Donald Trump

[Phi for All]

And frankly, no, I'd rather live with the risk than be a tacit part of that. It's exactly the kind of thing that we criticize every despotic regime in history of doing, and they always had a label go the people they were doing it to in order to justify it.

 

The existence of terrorists doesn't make me any more anxious to live in a country where the state disappears people that it suspects of being its enemy.

 

The real success in terrorism lies in all the help they get from American conservatives.

[Delta1212]

 

The real success in terrorism lies in all the help they get from American conservatives.

Let's be fair here. In the years post-9/11, there was lots of help to be found in more than just conservative quarters, and while the pushback since then has come more from the left, and the main bastions of support for this kind of rhetoric are generally conservative in nature, there is not a strict partisan divide here, certainly not as much of one as some people pretend.

 

I know plenty of conservatives who are quite unhappy with many of the ill-considered or uncomfortably totalitarian moves we've taken in response to terrorism over the last fifteen years, and I know some people who are otherwise liberal on many issues that have what I consider to be some unfortunate ideas about the proper way to combat global terrorism.

 

There are definite partisan leanings to the issue, especially with Trump as the standard bearer right now, but pretending it is a purely partisan issue doesn't help things.

[Phi for All]

Let's be fair here. In the years post-9/11, there was lots of help to be found in more than just conservative quarters, and while the pushback since then has come more from the left, and the main bastions of support for this kind of rhetoric are generally conservative in nature, there is not a strict partisan divide here, certainly not as much of one as some people pretend.

 

I know plenty of conservatives who are quite unhappy with many of the ill-considered or uncomfortably totalitarian moves we've taken in response to terrorism over the last fifteen years, and I know some people who are otherwise liberal on many issues that have what I consider to be some unfortunate ideas about the proper way to combat global terrorism.

 

There are definite partisan leanings to the issue, especially with Trump as the standard bearer right now, but pretending it is a purely partisan issue doesn't help things.

 

Let's be clear here. I consider Obama's drone program to be an example of his conservatism helping to fuel terrorism. It's one of the things conservatives in both parties like about him.

 

I know Sanders would dismantle it. Clinton is both more hawkish and slightly more conservative than Obama, so I doubt she'd give it up. The drone program is probably why Trump only needs four hours of sleep a night, he's so excited about the new potential consequences of criticizing him.

[Raider5678]

Proof there are violent protests against Hillary and Bernie?

 

Interestingly enough I found this a while back.

 

http://www.infowars.com/craigslist-ad-get-paid-15-an-hour-to-protest-at-the-trump-rally/

 

What's civil disobedience? I think its breaking the law, but I'm not sure.

Also, someone is suing trump for inciting them to be violent. Which, if you think about it, means they have no control over themselves.

Still waiting for proof. I'm quite sure there is some, but I would like to see you actually do the research rather then just claim random things.

 

The real success in terrorism lies in all the help they get from American conservatives.

Really? I have found I've usually been misinformed in a lot of political matters, can you give some examples?

[Ten oz]

I'm quite sure there is some, but I would like to see you actually do the research rather then just claim

You concede that what was said is true but still demand time is wasted to prove it for purely punitive reasons?

[Phi for All]

Really? I have found I've usually been misinformed in a lot of political matters, can you give some examples?

 

Terrorism is what you resort to when your views are marginalized. Extremists don't usually have access to armies and military grade weapons (not on a scale to wage war), so they strike in ways that make a big splash in the media. They make a cheap video of beheadings, or improvise an explosive that kills civilians. They stir up emotions, where conservative thinking is weakest, and hope that we'll go mental and spend $10,000 for every $1 they spent.

 

Terrorism is only effective if we respond out of proportion, which is exactly what the conservative response is. How many hundreds of billions of dollars have we spent since 9/11? What fraction of that have the terrorists spent? At the time of the 9/11 attacks, Al Qaeda numbered in the hundreds, and after all Bush did, their numbers only grew.

 

Fundamentalist terrorism in the Middle East is based in large part on the premise that Christians and Jews are working together to destroy Islam. This is a very emotional, irrational, conservative fear that we did very little to discourage for a long time. Bush's military even named operations with Islamic concepts like Infinite Justice, which only made the fear worse. In our own country, conservative fear of losing our freedom drove us crazy enough to toss ourselves inside the prison of the Patriot Act.

 

The more hate and division the Donald preaches, the more fear and irrational action come together to limit our overall successes. Virtually every time the US suffers in some way overall, there are billionaires profiting by it. The idea that an opportunist billionaire like Donald would ever try to help the US in a general way at the expense of his rich friends is not supported by history or common sense. And he's destroying our best hope of combating Islamic terrorists effectively, the support of the enormous majority of Muslims who aren't terrorists. All this hatred over Mexican immigrants, when Mexican immigration is net negative, and all this fear over terrorists when 94% of all terrorist attacks from 1980 to 2005 were by non-Muslims makes it sound like Donald is a hater just for the hate of it.

[Raider5678]

Terrorism is what you resort to when your views are marginalized. Extremists don't usually have access to armies and military grade weapons (not on a scale to wage war), so they strike in ways that make a big splash in the media. They make a cheap video of beheadings, or improvise an explosive that kills civilians. They stir up emotions, where conservative thinking is weakest, and hope that we'll go mental and spend $10,000 for every $1 they spent.

 

Terrorism is only effective if we respond out of proportion, which is exactly what the conservative response is. How many hundreds of billions of dollars have we spent since 9/11? What fraction of that have the terrorists spent? At the time of the 9/11 attacks, Al Qaeda numbered in the hundreds, and after all Bush did, their numbers only grew.

 

Fundamentalist terrorism in the Middle East is based in large part on the premise that Christians and Jews are working together to destroy Islam. This is a very emotional, irrational, conservative fear that we did very little to discourage for a long time. Bush's military even named operations with Islamic concepts like Infinite Justice, which only made the fear worse. In our own country, conservative fear of losing our freedom drove us crazy enough to toss ourselves inside the prison of the Patriot Act.

 

The more hate and division the Donald preaches, the more fear and irrational action come together to limit our overall successes. Virtually every time the US suffers in some way overall, there are billionaires profiting by it. The idea that an opportunist billionaire like Donald would ever try to help the US in a general way at the expense of his rich friends is not supported by history or common sense. And he's destroying our best hope of combating Islamic terrorists effectively, the support of the enormous majority of Muslims who aren't terrorists. All this hatred over Mexican immigrants, when Mexican immigration is net negative, and all this fear over terrorists when 94% of all terrorist attacks from 1980 to 2005 were by non-Muslims makes it sound like Donald is a hater just for the hate of it.

You concede that what was said is true but still demand time is wasted to prove it for purely punitive reasons?

As it was, and still is, he's claiming it out of random thought. Do you believe theres more violence at Donald rallies or Bernie's and Hillary's combined? If you think its not trumps, then please loom again. I'm telling him to actually look at it from a reasonable point of view.

 

Also, please stop down voting me, I only have like 4 reputation.

Edited June 8, 2016 by Raider5678

[waitforufo]

 

Terrorism is what you resort to when your views are marginalized. Extremists don't usually have access to armies and military grade weapons (not on a scale to wage war), so they strike in ways that make a big splash in the media. They make a cheap video of beheadings, or improvise an explosive that kills civilians. They stir up emotions, where conservative thinking is weakest, and hope that we'll go mental and spend $10,000 for every $1 they spent.

 

Terrorism is only effective if we respond out of proportion, which is exactly what the conservative response is. How many hundreds of billions of dollars have we spent since 9/11? What fraction of that have the terrorists spent? At the time of the 9/11 attacks, Al Qaeda numbered in the hundreds, and after all Bush did, their numbers only grew.

 

Fundamentalist terrorism in the Middle East is based in large part on the premise that Christians and Jews are working together to destroy Islam. This is a very emotional, irrational, conservative fear that we did very little to discourage for a long time. Bush's military even named operations with Islamic concepts like Infinite Justice, which only made the fear worse. In our own country, conservative fear of losing our freedom drove us crazy enough to toss ourselves inside the prison of the Patriot Act.

 

The more hate and division the Donald preaches, the more fear and irrational action come together to limit our overall successes. Virtually every time the US suffers in some way overall, there are billionaires profiting by it. The idea that an opportunist billionaire like Donald would ever try to help the US in a general way at the expense of his rich friends is not supported by history or common sense. And he's destroying our best hope of combating Islamic terrorists effectively, the support of the enormous majority of Muslims who aren't terrorists. All this hatred over Mexican immigrants, when Mexican immigration is net negative, and all this fear over terrorists when 94% of all terrorist attacks from 1980 to 2005 were by non-Muslims makes it sound like Donald is a hater just for the hate of it.

While there is much about this post that I disagree with, my biggest disagreement is with the opening statement or thesis. "Terrorism is what you resort to when your views are marginalized. Extremists don't usually have access to armies and military grade weapons (not on a scale to wage war), so they strike in ways that make a big splash in the media."

 

Terrorism is what the immoral resort to when they have been defeated. For example, at the end of the US civil war several of Robert E. Lee's officers counselled him to reject surrender and allow small units to melt away into the mountains, setting up a lengthy guerrilla war. In other words, they recommended terrorism over defeat. Lee, considered by many, myself included, to be a traitor rejected terrorism and accepted defeat. His only noble act during the Civil war. Modern middle eastern terror finds it roots in in the defeat of the ottoman empire and then culminating in the victories of Israeli armies over Arab armies. Instead of accepting defeat, terrorism was embraced by the defeated.

 

Modern weaponry also plays a key role. When your enemy can drop 500 lb cast iron bombs equipped with guidance systems from 30000 ft with a 98% probability of hitting a 1 yard square target you can't form an army to defeat such an enemy. Concentrating your forces will assure their destruction. Terrorism is your only avenue. Coupling terrorism with an appeal to the morality of your enemy has been found to be particularly effective. For example using human shields, like is currently being used by most modern terrorist groups. Modern terrorism would likely be quickly extinguished if the sole responsibility for civilian casualties used as human shields was placed only on those using human shields. If this was done, terrorist could be attacked with impunity which would result in fewer civilian casualties in the long run. Instead we avoid civilian casualties when we strike, prolonging the conflict, and thereby increasing the overall number of civilian casualties. The best way to avoid civilian casualties is quick victory.

Edited June 9, 2016 by waitforufo

[dimreepr]

While there is much about this post that I disagree with, my biggest disagreement is with the opening statement or thesis. "Terrorism is what you resort to when your views are marginalized. Extremists don't usually have access to armies and military grade weapons (not on a scale to wage war), so they strike in ways that make a big splash in the media."

 

Terrorism is what the immoral resort to when they have been defeated. For example, at the end of the US civil war several of Robert E. Lee's officers counselled him to reject surrender and allow small units to melt away into the mountains, setting up a lengthy guerrilla war. In other words, they recommended terrorism over defeat. Lee, considered by many, myself included, to be a traitor rejected terrorism and accepted defeat. His only noble act during the Civil war. Modern middle eastern terror finds it roots in in the defeat of the ottoman empire and then culminating in the victories of Israeli armies over Arab armies. Instead of accepting defeat, terrorism was embraced by the defeated.

 

Modern weaponry also plays a key role. When your enemy can drop 500 lb cast iron bombs equipped with guidance systems from 30000 ft with a 98% probability of hitting a 1 yard square target you can't form an army to defeat such an enemy. Concentrating your forces will assure their destruction. Terrorism is your only avenue. Coupling terrorism with an appeal to the morality of your enemy has been found to be particularly effective. For example using human shields, like is currently being used by most modern terrorist groups. Modern terrorism would likely be quickly extinguished if the sole responsibility for civilian casualties used as human shields was placed only on those using human shields. If this was done, terrorist could be attacked with impunity which would result in fewer civilian casualties in the long run. Instead we avoid civilian casualties when we strike, prolonging the conflict, and thereby increasing the overall number of civilian casualties. The best way to avoid civilian casualties is quick victory.

 

 

When does a terrorist become a freedom fighter?

You're American, read your history.

[Phi for All]

The best way to avoid civilian casualties is quick victory.

 

So we should have spent more, used more troops, dropped more bombs, does that sum it up? I thought that had been tried many times and failed. Is there a number of dollars or bombs that you think would do it right?

 

The point is, terrorism isn't normal warfare, and it shouldn't be fought normally. The last 16 years should have shown you that.

 

In much the same way, the Donald isn't a normal politician, and he shouldn't be treated normally. Nobody else at the executive level gets away with schoolyard name-calling and outright lies on the scale he does, and it's impossible to discuss anything meaningful as long as he's only interested in put-downs and bigotry.

[Willie71]

You cannot stop terrorism while confirming multiple reasons why the should hate us. Something the conservatives I've talked to on this issue never seem to understand is that they are just as justified by their rhetoric as to why it's ok to kill others as we feel justified in killing them through our rhetoric. It's a feedback loop that results in profits for those selling religion or weapons, or both.

[imatfaal]

You cannot stop terrorism while confirming multiple reasons why the should hate us. Something the conservatives I've talked to on this issue never seem to understand is that they are just as justified by their rhetoric as to why it's ok to kill others as we feel justified in killing them through our rhetoric. It's a feedback loop that results in profits for those selling religion or weapons, or both.

 

This.

[Ten oz]

You cannot stop terrorism while confirming multiple reasons why the should hate us. Something the conservatives I've talked to on this issue never seem to understand is that they are just as justified by their rhetoric as to why it's ok to kill others as we feel justified in killing them through our rhetoric. It's a feedback loop that results in profits for those selling religion or weapons, or both.

To your point both the San Bernardino shooter (the male) and the Orlando shooter were born and raised in the United States.

[Willie71]

To your point both the San Bernardino shooter (the male) and the Orlando shooter were born and raised in the United States.

Same with the Paris attacks. Home grown, at least in the EU sense.

[MonDie]

Perhaps this election will raise gender questions.

Trump plays on the presumption that all politicians are liars, giving himself a free pass of authenticity by being the one who doesn't hide it. This lets him drown the big lies in a sea of little lies. The manipulative liar personality type is called narcissistic, and politicians exhibit a lot of it. However men tend to be, on average, a little more narcissistic than women. While Bernie Sanders may have been THE honest candidate, Hillary is a woman, which makes this interesting from a gender psychology standpoint.

[Ten oz]

Perhaps this election will raise gender questions.

Trump plays on the presumption that all politicians are liars, giving himself a free pass of authenticity by being the one who doesn't hide it. This lets him drown the big lies in a sea of little lies. The manipulative liar personality type is called narcissistic, and politicians exhibit a lot of it. However men tend to be, on average, a little more narcissistic than women. While Bernie Sanders may have been THE honest candidate, Hillary is a woman, which makes this interesting from a gender psychology standpoint.

Hillary has been put to the test by multiple Congressional hearings. Enormous amounts of our governments money and time has been spent trying to out any and all potential lies. To the point where which system she used to telecommute is treated with the lawyerly scrutiny of the highest order. Meanwhile Trump won't release tax returns. Maybe it is sexist maybe it isn't but there is a clear double standard. Hillary must justify all she says and does while Trump is accountable for nothing.

[swansont]

Hillary has been put to the test by multiple Congressional hearings. Enormous amounts of our governments money and time has been spent trying to out any and all potential lies. To the point where which system she used to telecommute is treated with the lawyerly scrutiny of the highest order. Meanwhile Trump won't release tax returns. Maybe it is sexist maybe it isn't but there is a clear double standard. Hillary must justify all she says and does while Trump is accountable for nothing.

 

 

Clearly. It starts, perhaps, with the fact that one candidate is continually addressed by her first name, while the other by his last. One is considered more formal, and respectful, than the other. Also, its is common to address former government officials by their highest title, even after they have finished serving. But rather than Secretary Clinton, we usually get Hillary.

 

And there's more, of course, in how the media covers it.

[Ten oz]

Clearly. It starts, perhaps, with the fact that one candidate is continually addressed by her first name, while the other by his last. One is considered more formal, and respectful, than the other. Also, its is common to address former government officials by their highest title, even after they have finished serving. But rather than Secretary Clinton, we usually get Hillary.

 

And there's more, of course, in how the media covers it.

Of that I suppose I am guilty as well. You're right.

[StringJunky]

Could she be referred by her first name in order to just distinguish her from her husband?

[Willie71]

Could she be referred by her first name in order to just distinguish her from her husband?

This is why I use her first name, but the point is that it is dismissive, and that is valid. I also called Bernie Bernie, so it wasn't a mysogynistic thing on my part.

[Delta1212]

Could she be referred by her first name in order to just distinguish her from her husband?

That was my initial reaction, but I still called Bush 'Bush' far more frequently than I call Hillary 'Clinton' despite his father also being prominent. There's even a greater distance between the time that Bill Clinton was president and now than between George Sr leaving office and W being elected.

[StringJunky]

That was my initial reaction, but I still called Bush 'Bush' far more frequently than I call Hillary 'Clinton' despite his father also being prominent. There's even a greater distance between the time that Bill Clinton was president and now than between George Sr leaving office and W being elected.

Maybe people feel generally more familiar with her, like many, even the media, refer to Prince William's wife as Kate rather than the Duchess of Camridge.

Edited June 14, 2016 by StringJunky

[swansont]

Could she be referred by her first name in order to just distinguish her from her husband?

 

 

Possibly. But she's not the only example. Fiorina was referred to as Carly quite often. When Wendy Davis was in the news for her filibuster, there was a lot of Wendy. You have Condoleeza, too (or just Condy).

Maybe people feel generally more familiar with her, like many, even the media, refer to Prince William's wife as Kate rather than the Duchess of Camridge.

 

That's just it, though. The media are supposed to keep things more distant and professional. That's just the start, though, because women get critiqued for their looks and how they dress a lot more then men, for example.

[StringJunky]

 

 

Possibly. But she's not the only example. Fiorina was referred to as Carly quite often. When Wendy Davis was in the news for her filibuster, there was a lot of Wendy. You have Condoleeza, too (or just Condy).

Do you think it's because they are women?

[Delta1212]

Do you think it's because they are women?

After thinking about it, that seems likely. Perhaps not fully intentionally, but I think it may be the case that people are more comfortable slipping into informal forms of address with women than with men.

 

You still get women who are addressed by their last name and men who are addressed by their first name, but the balance does seem rather skewed when you look at our political figures.