Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I believe that Hillary and Trump will both be disasters. I cannot in good conscience vote for either. It's like choosing between the communists and nazis in the spanish civil war. I will not support either of these things.......
I have the same sentiment. I am trying to convince myself to vote for anyone but HRC or Trump, but I realize it is only a vote for HRC. This troubles me greatly. At this point, I only hope for HRC indictment, Biden gets put in and we have four more years of Obama only with the entertaining gaffes of Biden.One other thing, if Trump offered a conservative policy agenda, I'd overlook that he's an ******* and has less discipline and maturity than your average fourth grader, hold my nose, and vote for him to keep Hillary out of office. (And then take three or four showers.) However, he doesn't offer a conservative agenda. He basically offers liberalism but combines it with being an *******. I'm not interested in endorsing that.
Assuming arguendo that Hillary and Trump would be identical on policy, legislation, the economy and foreign affairs,
I have the same sentiment. I am trying to convince myself to vote for anyone but HRC or Trump, but I realize it is only a vote for HRC. This troubles me greatly. At this point, I only hope for HRC indictment, Biden gets put in and we have four more years of Obama only with the entertaining gaffes of Biden.
My other choice is to convert all assets into gold bars, stop contributing-start consuming and get on the government teet. Hell, maybe that sounds pretty good.
The problem is that this assumption is false.
It is impossible for an arguendo assumption to be false, by definition
Not really the point.
On Trump ' s website is a pretty sound statement on the Orlando murders.
Perfectly describes your original reply
Trump is renewing his proposal to ban Muslim immigration. But this attack was committed by a natural-born citizen who was raised here in the US. I don't have stats in front of me, but my impression is that most recent terror events fall into this category. Banning Muslim immigration will do nothing to confront such attacks.
Our biggest challenge is preventing US-born Muslims from becoming radicalized, and preventing US-born non-Muslims from converting to radical Islam. There are an estimated 3.3 million Muslims in this US. Even if 99.99% of them decide to live their lives without resorting to terrorism, that still leaves 330 terrorists.
My fear is that Trump's approach to terrorism -- bombing or invading Muslim countries (or threatening to), banning Muslim immigration, harping on the "Islamic" part of radical Islamic terrorism, and otherwise alienating the Muslim community -- will push that 99.99% number in the direction of 99.98% or, god forbid, 99.9%.
Every decision we make regarding terrorism has to include an analysis of the fundamental question "How will disaffected domestic Muslims react to this?" If the answer is that it will piss them off, we need to think twice before heading in that direction. This shouldn't be a litmus test, but it has to be a significant factor in the analysis.
Every decision we make regarding terrorism has to include an analysis of the fundamental question "How will disaffected domestic Muslims react to this?" If the answer is that it will piss them off, we need to think twice before heading in that direction. This shouldn't be a litmus test, but it has to be a significant factor in the analysis.
Actually not at all, but I have to remember that you're a Trump supporter.
Uh oh. Going directly to insult = concession
So does the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" have some magical power that I need help in discerning. If Obama said it would it have the affect like "Abracadabra" and the terrorists would start being nice?Which candidate is willing to say "radical Islamic terrorism"? Probably only one.
let's ask the parents and families of the people murdered by that 'disaffected domestic Muslim" if they think we need to worry about pissing the muslims off. How much more pissed off could Mateen have been? the Boston brothers? the San Bernardino killers? Major Hasan?
That is a really disturbing statement which means the Islamic terrorist have won.
Need to name the issue before you can stop it. Blaming the attacks on intolerance have different end results.So does the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" have some magical power that I need help in discerning. If Obama said it would it have the affect like "Abracadabra" and the terrorists would start being nice?
Need to name the issue before you can stop it. Blaming the attacks on intolerance have different end results.
NJ
I feel very sorry for you . When you worry more about pissing off disaffected domestic terrorists more than you worry about innocent people like the ones murdered you have let the terrorists win.
IF the FBI had kept this muslim under surveillance and prevented him from buying more guns CAIR and probably ACLU would have screeched loudly about profiling just because he was a muslim which of course would have pissed off your disaffected muslims. But that could have prevented to loss of all those innocents.
Would you have been ok with the FBI preventing him from buying guns, out of an abundance of caution of course? Knowing what all the FBI knew it appears they might have followed your philosophy; do not do anything to piss of muslims.
* Predict HORNS-HOGS *
Sat, Nov 16 • 11:00 AM on ABC