Donald Trump

"

Schmodderhengst wrote:

We should not be "backward".

"

Remember, in the 70s in Iran women could just walk in the streets wearing mini skirts. Also the US had historically backed muslim extremist organisations.

"

Poutsos wrote:

I do not think that Obama or Hillary are any good either. As a matter of fact i beleive that no matter the president, US foreign policy would stay largely the same. I just think that Trump would be worse for the health of your population(especially middle and lower class), and the public opinion of the US in the rest of the world. US is already unpopular in Europe(for most part), in the largest part of Latin America and obviously in the Middle East, China and Russia. A trump presidency, even IF ONLY for the way he talks would just make matters worse.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Spoiler

"

NeroNoah wrote:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/742034549232766976

Are you agreeing with Trump, or disagreeing with his tweet?


.............

What happened in Orlando was a tragedy.

Do we let it happen again? Why did we let it happen in the first place?

Why do we have extra security and armed guards for public officials and airports, but not for night clubs and shopping malls and schools?

Why aren't we using the patterns of recent history and terrorism to guide our efforts to try and prevent it?

Because it isn't politically freaking correct.

Now, think about this for a second - do you think they will have heightened security during the Olympics? Is there a history of violent attacks during certain holy days? Is there a particular month of the year where some major attack always happens?

If the FBI had been rousting people up and digging in through all their surveillance records, there's a chance they could have prevented this, or spooked the terrorist into holding off out of fear of being shut down.

If one out of five of the patrons that night had been armed they could have tried to fire back against the shooter. (if someone can't be bothered to google some real life occasions where that happens on a regular basis, then I'm going to summarily dismiss their opinion as emotionally based and not rooted in logic or facts). While they wouldn't have prevented all the deaths, they would probably have saved quite a few of them.

So, yeah, everyone feel free to jump on the "how we are allowed to think and talk about things" bandwagon, while completely ignoring trying to deal with the problem itself.

Imagine calling for an ambulance because you saw a car crash where the driver was heavily bleeding and unconscious. The ambulance shows up, start to head over and see the blood.
"We don't like dealing with blood, so we can't help you." Then they drive away.

This is the Obama, Clinton, liberal mindset. We don't like dealing with blood, pus, anger, hate, poop, or anything that will make us unclean. So, instead of making tough decisions and actually doing the meticulous ground work, investigations, interviews and patrols, we just ignore the problem and let it keep happening.

Do you think surgeon's enjoy amputating someone's leg to save their life? Do they say, "I'm sorry, we believe that taking someone's leg away is wrong and we can't do it?"

Do firefighters run away from burning buildings with victims inside because they might get burned, or do they wear protective gear and try to help people despite the risks?

Why do people have fire extinguishers, sprinklers, smoke detectors, fire codes and fire inspections?

What if those preventative measures were politically incorrect? (just imagine for a second, that somehow they were)

In a nutshell, if someone doesn't want to be part of the solution, they should get the heck out of the way of the people trying to solve the problem.

The NYPD had a good handle on part of the solution, before they were backed down by the PC crowd.

Fortunately, we have a very astute and informed president, who somehow knows this was an act of terror, but isn't quite sure if the shooter has ties to terrorist groups. Fortunately Islamic Terrorism doesn't exist. We know this because the term isn't ever used by our illustrious and well informed (well almost as well informed as the local Florida Sheriff anyhow) president has told us this over and over.

People can continue to stick their heads in the sand, but that won't protect them from those who actively seek to harm them.

So what is this solution? One word -

Profiliing.

Nasty? Yes. Uncivilized? Yes. A shame that we have to consider it? Yes. Necessary? Only if you want to stop the problem. If you're OK with a dozen or more mass killings in the next few years, and a possible nuke in a western city, then, no, it probably isn't necessary.

War is hell. This isn't one off violent jerks just randomly deciding to attack people. It is a calculated, organized, funded campaign by Islamic Terrorism with dedicated agents, and an active network of people fomenting and recruiting lone wolf attackers.

Oh, and just as a pre-emptive measure - How many abortion clinics were bombed the past few weeks by "radical Christians"?

Radical Buddhists shot up how many people in Tel Aviv, or anywhere else last week?

Oh, yeah and those radical Wiccans and the radical non-believers running around and drowning people in cages, cutting their heads off, and burning them alive last few weeks?

It isn't that Islam is inherently violent. It is that there are violent radical people within that group who are using it as a shield to hide themselves while they attack others.

How much better it would be if these terrorist jerks could be ferreted out so they can't continue to kill others and let the overwhelming vast majority of peaceful people actually live in peace?

What's worse, is that our federal government has the congressional authority to begin the process, they just need to sit down with the relevant select senate committee members, the designated judges and define their plan of action, and get all the warrants approved and all the information properly sealed and documented.

We'd have thousands of complaints, several hundred arrests, and we'd save a few busloads of lives.

Or we can continue to bash Trump and anything that offends us.

TL/DR - Islam isn't the problem, but those that are the terrorist problem are almost exclusively from within their ranks, so authorities should take whatever legal measures they can to identify those terrorists before hand.

"

LostForm wrote:

I have to say that I think you have your analogies backwards. Liberal mindset is more like a car crash has happened, lets get the paramedics out there, lets get the police directing traffic, lets do some leg work to work through the tragedy.

Trump's solution is more like: car crashes might happen, so we wont allow cars to be driven, we don't want to work through the tragedy.

"

LostForm wrote:

Trump's solution is more like: car crashes might happen, so we wont allow cars to be driven, we don't want to work through the tragedy.

"

cipher_nemo wrote:

"

LostForm wrote:

Trump's solution is more like: car crashes might happen, so we wont allow cars to be driven, we don't want to work through the tragedy.

People need to drive to keep our economy working. Muslims don't need to immigrate. And that would not be a permanent ban.

That said, I do not agree with Trump on this issue. But your analogy, like many analogies, doesn't work.

"

morbo wrote:

Except terorism is not an accident, it doesn't "just happen". It's a premeditated crime with political or religous motives and we know exactly which ideology is behind it.

"

morbo wrote:

Saying "I dont care about motives" is also very wrong. You can take away all the guns, but if you don't stop the ideology behind terorism, you've done nothing. In EU there are very strict gun laws, almost everywhere - which doesn't stop islamic terorists from getting their (full auto) assault rifles and explosives.