought. Alas not.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
You think the NSA is spying on everyone to prevent terrorism?

It is part of their mission statement
"This Agency also enables Network Warfare operations to defeat terrorists and their organizations at home and abroad, consistent with U.S. laws and the protection of privacy and civil liberties"

And?

**Peregrine**

Frazzled wrote:
You're not talking about Austin are you?*

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Same method and intent as the 9/11 attacks, except the guy wasn't able to do as much damage. And yet somehow it isn't "terrorism".

**Frazzled**

Peregrine wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
You're not talking about Austin are you?*

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Same method as the 9/11 attacks, except the guy wasn't able to do as much damage. And yet somehow it isn't "terrorism".

Not an exact copy.

It was a three story building, and a single engine piper cub type plane.

I have no problem calling that anti government terrorism.

**Prestor Jon**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Incorrect. Something like 30 governors are now against it.

I don't really see how "governors are against it" is an argument against what I said.

Majority thinks Syrian refugees make them less safe.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/16/us-france-shooting-usa-poll-idUSKCN0T528Y20151116#382j2XmsbwYECo7E.97

The majority also thought that gay marriages would cause hurricanes and other horrible things.

But WWJD, he had dinner with 12 people knowing one was a traitor, not even a suspected traitor. that's 8% of his table right there. At most you'd be looking at 1% of refugees being a part of ISIS, and any violence they cause first has to get past the skin color test. OK who's shooting up the school/mall/city now? What happened in france would only account for a small amount of the gun violence that already takes place in america by americans.

Now maybe if we had a more comprehensive gun control laws we could at least stop them from legally buying all the guns they want. But with every american already under surveillance, how much trouble could the refugees get into? Isn't that why the NSA is spying on everyone, to prevent terrorist activities?

You'd think with a gun for every person, and all those good guys with guns in the states, and the NSA monitoring everyone, Americans should have nothing to fear from anyone.

Stop who from buying guns? An off the boat Syrian refugee couldn't legally buy a single gun in the US, let alone as many as he wanted.

**d-usa**

Shouldn't all this be in the Paris thread or the ISIS thread?

**Ensis Ferrae**

d-usa wrote:
Shouldn't all this be in the Paris thread or the ISIS thread?

I would think that, so long as we stay within the realm of the US political response to these events, we should be ok

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Speaking of politics, just had a quick jaunt over to Reuters, and saw this little gem:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/17/us-royal-bank-scot-jpmorgan-mortgages-idUSKCN0T62G520151117#0AFWSz0uKOA8LuBb.97

Short: apparently Federal Prosecutors are pursuing criminal cases against RBS and JP Morgan

**Frazzled**

I'm fine with moving off the topic and back to mainline US politics.

**motyak**

And maybe not making so many posts that are just "bacon bacon wiener dogs" as well, that'd be swell.

**Gordon Shumway**

Aww motyak, he's just deflecting to get not into the weeds of having to explain irrational ideas, and as a result, making the forums less vitriolic, give him a break. Everybody knows who he is and what he's doing here.

On point, what is the long game of the Dems? I get the whole stand up for tradtional values of the country bit. I get that by secumbing to the radicals, you are giving them exactly what they want. But you can read polls too. It's popular to be weak but to project false strength. Come on guys, we can say we will hit them with bombs, big ones, but take a more rational approach to the end too.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Gordon Shumway wrote:

On point, what is the long game of the Dems?

IMO, the last "clause" of your post seems to fit what I think many Dems are pushing for: rational thought and reactions to things that may have long term consequences. Yes, I know that people like HRC, Feinstein, et al. make a living by pulling the "heart strings" anytime something bad happens, but others, such as Sanders actually take time to think about their positions, take time to at least try and see what's in a bill before voting on, etc. with a goal of keeping the American people on the track ought to be.

**Ouze**

And nothing of value was lost:

Bobby Jindal announces he is ending presidential campaign

Not posting the whole article here because that is substantially more effort than Bobby Jindal is worth. With a current 20% approval rating in his home state, he's probably done, period.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

d-usa wrote:
Shouldn't all this be in the Paris thread or the ISIS thread?

Yes and no, because there is relevance to USA politics, with regards to this refugee crisis.

For example, take some of the worst terrorist attacks to have occurred on US soil.

9/11 - attackers were citizens of Saudi Arabia, an 'ally' of the USA.

Fort Hood shootings - American citizen

Oklahoma bombings - American citizens

Boston bombings - attackers had been given US citizenship.

Anybody returning to the USA from Syria, will more and likely be a US citizen, and will have full residence rights, and of course, depending where they live, the right to buy firearms per the 2nd amendment...

Refugees, on the other hand, will probably be subjected to some kind of 'probation' period, and it will probably be a few years before they acquire full US citizenship.

The UK's Daily Telegraph newspaper had an interesting graphic that showed that in the last five years, 50,000 refugees had arrived in the USA, and to this date, 0 had been arrested or convicted of anything terror related.

Refugees are not the problem IMO, terror attacks are more likely to come from US citizens.

This current trend of attacking refugees by US politicians is due in no part to the circus surrounding the run for the White House.

**reds8n**

Ouze wrote:
And nothing of value was lost:

Bobby Jindal announces he is ending presidential campaign

Not posting the whole article here because that is substantially more effort than Bobby Jindal is worth. With a current 20% approval rating in his home state, he's probably done, period.

he was , not too long ago either IIRC, something of a rising star/hope for the future for the GOP right ?

.. he was given/did a rebuttal to a State of the Union or somesuch ?

**Frazzled**

Gordon Shumway wrote:
Aww motyak, he's just deflecting to get not into the weeds of having to explain irrational ideas, and as a result, making the forums less vitriolic, give him a break. Everybody knows who he is and what he's doing here.

Frazzleds feelingz sad now. Frazzled taking ball and going home.

**Kanluwen**

reds8n wrote:
Ouze wrote:
And nothing of value was lost:

Bobby Jindal announces he is ending presidential campaign

Not posting the whole article here because that is substantially more effort than Bobby Jindal is worth. With a current 20% approval rating in his home state, he's probably done, period.

he was , not too long ago either IIRC, something of a rising star/hope for the future for the GOP right ?

.. he was given/did a rebuttal to a State of the Union or somesuch ?

It's best to consider "rising stars" in the GOP to be like a game of whack-a-mole.

They'll pop up, make some kind of noise, and then immediately get smacked back into their holes by the hammer of reality.

**Ouze**

reds8n wrote:
he was , not too long ago either IIRC, something of a rising star/hope for the future for the GOP right ?

.. he was given/did a rebuttal to a State of the Union or somesuch ?

He did! It was poorly received, and it's all been downhill from there.

**agnosto**

So, which of the back-runners for the GOP nomination will be next?

**Kanluwen**

agnosto wrote:
So, which of the back-runners for the GOP nomination will be next?

Which one thinks they could get a good book/talkshow circuit deal out of it?