http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016...t-orlando-terror-attack-and-obama-doesnt.html
Agreed, a little light on the details except more targeting of Muslims.
Trump!!!
- Thread starter snek
- Start date
Agreed, a little light on the details except more targeting of Muslims.
Well, if the FBI knew the guy was talking to radicals and that he had just purchased a handgun, an AR 15 and a lot of ammo, alarm bells should have gone off. There is no prior restraint, so maybe if he had yet to do something illegal they couldn't have stopped him, but they could have made a visit and maybe dissuaded him or come up with a reason to arrest him.
Due process necessarily causes a lot of inefficiency in protecting the public, especially from domestic terrorists. Maybe somebody should have asked him if he was becoming a "radical Islamic Terrorist," which given the phrase's magic power might have caused him to turn over a new leaf and maybe he would have been at the club passing out pink roses and condoms.
Due process necessarily causes a lot of inefficiency in protecting the public, especially from domestic terrorists. Maybe somebody should have asked him if he was becoming a "radical Islamic Terrorist," which given the phrase's magic power might have caused him to turn over a new leaf and maybe he would have been at the club passing out pink roses and condoms.
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
I don't know enough about this case to know whether further surveillance and/or a no-buy order would have been appropriate. The limited information available to the public so far is enough to flag that issue, but not enough to form a well-reasoned conclusion.
However, as a general matter, I have said before and I will say again now that increased surveillance of suspected terrorists and/or radical organizations is an absolute must in the ongoing war on terror. Doing this smartly, such as by enlisting cooperation from non-radical Muslim organizations, is critical because it will increase the efficacy and reduce the backlash.
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
I prefer Deez's "NJ is right", but I'll settle for "NJ I agree with that."
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Since this is a Trump thread, how would his "halt all Muslims from coming into the country, until we can figure this thing out" have impacted this? Mateen was born in the US 29yrs ago which means his parents immigrated to the US from Afghanistan >30 years ago. Since 9/11, most of these domestic terrorists had been longtime citizens, if not lifelong citizens. By all evidence, they were radicalized here in the US. Whether we've been effective at screening immigrants/travelers or simply the homegrown variety is more difficult to find, the problem starts here at home.
To your point, did you see this article?
http://www.mediaite.com/online/orla...ored-unhinged-behavior-because-he-was-muslim/
Who knows how it would impact this situation. However, I agree that we need to at least temporarily halt travel in for Muslims until we get much better at screening. Also, apparently a Muslim cleric was allowed to travel in recently from Iran to give a speech in which he called for murder of homosexuals. Better screening along with the absolute destruction (not containment) of ISIS will only reduce these events - not eliminate.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
You guys need to start issueing trigger warnings for your mean posts
Anyway, if you think control of the SCOTUS is of no importance then the Republic is already lost.
Joe
I agree with nearly all the time . I. This case I am pretty sure MrD has preached long and loud on the importance of not letting Hillary get in and have control of appointing Supremes. He has not yet though said he will vote for Trump
Which in reality means Hillary gains an advantage.
I do not understand how anyone who does not want Hillary would not understand the way to stop her is to vote for the GOP candidate
I agree with nearly all the time . I. This case I am pretty sure MrD has preached long and loud on the importance of not letting Hillary get in and have control of appointing Supremes. He has not yet though said he will vote for Trump
Which in reality means Hillary gains an advantage.
I do not understand how anyone who does not want Hillary would not understand the way to stop her is to vote for the GOP candidate
When exactly did I say it was of no importance? Of course it's important. However, it's not the only thing that's important.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
One of Hillary or Trump will be the President (I assume O will prevent her from going to prison).
Not voting, or voting but not voting for Trump, is effectively voting for her, which is handing HRC (and the rest of the Living Constitution crowd) the SCOTUS. And not for one or two presidential terms but for decades. This possibility alone makes this election very unique. Which was the original point.
The big picture here is not complicated. There was a time to work against Trump. That time has passed. Continuing to do it at this point is working to let Hillary determine if the Constitution has a future. And it wont matter if the light bulb finally goes on for you a decade from now. It needs to go on now.
You realize there are sanders democrats that wont vote for Hillary. I know plenty. Are they voting for Hillary by not voting for Hillary?
Hillary supporters could say "if you do not vote for hillary, you vote for Trump."
Apparently, by voting for Gary Johnson, I am also voting for both Hillary and Trump. Now I do not want to vote at all.... but if I do not vote at all, I vote for both. I am so confused!
Not really...any business venture is going to get sued at some juncture and may well have cause to file suit. The more business ventures one is involved with, the greater that probability becomes on any number of levels. Civil suits do not imply criminal actions occurred. Further, most rational people are smart enough to realize that businesses often settle litigation without any admissions of liability and they do so when the costs of litigation outweigh the cost of settlement.
This needs to be repeated
"Further, most rational people are smart enough to realize that businesses often settle litigation without any admissions of liability and they do so when the costs of litigation outweigh the cost of settlement. "
Sad but true
Pick a company ANY company with billions of dollars,even millions of dollars in business and tally up the number of lawsuits against and brought by the company over a 45+ year span.
I would guess those in the hospitality/service industry are especially vulnerable and companies with big names that are thought to be successful even more so.
"Further, most rational people are smart enough to realize that businesses often settle litigation without any admissions of liability and they do so when the costs of litigation outweigh the cost of settlement. "
Sad but true
Pick a company ANY company with billions of dollars,even millions of dollars in business and tally up the number of lawsuits against and brought by the company over a 45+ year span.
I would guess those in the hospitality/service industry are especially vulnerable and companies with big names that are thought to be successful even more so.
Statalyzer
10,000+ Posts
Ok, but what if you also do not want that candidate?
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Bingo. The common refrain for some is that "you can't get worse then HRC" to which I'd respond, yes you can. If forced to choose between HRC and Trump, I'd take a Bill Clinton redux over my expectations of a Trump administration.
Statalyzer
10,000+ Posts
Asking me which I'd take over the other is like asking me whether I'd rather be rammed up the arse by a rhino or a buffalo. I'd like another option please...
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Gary Johnson seems to be the popular choice. He's more of a Great Dane though.
Death...by Ru Ru!
Again, that's only true if I would vote for Trump over Clinton if forced. At this point, I wouldn't. Accordingly, a Hillary supporter could just as easily argue that not voting or voting but not voting for Hillary is effectively voting for Trump.
For 22 years (as long as I've been old enough to vote), I've had an overwhelming preference for Republican presidential candidates over Democratic presidential candidates. It wasn't even close. Only a completely horrific nominee could nullify preference, and Trump has done it.
That's true, and it's terrible. Should have thought about that before nominating Trump. However, a Trump victory puts the entire conservative ideology into exile. We won't have a conservative party anymore, and that would truly be catastrophic.
The light bulb came on for me when Trump said he'd oppose entitlement reform and made a mockery of the immigration and national security issues. Once he did all that, he lost me.
I really have to hand it to Trump. He is really good at making points that are very understandable to the average person. I think his proposal to ban Muslims from visiting/immigrating to America is foolish and counterproductive. But Trump's point that Obama is more angry with him than the terrorists will really resonate with a lot of voters. Obama is definitely more eloquent and polished than Trump, but Trump understands the "common man" much better. He is giving a clinic on how to demagogue effectively which is ironic given that Democrats have been so good at it in the past.
The Dems have a brand which makes people feel good about themselves because they are so caring. It's not really that way in actual practice, but that doesn't matter, it's about the brand and what it stands for. Being liberal means you care more than the other guy, and that sells. The GOP has not had a feel-good brand since Reagan (The City On A Hill and such). Trump has brought a brand (Make America Great Again) that people can feel good about and it is working for him.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Some would call Trump's message a vast oversimplification but his supporters eat it up.
Yes, but unfortunately that is what American politics has become. Trump is just better at doing it than others.
I think it's been that way for quite a while, and not just in politics.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
An article on the impact of Trump's "ban Muslims from traveling from countries with a proven history of terrorism". In 5 maps you can see how many visas would need to be restrained and the overall impact of the policy.
At the extreme here are the numbers:
Feel free to quibble with individual country inclusion. The chart at the bottom has a country by country breakdown. It also shows why our FBI should already be considered "successful" given the volume of immigrants/visas that come to the US each and every year.
At the extreme here are the numbers:
Feel free to quibble with individual country inclusion. The chart at the bottom has a country by country breakdown. It also shows why our FBI should already be considered "successful" given the volume of immigrants/visas that come to the US each and every year.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Trump has had a rough few weeks. His "unfavorability" is hitting an all-time high amongst POTUS candidates.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Even TEMPORARY isn't feasible or warranted. Trump had to go back to the 80's to tie his immigration policy to Mateen's parents...when we were supporting Afghanistan in their battle for independence against Russia. That is how ludicrous Trump's idea is. Look at those numbers closer...while you take a few examples and impact >100k immigrant visa candidates and millions of non-immigrant visas to hold up as evidence that everything should be stopped. By the very definition, you're looking for a single needle in the combined hay stacks in the State of Nebraska.
To preempt the accusation, nobody is promoting open borders. What we are saying is that we have vetting processes established for travelers and immigrants. Let's work to improve those rather than saying temporarily halt all travel and immigration because the issues that you present (like limited data on Syrian refugees) can't be fixed, likely this decade. There are other methods though and James Comey has said he's confident in the vetting process.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
New Jaguar TV Commercial!?
- Started by WorsterMan
- Replies: 0
- West Mall
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
