Raider5678

42.5% of people didn't vote. I suspect if a promising candidate showed up, they could win. It wouldn't be a single election cycle, or even within a decade, but independents would get control of state legislatures, then Congress, some governors, and eventually the president. Once a viable third option arises, people will leave their respective party. At the moment, the only other option is voting for the "sworn enemy". When the other options become "sworn enemy" and "better behaving person" people from both parties will switch. From there, with independents voting for them, they could win an election. I doubt it'd be a landslide victory, but one day it will be a victory.

This is true however I don't know for how long. In July 2004, the number of people who considered themselves independent was 27%. In April 2018, the number of people who considered themselves independent was 45%. And it's continuing to grow steadily. It won't be long before it hits a tipping point and independents begin to take over state legislatures, then Congress, and eventually the president. If the Democrats ran a man, and the Republicans ran a woman, I highly doubt that suddenly the whole thing where people vote by the party would disappear. Republicans would vote for the woman, and the Democrats would vote for the man. It's not that conservatives simply refused to vote for Hillary because she was a woman. She was a self-proclaimed liberal. They weren't going to back her up no matter who, what, or where she came from. That's the problem with party politics.

I pray to god that'd be the case. To be fair, if a Republican candidate had gotten money set aside for Native Americans because he was 1/1024th Native American, I'm pretty sure you'd be ripping into him as well. I don't think she should run for President again. I truly believe she'd lose by bigger margins then she did last time. If the Democrats want to win they should be running someone else. There was plenty of character assassination from both sides. Additionally, there has almost always been character assassination, and as long as we have a two party system, we will continue to have character assassination on both sides.

They don't. They don't.

Luckily that law is in place because we don't have the military guarding our border. Neither. It's tax evasion. Hence illegal.

The National Guard originally fought in the United State's Revolutionary War, and have kept guns since then. It represents a state militia, so as to be able to deal with domestic matters without having to deploy federal armies in the U.S.A mainland because of the Posse Comitatus Act. It's purpose was to prevent the acting federal government from using federal troops to police the country. The National Guard is loyal to the State legislature first, and the federal government second. Not even the president can activate the National Guard without that state governors permission. Additionally, as @Ten oz rightfully pointed out, they do participate in international wars. Hence, guns.

The majority of what it does domestically. If we're talking about wars now then it's an entirely different matter. Alright then. If that's a logical argument. In the U.S. Liberals support and encourage removing laws restricting individuals while simultaneously ideologically opposing the same for corporations.

Surely you can see past the fact that just because they support some laws restricting individuals doesn't mean they have to support every law restricting corporations. Please tell me you are not that ignorant to the conservative position.

You brought up the curfews. I'm confused as to what you're implying. What did I say that you considered unfair? They haven't been federally deployed for riots for more than 25 years, and that was in California. Last time they killed someone while deployed in the U.S. was 48 years ago.

What did any of this have to do with curfews? I didn't mention prison. The majority of what the national guard does is disaster relief. I don't see why that's a problem.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you live in England. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but England imposes curfews as well after the passage of the crime and disorders act. While it's True England doesn't impose them nearly as often, England has 54 million people. The United States of American has 330 million. There's an obvious difference in population.

The Palestinians voted the Hamas party into power during their elections.

I can't believe this. There is a group of people. Who has sworn to exterminate the Jews. Who blame them for everything that's wrong with the world. A group of people whose main goal is to kill every man, woman, and child, who is a Jew in Israel. A group of people who are literally a terrorist organization. A group of people who have sent in suicide bombers and killed thousands around the world, and claim credit for doing so. And this same group, has organized a protest. A protest, where they scream for the blood of Jews. When interviewed, they promise that if they can get into the fence they'll rain bloodshed over all of Israel. They'll kill every man, woman, and child who is a Jew. They plant bombs. They throw grenades. They call for death. They shoot at the soldiers. They dig tunnels under the ground. If this was happening to any other country, that country would be actively invading them. And when Israel opens fire on them after warning them repeatedly, firing tear gas, smoke grenades, and rubber bullets, Israel is just a bunch of merciless pigs. And you guys cast your support behind them. You support the people screaming for the death of Jews. You support the mass extermination of Jews. You support the murder of millions of people. And yet, you guys call Israel the anti-semantics, the Nazis, and the aggressors. I'm done. I had so much respect for you guys. But you call for racial equality and tolerance and in the same breath support those who want another holocaust. It's just insane.

I'm done with this discussion. Nobody will answer any of the questions I have. All you guys will do is say how Israel is like Nazi's, how terrible they are, how they shouldn't be doing that(yet you refuse to give any examples of what else), and essentially make it clear how much you ignore history. You act like Israel is the aggressor here. They literally only moved their Embassy to Jerusalem. That's it. And suddenly, they're cruel people who are anti-semantics against the poor Palestinians. And the Palestinians, mind you, have sworn to exterminate the Jews. And you wonder why they don't want to let them in. Israel told them clearly, if they attempted to climb, breach, or cut the fence, they would be shot at. They did just that. And then when they got shot at, it's suddenly Israeli aggression. Get ahold of yourselves. This is ridiculous. Israeli Defense Forces. But if you think they're biased, let's go with the Hama's. The ones literally holding the protests: http://www.businessinsider.com/gaza-violence-hamas-role-israel-embassy-us-2018-5 "We are excited to storm and get inside ... whatever is possible, to kill"

I do read. That source makes an unsubstantiated claim. They are the ones who say that Israel is worried about racial purity. Not Israel. That's hardly proof. It'd be like me saying "The U.K. is only worried about racial purity" and then saying that's my source. If I have nothing to back it up, then what is the point?

I pointed out it was far less than perfect and wasn't even close to a valid comparison, so much so, that it didn't frame the logic Dmr and I held, it was so far away from on point. Sources?

Israel is not swearing to exterminate anyone. They're not seeking to conquer the world. They are not ruled by a dictator. And they don't have laws against any groups of people within their country. How is it directly equivalent? Israel exists because of the Nazi's. After the Holocaust, they were relocated to Israel. A tiny area of land. Immediately, they were promptly invaded from every single country that bordered them. With guns according to the IDF.

And what do they do about the guys planting bombs and other guys shooting at them?

Essentially, he doesn't want to listen to opposing sides. So by ignoring them, he can listen to people who only agree with him. Reaffirming his viewpoints.

You've yet to answer my questions. But, I guess ignoring me is a great way to say you won't ever answer them. It kind of saddens me that you're more than willing to place yourself into an echo chamber.

Yes. Because when there are 500 people standing around 3 guys planting explosives, if they would have went off only 50 people would have been killed. You seem to believe that Israel had hundreds of other options, and you have yet to provide me with 1.

Yes. Three of the people who were killed were setting up explosives on the fence BTW and laying down mines. But sure. It's just an excuse to shoot them. Yes. Those little cunts. Shooting people who were just innocently laying down explosives. I'm sure they weren't going to do anything with them. https://www.timesofisrael.com/clashes-erupt-along-gaza-israel-border-ahead-of-us-embassy-inauguration/ "The army said three of those killed were trying to plant explosives at the border fence. In three separate incidents, Palestinian gunmen opened fire at Israeli troops, according to the IDF." But sure. It's just genocide and excuses right? You're insane if you believe that.

Yes. Hamas is a terrorist organization that has sworn to exterminate the Jews. And you can't say "well, that's just a terrorist organization. Not the Palestinians" Because Hamas created a political party. Openly associated with the terrorist organization. And guess what. They won 76 out of 132(57%) of their parliamentary seats. Which means the Palestinians by far have voted for violence rather than democracy. Because remember: This is a party that openly advocates the extermination of every Jew in Israel. So assuming 57% of the Arabs protesting voted for that party, I'd be pretty cautious as well. Huh. Sorry. That word isn't commonly used in the USA. Sorry for misquoting you. Anyways. The point is, if you can't give me a single other alternative, then you can't criticise how Israel is handling the situation. We've decided on the innocence of a nation that kills the people who say "If we get into your country, we'll kill every single one of you." when they're trying to break down the fence and get into the country. I honestly can't. They spent weeks using tear gas and rubber bullets to keep them at bay. And they also discovered tunnels under the fence from people trying to dig under the soldiers' positions and kill them.

Great idea!!!!! Like what?

I can't see another way though. Israel could just put a minefield right behind the fence and let the Palestinians decide if they want to go in, but then the whole world would decry how evil Israel is for forcing them to walk into a minefield and committing genocide. Yes. Cursing, telling them to not be cocks and saying its genocide is not answering any of my questions. The Palestinians have turned down one proposal after another that offered them literally all the land they're disputing over(I.E. the west bank, the Gaza strip, and East Jerusalem) How is Israel supposed to give them what they want if they won't take what they want when they try to give it to them?