Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Rant on Orlando, Hillary, Trump, and Walls

1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 1:50:09 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
So how many attacks have we had this conversation after in the past year or so?

We had it after the Paris, Brussels, and San Bernandino. Those are the main three that come to mind - and the debates after these were pretty much wastes of time. Paris and Brussels were a bit different - we talked about Muslims coming across the borders as refugees in Europe and played games with pictures of said refugees to fit our agendas. About a week of time went by and we forgot anything happened. Marine Le Pen, Farage and those types got more attention for some time, and then we argued past each other until we fell asleep with problems still at hand.

Orlando is more comprable to San Bernandino's debate. After these attacks, we had groups of people immediately go into Us vs. Them positions. And hey - if you're against Trump, this is your fault for being a filthy globalist. If you are a conservative, you're putting guns before the safety of citizens and conflating the actions of the few with the beliefs of the many.

What's the compromise between these two positions? Before anyone answers - there is none. You're either with us or against us - that's something agreed upon in all circles. Oh, how charming our public discourse is. But let's not pretend that DDO is the epitome of the problem, per se - in fact this is better than what you'll see on TV in terms of intellectual honesty.

The ideas brought to the table are insanely short-sighted. Trumpian Republicans want to ban all foreign Muslims from entering the country. A lot of leftists think we need to take away guns - you'll see this sh!t mostly on HuffPost and in Hillary Clinton's speeches. Talk about intellectual death - listen to the debates in this country right now.

And one side isn't better than the other, necessarily, either. Everyone in the US likes to fvck everyone else by trying to further their own agendas and not really caring about the issue at hand. And let's be honest - a lot of people on the right don't give a sh!t about a bunch of dead f@ggots at a gay bar in Orlando - a Mooselimb just advanced their cause. And a lot of people on the left don't care that a Muslim has committed the worst mass shooting in modern American history - and as far as I know the second worst act of domestic terrorism (Oklahoma City bombing) - because guns were involved.

So since I have probably ranted sufficiently on Orlando debates, it's time to move onto the Presidential election - Hillary and Trump are totally unfit to deal with the situation and will make the issue worse than it is already.

How will Hillary make it worse? Her foreign policy will breed more anti-American sentiment among not only Middle Easterners but in mosques here in the US. Under Hillary, we will bomb their home - their family. The War on Terror is an easy target - and the Democrats benefited off of the War on Terror during the Bush years by painting the GOP as Muslim killers when they were no better themselves. Now that Clinton will be the face of the American interventionism, Muslims in the US will realize that neither the GOP nor DNC gives a sh!t about them or their brothers - it's all political. She will use the Muslim vote to try winning, and if elected just give fuel for Imams to spread anti-Americanism.

And if Trump is elected, we have the Muslim immigration ban. While I disagree on this on a philosophical level, this isn't about what I think about policy - this is about the reactions people will have to those policies. Muslim Americans will not react well to the ban. Statistically speaking, the American-born children of foreign of Muslims tend to feel America is hostile to Islam more than their parents. So what is going to happen when we have a ban on Muslims immigrating to the US? The effect of the reactions to terrorist attacks is bad enough in itself - so much distrust for the actions of few people.

Whether justified or not, American Muslims will more often feel the US is hostile to Islam in a Trump Presidency, thereby worsening the "home-grown" terrorist problem.

And now, onto walls. Trump likes to build walls, and the effect that will have on Hispanic immigration is a different story - this is about our attitude towards minorities. The concept of walls imply separation, obviously. A lot of Trump supporters want to end, or majorly limit, immigration to the United States. With a Trump Presidency would effectively be us walling ourselves off from the countries from which many people emigrate to the US from.

It is undeniable Trump has divided people this election. Minorities and college-aged leftists have been more hostile to white Republicans than ever, and vice versa. Friendships have ended over Donald Trump. With this attack in Orlando, expect this problem to worsen. In effect, people are making new walls around them that previously didn't exist. Muslim to white American relations have worsened - especially among young Muslims, after every unfortunate event involving Muslims. Young Muslims very often think of themselves as separate from the average American and American culture.

And this leads to more common "home-grown" Salafis. With the rise of Trump, many Muslim teens have felt the effect of more division. Teachers have reported more religiously-motivated bullying and aggression towards Muslims this year. "Home-grown" terrorism ties back to us - for allowing ourselves to separate from Muslims in our communities.

Thus, I have a lot more trouble supporting Trump than previously. That doesn't mean I am supporting Clinton - absolutely not. If Orlando didn't happen, we would be able to survive Trump's attitude towards Muslims and foreigners. But, this gives more traction to the Us vs Them attitude that many whites and Muslims in this country have adopted. It is simply too risky to do something that can be perceived as so hostile - especially when it really won't make us any safer. In the eyes of Muslims in America, we will be adopting policy aimed against their collective population for the actions of the few, whether justified or not - I don't see how we can get through that without more domestic attacks.

This is more about the inevitable reaction to Trump's policy than Trump's policy itself. I could get over my philosophical differences for the systematic change Trump would bring - but I think we are now at the tipping point, and one wrong move would be extremely costly in both short and long term relations. Clinton would be bad with Muslims as well, but it won't be as "in-(their)-face" as Trump's negatives would be. Thus, I deem both Clinton and Trump unfit to deal with Muslim American-white American relations.

That also means I think that both the "ban Muslims" and "ban guns" approaches won't do jack sh!t to fix the issue. The problems lie deeper than that - shortsighted solutions are meaningless and can have adverse side effects that we cannot afford at this point in time.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
ballpit
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 2:31:09 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 1:50:09 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
So how many attacks have we had this conversation after in the past year or so?

We had it after the Paris, Brussels, and San Bernandino. Those are the main three that come to mind - and the debates after these were pretty much wastes of time. Paris and Brussels were a bit different - we talked about Muslims coming across the borders as refugees in Europe and played games with pictures of said refugees to fit our agendas. About a week of time went by and we forgot anything happened. Marine Le Pen, Farage and those types got more attention for some time, and then we argued past each other until we fell asleep with problems still at hand.

Orlando is more comprable to San Bernandino's debate. After these attacks, we had groups of people immediately go into Us vs. Them positions. And hey - if you're against Trump, this is your fault for being a filthy globalist. If you are a conservative, you're putting guns before the safety of citizens and conflating the actions of the few with the beliefs of the many.

What's the compromise between these two positions? Before anyone answers - there is none. You're either with us or against us - that's something agreed upon in all circles. Oh, how charming our public discourse is. But let's not pretend that DDO is the epitome of the problem, per se - in fact this is better than what you'll see on TV in terms of intellectual honesty.

The ideas brought to the table are insanely short-sighted. Trumpian Republicans want to ban all foreign Muslims from entering the country. A lot of leftists think we need to take away guns - you'll see this sh!t mostly on HuffPost and in Hillary Clinton's speeches. Talk about intellectual death - listen to the debates in this country right now.

And one side isn't better than the other, necessarily, either. Everyone in the US likes to fvck everyone else by trying to further their own agendas and not really caring about the issue at hand. And let's be honest - a lot of people on the right don't give a sh!t about a bunch of dead f@ggots at a gay bar in Orlando - a Mooselimb just advanced their cause. And a lot of people on the left don't care that a Muslim has committed the worst mass shooting in modern American history - and as far as I know the second worst act of domestic terrorism (Oklahoma City bombing) - because guns were involved.

So since I have probably ranted sufficiently on Orlando debates, it's time to move onto the Presidential election - Hillary and Trump are totally unfit to deal with the situation and will make the issue worse than it is already.

How will Hillary make it worse? Her foreign policy will breed more anti-American sentiment among not only Middle Easterners but in mosques here in the US. Under Hillary, we will bomb their home - their family. The War on Terror is an easy target - and the Democrats benefited off of the War on Terror during the Bush years by painting the GOP as Muslim killers when they were no better themselves. Now that Clinton will be the face of the American interventionism, Muslims in the US will realize that neither the GOP nor DNC gives a sh!t about them or their brothers - it's all political. She will use the Muslim vote to try winning, and if elected just give fuel for Imams to spread anti-Americanism.

And if Trump is elected, we have the Muslim immigration ban. While I disagree on this on a philosophical level, this isn't about what I think about policy - this is about the reactions people will have to those policies. Muslim Americans will not react well to the ban. Statistically speaking, the American-born children of foreign of Muslims tend to feel America is hostile to Islam more than their parents. So what is going to happen when we have a ban on Muslims immigrating to the US? The effect of the reactions to terrorist attacks is bad enough in itself - so much distrust for the actions of few people.

Whether justified or not, American Muslims will more often feel the US is hostile to Islam in a Trump Presidency, thereby worsening the "home-grown" terrorist problem.

And now, onto walls. Trump likes to build walls, and the effect that will have on Hispanic immigration is a different story - this is about our attitude towards minorities. The concept of walls imply separation, obviously. A lot of Trump supporters want to end, or majorly limit, immigration to the United States. With a Trump Presidency would effectively be us walling ourselves off from the countries from which many people emigrate to the US from.

It is undeniable Trump has divided people this election. Minorities and college-aged leftists have been more hostile to white Republicans than ever, and vice versa. Friendships have ended over Donald Trump. With this attack in Orlando, expect this problem to worsen. In effect, people are making new walls around them that previously didn't exist. Muslim to white American relations have worsened - especially among young Muslims, after every unfortunate event involving Muslims. Young Muslims very often think of themselves as separate from the average American and American culture.

And this leads to more common "home-grown" Salafis. With the rise of Trump, many Muslim teens have felt the effect of more division. Teachers have reported more religiously-motivated bullying and aggression towards Muslims this year. "Home-grown" terrorism ties back to us - for allowing ourselves to separate from Muslims in our communities.

Thus, I have a lot more trouble supporting Trump than previously. That doesn't mean I am supporting Clinton - absolutely not. If Orlando didn't happen, we would be able to survive Trump's attitude towards Muslims and foreigners. But, this gives more traction to the Us vs Them attitude that many whites and Muslims in this country have adopted. It is simply too risky to do something that can be perceived as so hostile - especially when it really won't make us any safer. In the eyes of Muslims in America, we will be adopting policy aimed against their collective population for the actions of the few, whether justified or not - I don't see how we can get through that without more domestic attacks.

This is more about the inevitable reaction to Trump's policy than Trump's policy itself. I could get over my philosophical differences for the systematic change Trump would bring - but I think we are now at the tipping point, and one wrong move would be extremely costly in both short and long term relations. Clinton would be bad with Muslims as well, but it won't be as "in-(their)-face" as Trump's negatives would be. Thus, I deem both Clinton and Trump unfit to deal with Muslim American-white American relations.

That also means I think that both the "ban Muslims" and "ban guns" approaches won't do jack sh!t to fix the issue. The problems lie deeper than that - shortsighted solutions are meaningless and can have adverse side effects that we cannot afford at this point in time.

+1

Also the country needs a long term solution instead of a band aid that both sides are trying to place on it. I am all on the side of gun rights but am also okay with increased and ACTUALLY ENFORCED background checks or even a safety course being mandatory to be able to purchase or carry a gun. I am also just gonna point this out and this is only a guess but if someone in the club was carrying a weapon many lives could potentially have been saved.
This user is an Angel and will answer any DDO-related questions to the best of their ability. PM for help, or post in the Welcome Thread.
Before you do anything:
http://www.debate.org......
Welcome Thread:
http://www.debate.org......
New Members Read Me:
http://www.debate.org......
Argument Bingo
http://imgur.com......
I avoid fights with gay people because even when you win you lose. - Wylted
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 2:35:26 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 1:50:09 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

I think that your argument here is basically a fallacy of sunken costs. It completely ignores that trying to keep potential radicals calm will increase the number of potential radicals. If controls on Muslim immigration turn Muslims into terrorists, then that's a good argument to bite the bullet and shut it off now instead of allowing it to continue, because the price of controlling immigration will only increase as we kick the can down the road.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 2:39:33 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 1:50:09 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
So how many attacks have we had this conversation after in the past year or so?

We had it after the Paris, Brussels, and San Bernandino. Those are the main three that come to mind - and the debates after these were pretty much wastes of time. Paris and Brussels were a bit different - we talked about Muslims coming across the borders as refugees in Europe and played games with pictures of said refugees to fit our agendas. About a week of time went by and we forgot anything happened. Marine Le Pen, Farage and those types got more attention for some time, and then we argued past each other until we fell asleep with problems still at hand.

Orlando is more comprable to San Bernandino's debate. After these attacks, we had groups of people immediately go into Us vs. Them positions. And hey - if you're against Trump, this is your fault for being a filthy globalist. If you are a conservative, you're putting guns before the safety of citizens and conflating the actions of the few with the beliefs of the many.

What's the compromise between these two positions? Before anyone answers - there is none. You're either with us or against us - that's something agreed upon in all circles. Oh, how charming our public discourse is. But let's not pretend that DDO is the epitome of the problem, per se - in fact this is better than what you'll see on TV in terms of intellectual honesty.

The ideas brought to the table are insanely short-sighted. Trumpian Republicans want to ban all foreign Muslims from entering the country. A lot of leftists think we need to take away guns - you'll see this sh!t mostly on HuffPost and in Hillary Clinton's speeches. Talk about intellectual death - listen to the debates in this country right now.

And one side isn't better than the other, necessarily, either. Everyone in the US likes to fvck everyone else by trying to further their own agendas and not really caring about the issue at hand. And let's be honest - a lot of people on the right don't give a sh!t about a bunch of dead f@ggots at a gay bar in Orlando - a Mooselimb just advanced their cause. And a lot of people on the left don't care that a Muslim has committed the worst mass shooting in modern American history - and as far as I know the second worst act of domestic terrorism (Oklahoma City bombing) - because guns were involved.

So since I have probably ranted sufficiently on Orlando debates, it's time to move onto the Presidential election - Hillary and Trump are totally unfit to deal with the situation and will make the issue worse than it is already.

How will Hillary make it worse? Her foreign policy will breed more anti-American sentiment among not only Middle Easterners but in mosques here in the US. Under Hillary, we will bomb their home - their family. The War on Terror is an easy target - and the Democrats benefited off of the War on Terror during the Bush years by painting the GOP as Muslim killers when they were no better themselves. Now that Clinton will be the face of the American interventionism, Muslims in the US will realize that neither the GOP nor DNC gives a sh!t about them or their brothers - it's all political. She will use the Muslim vote to try winning, and if elected just give fuel for Imams to spread anti-Americanism.

And if Trump is elected, we have the Muslim immigration ban. While I disagree on this on a philosophical level, this isn't about what I think about policy - this is about the reactions people will have to those policies. Muslim Americans will not react well to the ban. Statistically speaking, the American-born children of foreign of Muslims tend to feel America is hostile to Islam more than their parents. So what is going to happen when we have a ban on Muslims immigrating to the US? The effect of the reactions to terrorist attacks is bad enough in itself - so much distrust for the actions of few people.

Whether justified or not, American Muslims will more often feel the US is hostile to Islam in a Trump Presidency, thereby worsening the "home-grown" terrorist problem.

And now, onto walls. Trump likes to build walls, and the effect that will have on Hispanic immigration is a different story - this is about our attitude towards minorities. The concept of walls imply separation, obviously. A lot of Trump supporters want to end, or majorly limit, immigration to the United States. With a Trump Presidency would effectively be us walling ourselves off from the countries from which many people emigrate to the US from.

It is undeniable Trump has divided people this election. Minorities and college-aged leftists have been more hostile to white Republicans than ever, and vice versa. Friendships have ended over Donald Trump. With this attack in Orlando, expect this problem to worsen. In effect, people are making new walls around them that previously didn't exist. Muslim to white American relations have worsened - especially among young Muslims, after every unfortunate event involving Muslims. Young Muslims very often think of themselves as separate from the average American and American culture.

And this leads to more common "home-grown" Salafis. With the rise of Trump, many Muslim teens have felt the effect of more division. Teachers have reported more religiously-motivated bullying and aggression towards Muslims this year. "Home-grown" terrorism ties back to us - for allowing ourselves to separate from Muslims in our communities.

Thus, I have a lot more trouble supporting Trump than previously. That doesn't mean I am supporting Clinton - absolutely not. If Orlando didn't happen, we would be able to survive Trump's attitude towards Muslims and foreigners. But, this gives more traction to the Us vs Them attitude that many whites and Muslims in this country have adopted. It is simply too risky to do something that can be perceived as so hostile - especially when it really won't make us any safer. In the eyes of Muslims in America, we will be adopting policy aimed against their collective population for the actions of the few, whether justified or not - I don't see how we can get through that without more domestic attacks.

This is more about the inevitable reaction to Trump's policy than Trump's policy itself. I could get over my philosophical differences for the systematic change Trump would bring - but I think we are now at the tipping point, and one wrong move would be extremely costly in both short and long term relations. Clinton would be bad with Muslims as well, but it won't be as "in-(their)-face" as Trump's negatives would be. Thus, I deem both Clinton and Trump unfit to deal with Muslim American-white American relations.

That also means I think that both the "ban Muslims" and "ban guns" approaches won't do jack sh!t to fix the issue. The problems lie deeper than that - shortsighted solutions are meaningless and can have adverse side effects that we cannot afford at this point in time.

Nice rant my friend. Good work.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 2:46:35 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 2:35:26 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:50:09 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

I think that your argument here is basically a fallacy of sunken costs. It completely ignores that trying to keep potential radicals calm will increase the number of potential radicals. If controls on Muslim immigration turn Muslims into terrorists, then that's a good argument to bite the bullet and shut it off now instead of allowing it to continue, because the price of controlling immigration will only increase as we kick the can down the road.

What if our time is better spent reaching out to Muslim communities and subcommunities - thereby reducing separation and in effect the likelihood of radicalization?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 2:56:43 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 2:46:35 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/16/2016 2:35:26 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:50:09 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

I think that your argument here is basically a fallacy of sunken costs. It completely ignores that trying to keep potential radicals calm will increase the number of potential radicals. If controls on Muslim immigration turn Muslims into terrorists, then that's a good argument to bite the bullet and shut it off now instead of allowing it to continue, because the price of controlling immigration will only increase as we kick the can down the road.

What if our time is better spent reaching out to Muslim communities and subcommunities - thereby reducing separation and in effect the likelihood of radicalization?

Where has that succeeded?

And, more importantly, can we as a country express that sort of rigid, universal self-control in order to turn aside attempts at manipulation to anger? The last two decades suggest that we do not. That no Western nation has that capability.

As far as I see it, we are in a room with gunpower on the floor. There's a door which is open a crack, and more gunpowder is pouring in. If we shut the door, a spark may strike to disastrous consequences, but leaving the door open just makes the situation worse no matter which course of action we chose in the future.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 3:07:33 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 2:56:43 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/16/2016 2:46:35 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/16/2016 2:35:26 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:50:09 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

I think that your argument here is basically a fallacy of sunken costs. It completely ignores that trying to keep potential radicals calm will increase the number of potential radicals. If controls on Muslim immigration turn Muslims into terrorists, then that's a good argument to bite the bullet and shut it off now instead of allowing it to continue, because the price of controlling immigration will only increase as we kick the can down the road.

What if our time is better spent reaching out to Muslim communities and subcommunities - thereby reducing separation and in effect the likelihood of radicalization?

Where has that succeeded?

Where has it been attempted?

As far as I see it, we are in a room with gunpower on the floor. There's a door which is open a crack, and more gunpowder is pouring in. If we shut the door, a spark may strike to disastrous consequences, but leaving the door open just makes the situation worse no matter which course of action we chose in the future.

I don't deny the complexities of the situation. I'm just unsure of whether the overall negatives would be worse with Trump's ban or other actions.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,675
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 3:35:30 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 1:50:09 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
So how many attacks have we had this conversation after in the past year or so?

We had it after the Paris, Brussels, and San Bernandino. Those are the main three that come to mind - and the debates after these were pretty much wastes of time. Paris and Brussels were a bit different - we talked about Muslims coming across the borders as refugees in Europe and played games with pictures of said refugees to fit our agendas. About a week of time went by and we forgot anything happened. Marine Le Pen, Farage and those types got more attention for some time, and then we argued past each other until we fell asleep with problems still at hand.
The whole debate of banning or drastically limiting refugees has actually been going on for quite a while now. This debate has been going on in Europe for quite a while now believe it or not. Many right wing nationalist parties in Europe have been drastically gaining popularity due to these sorts of violence coming from "refugees."

Also, I don't know how you could put Le Pen and Farage into the "same group." One of them is authoritarian, and the other one isn't.

Orlando is more comprable to San Bernandino's debate. After these attacks, we had groups of people immediately go into Us vs. Them positions. And hey - if you're against Trump, this is your fault for being a filthy globalist. If you are a conservative, you're putting guns before the safety of citizens and conflating the actions of the few with the beliefs of the many.
The problem is not with gun restrictions or anything, it's more due to an issue with mental health and a lack of treatment. Just look at Iceland, they barely have an issue yet they have plenty of guns there.

What's the compromise between these two positions? Before anyone answers - there is none. You're either with us or against us - that's something agreed upon in all circles. Oh, how charming our public discourse is. But let's not pretend that DDO is the epitome of the problem, per se - in fact this is better than what you'll see on TV in terms of intellectual honesty.

The ideas brought to the table are insanely short-sighted. Trumpian Republicans want to ban all foreign Muslims from entering the country. A lot of leftists think we need to take away guns - you'll see this sh!t mostly on HuffPost and in Hillary Clinton's speeches. Talk about intellectual death - listen to the debates in this country right now.
You realize the Muslim ban is temporary until we can filter out radicals?

And one side isn't better than the other, necessarily, either. Everyone in the US likes to fvck everyone else by trying to further their own agendas and not really caring about the issue at hand. And let's be honest - a lot of people on the right don't give a sh!t about a bunch of dead f@ggots at a gay bar in Orlando - a Mooselimb just advanced their cause. And a lot of people on the left don't care that a Muslim has committed the worst mass shooting in modern American history - and as far as I know the second worst act of domestic terrorism (Oklahoma City bombing) - because guns were involved.
I highly doubt that's true, even people opposed to gay marriage aren't as crazy as to not care about gays being shot up. If anything, you can see that people such as Obama are insulting Trump in a crisis like this.

So since I have probably ranted sufficiently on Orlando debates, it's time to move onto the Presidential election - Hillary and Trump are totally unfit to deal with the situation and will make the issue worse than it is already.

How will Hillary make it worse? Her foreign policy will breed more anti-American sentiment among not only Middle Easterners but in mosques here in the US. Under Hillary, we will bomb their home - their family. The War on Terror is an easy target - and the Democrats benefited off of the War on Terror during the Bush years by painting the GOP as Muslim killers when they were no better themselves. Now that Clinton will be the face of the American interventionism, Muslims in the US will realize that neither the GOP nor DNC gives a sh!t about them or their brothers - it's all political. She will use the Muslim vote to try winning, and if elected just give fuel for Imams to spread anti-Americanism.

And if Trump is elected, we have the Muslim immigration ban. While I disagree on this on a philosophical level, this isn't about what I think about policy - this is about the reactions people will have to those policies. Muslim Americans will not react well to the ban. Statistically speaking, the American-born children of foreign of Muslims tend to feel America is hostile to Islam more than their parents. So what is going to happen when we have a ban on Muslims immigrating to the US? The effect of the reactions to terrorist attacks is bad enough in itself - so much distrust for the actions of few people.

Whether justified or not, American Muslims will more often feel the US is hostile to Islam in a Trump Presidency, thereby worsening the "home-grown" terrorist problem.

And now, onto walls. Trump likes to build walls, and the effect that will have on Hispanic immigration is a different story - this is about our attitude towards minorities. The concept of walls imply separation, obviously. A lot of Trump supporters want to end, or majorly limit, immigration to the United States. With a Trump Presidency would effectively be us walling ourselves off from the countries from which many people emigrate to the US from.
If immigration from the hispanic world (mainy Mexico) keeps going on at this rate, the USA may have a problem with many Hispanics coming in and not being able to assimilate. This is already happening to a small extent, but usually hispanics assimilate within the second or third generation. Also, Trump has actually supported making it easier for LEGALS to come in, and he is clearly targetting ILLEGAL immigrants. Walls are not going to imply any sort of racial seperation.

Young Muslims very often think of themselves as separate from the average American and American culture.
Arguable, part of the problem an be attributed to the wrong step the middle east is taking. At one point in time, the middle east was more "advanced" than Europe, but they have went to crazy extents of totalitarian Islamic governments ever since European colonial rule ended. But then again, some of it can be attributed to neo-conservative foreign policy during the Bush-era.

And this leads to more common "home-grown" Salafis. With the rise of Trump, many Muslim teens have felt the effect of more division. Teachers have reported more religiously-motivated bullying and aggression towards Muslims this year. "Home-grown" terrorism ties back to us - for allowing ourselves to separate from Muslims in our communities.

This is more about the inevitable reaction to Trump's policy than Trump's policy itself. I could get over my philosophical differences for the systematic change Trump would bring - but I think we are now at the tipping point, and one wrong move would be extremely costly in both short and long term relations. Clinton would be bad with Muslims as well, but it won't be as "in-(their)-face" as Trump's negatives would be. Thus, I deem both Clinton and Trump unfit to deal with Muslim American-white American relations.

That also means I think that both the "ban Muslims" and "ban guns" approaches won't do jack sh!t to fix the issue. The problems lie deeper than that - shortsighted solutions are meaningless and can have adverse side effects that we cannot afford at this point in time

Except neither of each side wants to fully ban Muslim immigration or fully ban guns...
Romanii
Posts: 4,863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 3:56:47 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 3:07:33 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/16/2016 2:56:43 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Where has that succeeded?
Where has it been attempted?

European governments have bent over backwards trying to appear welcoming to Muslim immigrants..... didn't work at all.

As far as I see it, we are in a room with gunpower on the floor. There's a door which is open a crack, and more gunpowder is pouring in. If we shut the door, a spark may strike to disastrous consequences, but leaving the door open just makes the situation worse no matter which course of action we chose in the future.
I don't deny the complexities of the situation. I'm just unsure of whether the overall negatives would be worse with Trump's ban or other actions.

Frankly, I don't see how slamming the door shut now and inadvertently causing a small explosion could possibly be worse than than letting the gunpowder keep pouring in and waiting for a massive explosion to happen on its own.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 4:02:55 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
There is no conservative agenda on radical Islam, they are just being honest about the source of the problem. Where as Democrats are attempting to use it to grab guns.

Being for small government does not neccesitate an opinion one way or another on radical Islam, while having gun restrictions as part of your platform makes you want to paint all of these tragedies with the same brush.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 4:40:08 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
+1

Well said.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 4:55:42 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 2:46:35 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/16/2016 2:35:26 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:50:09 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

I think that your argument here is basically a fallacy of sunken costs. It completely ignores that trying to keep potential radicals calm will increase the number of potential radicals. If controls on Muslim immigration turn Muslims into terrorists, then that's a good argument to bite the bullet and shut it off now instead of allowing it to continue, because the price of controlling immigration will only increase as we kick the can down the road.

What if our time is better spent reaching out to Muslim communities and subcommunities - thereby reducing separation and in effect the likelihood of radicalization?

America is supposed to be a melting pot but people are trying to hard sell multiculturalism and it's been working , so I don't see how we can move away from it now.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 4:57:22 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
We wouldn't need a wall if we already enacted War Plan Green.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 11:53:56 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 2:35:26 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:50:09 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

I think that your argument here is basically a fallacy of sunken costs. It completely ignores that trying to keep potential radicals calm will increase the number of potential radicals. If controls on Muslim immigration turn Muslims into terrorists, then that's a good argument to bite the bullet and shut it off now instead of allowing it to continue, because the price of controlling immigration will only increase as we kick the can down the road.

In a nutshell, this has been Obama's soft approach, and it is an approach that has only made the problem worse. Also, be mindful that both Hillary and Trump are using election rhetoric. In the office, especially since Trump has emphasized numerous times the ever ignored clarifier, "temporary" you can expect Trump to worry about his legacy like every president and do the pragmatic things that need to be done.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 12:02:53 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 4:55:42 AM, Wylted wrote:

What if our time is better spent reaching out to Muslim communities and subcommunities - thereby reducing separation and in effect the likelihood of radicalization?

America is supposed to be a melting pot but people are trying to hard sell multiculturalism and it's been working , so I don't see how we can move away from it now.

Or as Thett would say, "Vibrant Diversity"
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 10:43:06 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 3:56:47 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:07:33 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/16/2016 2:56:43 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Where has that succeeded?
Where has it been attempted?

European governments have bent over backwards trying to appear welcoming to Muslim immigrants..... didn't work at all.

Federal governments? Going to have to be more local than that.

As far as I see it, we are in a room with gunpower on the floor. There's a door which is open a crack, and more gunpowder is pouring in. If we shut the door, a spark may strike to disastrous consequences, but leaving the door open just makes the situation worse no matter which course of action we chose in the future.
I don't deny the complexities of the situation. I'm just unsure of whether the overall negatives would be worse with Trump's ban or other actions.

Frankly, I don't see how slamming the door shut now and inadvertently causing a small explosion could possibly be worse than than letting the gunpowder keep pouring in and waiting for a massive explosion to happen on its own.

A small explosion here could have devastating effects in terms trust for decades. I'm not really convinced more immigrants is the problem - because foreign-born Muslims in America tend to hold the most favorable view of the country.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 10:45:54 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 1:50:09 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
So how many attacks have we had this conversation after in the past year or so?

We had it after the Paris, Brussels, and San Bernandino. Those are the main three that come to mind - and the debates after these were pretty much wastes of time. Paris and Brussels were a bit different - we talked about Muslims coming across the borders as refugees in Europe and played games with pictures of said refugees to fit our agendas. About a week of time went by and we forgot anything happened. Marine Le Pen, Farage and those types got more attention for some time, and then we argued past each other until we fell asleep with problems still at hand.

Orlando is more comprable to San Bernandino's debate. After these attacks, we had groups of people immediately go into Us vs. Them positions. And hey - if you're against Trump, this is your fault for being a filthy globalist. If you are a conservative, you're putting guns before the safety of citizens and conflating the actions of the few with the beliefs of the many.

What's the compromise between these two positions? Before anyone answers - there is none. You're either with us or against us - that's something agreed upon in all circles. Oh, how charming our public discourse is. But let's not pretend that DDO is the epitome of the problem, per se - in fact this is better than what you'll see on TV in terms of intellectual honesty.

The ideas brought to the table are insanely short-sighted. Trumpian Republicans want to ban all foreign Muslims from entering the country. A lot of leftists think we need to take away guns - you'll see this sh!t mostly on HuffPost and in Hillary Clinton's speeches. Talk about intellectual death - listen to the debates in this country right now.

And one side isn't better than the other, necessarily, either. Everyone in the US likes to fvck everyone else by trying to further their own agendas and not really caring about the issue at hand. And let's be honest - a lot of people on the right don't give a sh!t about a bunch of dead f@ggots at a gay bar in Orlando - a Mooselimb just advanced their cause. And a lot of people on the left don't care that a Muslim has committed the worst mass shooting in modern American history - and as far as I know the second worst act of domestic terrorism (Oklahoma City bombing) - because guns were involved.

So since I have probably ranted sufficiently on Orlando debates, it's time to move onto the Presidential election - Hillary and Trump are totally unfit to deal with the situation and will make the issue worse than it is already.

How will Hillary make it worse? Her foreign policy will breed more anti-American sentiment among not only Middle Easterners but in mosques here in the US. Under Hillary, we will bomb their home - their family. The War on Terror is an easy target - and the Democrats benefited off of the War on Terror during the Bush years by painting the GOP as Muslim killers when they were no better themselves. Now that Clinton will be the face of the American interventionism, Muslims in the US will realize that neither the GOP nor DNC gives a sh!t about them or their brothers - it's all political. She will use the Muslim vote to try winning, and if elected just give fuel for Imams to spread anti-Americanism.

And if Trump is elected, we have the Muslim immigration ban. While I disagree on this on a philosophical level, this isn't about what I think about policy - this is about the reactions people will have to those policies. Muslim Americans will not react well to the ban. Statistically speaking, the American-born children of foreign of Muslims tend to feel America is hostile to Islam more than their parents. So what is going to happen when we have a ban on Muslims immigrating to the US? The effect of the reactions to terrorist attacks is bad enough in itself - so much distrust for the actions of few people.

Whether justified or not, American Muslims will more often feel the US is hostile to Islam in a Trump Presidency, thereby worsening the "home-grown" terrorist problem.

And now, onto walls. Trump likes to build walls, and the effect that will have on Hispanic immigration is a different story - this is about our attitude towards minorities. The concept of walls imply separation, obviously. A lot of Trump supporters want to end, or majorly limit, immigration to the United States. With a Trump Presidency would effectively be us walling ourselves off from the countries from which many people emigrate to the US from.

It is undeniable Trump has divided people this election. Minorities and college-aged leftists have been more hostile to white Republicans than ever, and vice versa. Friendships have ended over Donald Trump. With this attack in Orlando, expect this problem to worsen. In effect, people are making new walls around them that previously didn't exist. Muslim to white American relations have worsened - especially among young Muslims, after every unfortunate event involving Muslims. Young Muslims very often think of themselves as separate from the average American and American culture.

And this leads to more common "home-grown" Salafis. With the rise of Trump, many Muslim teens have felt the effect of more division. Teachers have reported more religiously-motivated bullying and aggression towards Muslims this year. "Home-grown" terrorism ties back to us - for allowing ourselves to separate from Muslims in our communities.

Thus, I have a lot more trouble supporting Trump than previously. That doesn't mean I am supporting Clinton - absolutely not. If Orlando didn't happen, we would be able to survive Trump's attitude towards Muslims and foreigners. But, this gives more traction to the Us vs Them attitude that many whites and Muslims in this country have adopted. It is simply too risky to do something that can be perceived as so hostile - especially when it really won't make us any safer. In the eyes of Muslims in America, we will be adopting policy aimed against their collective population for the actions of the few, whether justified or not - I don't see how we can get through that without more domestic attacks.

This is more about the inevitable reaction to Trump's policy than Trump's policy itself. I could get over my philosophical differences for the systematic change Trump would bring - but I think we are now at the tipping point, and one wrong move would be extremely costly in both short and long term relations. Clinton would be bad with Muslims as well, but it won't be as "in-(their)-face" as Trump's negatives would be. Thus, I deem both Clinton and Trump unfit to deal with Muslim American-white American relations.

That also means I think that both the "ban Muslims" and "ban guns" approaches won't do jack sh!t to fix the issue. The problems lie deeper than that - shortsighted solutions are meaningless and can have adverse side effects that we cannot afford at this point in time.

I agree
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 1:06:28 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 1:50:09 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
And if Trump is elected, we have the Muslim immigration ban.

I doubt it.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 2:05:59 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/18/2016 1:06:28 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:50:09 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
And if Trump is elected, we have the Muslim immigration ban.

I doubt it.

Me too. This is election rhetoric to get people to focus on real proposals to make the country safer, rather than ignore problems as we have for the last 8 years hoping it will fix itself.

The country's prosperity does not hinge on the amount of illegal migrants allowed in, nor is it necessary to import as many Muslims as possible to impact the already minuscule 1% of the Nation. Terror is real, you just can't ignore it.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 3:21:50 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/18/2016 1:06:28 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:50:09 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
And if Trump is elected, we have the Muslim immigration ban.

I doubt it.

If we are to hold him to anything he says, then we have it.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 3:23:13 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/18/2016 3:21:50 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/18/2016 1:06:28 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:50:09 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
And if Trump is elected, we have the Muslim immigration ban.

I doubt it.

If we are to hold him to anything he says, then we have it.

Since when do you hold any politician to campaign rhetoric?
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 3:27:15 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/18/2016 3:23:13 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/18/2016 3:21:50 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/18/2016 1:06:28 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:50:09 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
And if Trump is elected, we have the Muslim immigration ban.

I doubt it.

If we are to hold him to anything he says, then we have it.

Since when do you hold any politician to campaign rhetoric?

I think I can hold them to one piece of rhetoric.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 3:29:13 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/18/2016 3:27:15 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/18/2016 3:23:13 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/18/2016 3:21:50 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/18/2016 1:06:28 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:50:09 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
And if Trump is elected, we have the Muslim immigration ban.

I doubt it.

If we are to hold him to anything he says, then we have it.

Since when do you hold any politician to campaign rhetoric?

I think I can hold them to one piece of rhetoric.

How predictably arbitrary.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 3:31:51 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/18/2016 3:29:13 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/18/2016 3:27:15 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/18/2016 3:23:13 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/18/2016 3:21:50 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/18/2016 1:06:28 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:50:09 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
And if Trump is elected, we have the Muslim immigration ban.

I doubt it.

If we are to hold him to anything he says, then we have it.

Since when do you hold any politician to campaign rhetoric?

I think I can hold them to one piece of rhetoric.

How predictably arbitrary.

Eh? I think it's ironic that Trump supporters - who claim to be tired of the political process - can name one of the things they are most supportive of as just political rhetoric he won't follow through on. If that's the case, then he's no better than Hillary.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 3:32:46 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/18/2016 3:21:50 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/18/2016 1:06:28 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:50:09 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
And if Trump is elected, we have the Muslim immigration ban.

I doubt it.

If we are to hold him to anything he says, then we have it.

Why should we hold him to anything he says?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 4:19:28 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/18/2016 3:31:51 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/18/2016 3:29:13 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/18/2016 3:27:15 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/18/2016 3:23:13 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/18/2016 3:21:50 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/18/2016 1:06:28 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:50:09 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
And if Trump is elected, we have the Muslim immigration ban.

I doubt it.

If we are to hold him to anything he says, then we have it.

Since when do you hold any politician to campaign rhetoric?

I think I can hold them to one piece of rhetoric.

How predictably arbitrary.

Eh? I think it's ironic that Trump supporters - who claim to be tired of the political process - can name one of the things they are most supportive of as just political rhetoric he won't follow through on. If that's the case, then he's no better than Hillary.

The best you can do is examine motivations and their past and their beliefs. Trump didn't get to be a businessman by pissing on people he wanted to deal with. He will never allow a permanent ban on Muslims, and it is highly unlikely he will allow a temporary one as POTUS if he can get Congress to agree on common sense negotiated solutions to fix our security holes. And if Congress balks? The ban is the punishment, and Trump will declare Congress responsible.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 4:26:29 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Really harder after all this time...do you really think the reason the establishment is upset with Trump because he simply is not PC and says funny things????

They are afraid like the child caught misbehaving, and fretting the Father coming home to deliver the consequences for it. Trump is the tool the public wants to hold the government accountable.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 4:35:20 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/18/2016 4:26:29 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Really harder after all this time...do you really think the reason the establishment is upset with Trump because he simply is not PC and says funny things????

They are afraid like the child caught misbehaving, and fretting the Father coming home to deliver the consequences for it. Trump is the tool the public wants to hold the government accountable.

You give him just way too much credit. "The public" or more accurately, a fraction of the republican base, are simply expressing undirected rage at everything.

http://freebeacon.com...
" What disturbs me most is the prospect that Donald Trump is what a very large number of Republican voters want: not a wonk, not an orator, not a statesman, not even a leader, really, if by leader you mean someone who persuades and inspires and manages a team to pursue a common good. They just want a man who vents their anger at targets above and below their status".

"How cathartic it is to give voice to your fury, to wallow in self-righteousness, in helplessness, in self-serving self-pity. It"s what one expects of teenagers, artists, bloggers, pajama boys"immature, peevish, radical, self-destructive behavior. If that is how Republican voters would like to end their days, in a defensive posture of suspicion and loathing of this big crazy wonderful country that has made them literally the wealthiest and most entitled generation of human beings in the history of the world, well, that"s their right as Americans, I suppose. Best of luck. The Darwin Award will be ready for you November 9."
Peepette
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 4:54:19 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 1:50:09 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
So how many attacks have we had this conversation after in the past year or so?

We had it after the Paris, Brussels, and San Bernandino. Those are the main three that come to mind - and the debates after these were pretty much wastes of time. Paris and Brussels were a bit different - we talked about Muslims coming across the borders as refugees in Europe and played games with pictures of said refugees to fit our agendas. About a week of time went by and we forgot anything happened. Marine Le Pen, Farage and those types got more attention for some time, and then we argued past each other until we fell asleep with problems still at hand.

Orlando is more comprable to San Bernandino's debate. After these attacks, we had groups of people immediately go into Us vs. Them positions. And hey - if you're against Trump, this is your fault for being a filthy globalist. If you are a conservative, you're putting guns before the safety of citizens and conflating the actions of the few with the beliefs of the many.

What's the compromise between these two positions? Before anyone answers - there is none. You're either with us or against us - that's something agreed upon in all circles. Oh, how charming our public discourse is. But let's not pretend that DDO is the epitome of the problem, per se - in fact this is better than what you'll see on TV in terms of intellectual honesty.

The ideas brought to the table are insanely short-sighted. Trumpian Republicans want to ban all foreign Muslims from entering the country. A lot of leftists think we need to take away guns - you'll see this sh!t mostly on HuffPost and in Hillary Clinton's speeches. Talk about intellectual death - listen to the debates in this country right now.

And one side isn't better than the other, necessarily, either. Everyone in the US likes to fvck everyone else by trying to further their own agendas and not really caring about the issue at hand. And let's be honest - a lot of people on the right don't give a sh!t about a bunch of dead f@ggots at a gay bar in Orlando - a Mooselimb just advanced their cause. And a lot of people on the left don't care that a Muslim has committed the worst mass shooting in modern American history - and as far as I know the second worst act of domestic terrorism (Oklahoma City bombing) - because guns were involved.

Agreed, most of all of this has been highly politicized and warped very much out of proportion as to what is the actual reality of the situation. Certainly not to down play the issue of terrorism, more specifically the home grown variety. The media has done much to skew how the public views and processes theses event to making it a us vs them tug of war. Not only on the Muslim issue, but the gun issue as well as party affiliation. All sides have a knee jerk reaction. When in fact there has been more terrorist deaths in the US perpetrated by non-Muslims. These have been of little or no note to this fact in the media as far as statistics.. Make Muslims the fall guy to justify the trillions spent on the endless wars. The disarmament of American citizens glosses over the fact if arms aren't available, these people would seek other means to kill. Oklahoma & Boston are good examples.

So since I have probably ranted sufficiently on Orlando debates, it's time to move onto the Presidential election - Hillary and Trump are totally unfit to deal with the situation and will make the issue worse than it is already.

How will Hillary make it worse? Her foreign policy will breed more anti-American sentiment among not only Middle Easterners but in mosques here in the US. Under Hillary, we will bomb their home - their family. The War on Terror is an easy target - and the Democrats benefited off of the War on Terror during the Bush years by painting the GOP as Muslim killers when they were no better themselves. Now that Clinton will be the face of the American interventionism, Muslims in the US will realize that neither the GOP nor DNC gives a sh!t about them or their brothers - it's all political. She will use the Muslim vote to try winning, and if elected just give fuel for Imams to spread anti-Americanism.

And if Trump is elected, we have the Muslim immigration ban. While I disagree on this on a philosophical level, this isn't about what I think about policy - this is about the reactions people will have to those policies. Muslim Americans will not react well to the ban. Statistically speaking, the American-born children of foreign of Muslims tend to feel America is hostile to Islam more than their parents. So what is going to happen when we have a ban on Muslims immigrating to the US? The effect of the reactions to terrorist attacks is bad enough in itself - so much distrust for the actions of few people.

Whether justified or not, American Muslims will more often feel the US is hostile to Islam in a Trump Presidency, thereby worsening the "home-grown" terrorist problem.

And now, onto walls. Trump likes to build walls, and the effect that will have on Hispanic immigration is a different story - this is about our attitude towards minorities. The concept of walls imply separation, obviously. A lot of Trump supporters want to end, or majorly limit, immigration to the United States. With a Trump Presidency would effectively be us walling ourselves off from the countries from which many people emigrate to the US from.

It is undeniable Trump has divided people this election. Minorities and college-aged leftists have been more hostile to white Republicans than ever, and vice versa. Friendships have ended over Donald Trump. With this attack in Orlando, expect this problem to worsen. In effect, people are making new walls around them that previously didn't exist. Muslim to white American relations have worsened - especially among young Muslims, after every unfortunate event involving Muslims. Young Muslims very often think of themselves as separate from the average American and American culture.

And this leads to more common "home-grown" Salafis. With the rise of Trump, many Muslim teens have felt the effect of more division. Teachers have reported more religiously-motivated bullying and aggression towards Muslims this year. "Home-grown" terrorism ties back to us - for allowing ourselves to separate from Muslims in our communities.

Thus, I have a lot more trouble supporting Trump than previously. That doesn't mean I am supporting Clinton - absolutely not. If Orlando didn't happen, we would be able to survive Trump's attitude towards Muslims and foreigners. But, this gives more traction to the Us vs Them attitude that many whites and Muslims in this country have adopted. It is simply too risky to do something that can be perceived as so hostile - especially when it really won't make us any safer. In the eyes of Muslims in America, we will be adopting policy aimed against their collective population for the actions of the few, whether justified or not - I don't see how we can get through that without more domestic attacks.

This is more about the inevitable reaction to Trump's policy than Trump's policy itself. I could get over my philosophical differences for the systematic change Trump would bring - but I think we are now at the tipping point, and one wrong move would be extremely costly in both short and long term relations. Clinton would be bad with Muslims as well, but it won't be as "in-(their)-face" as Trump's negatives would be. Thus, I deem both Clinton and Trump unfit to deal with Muslim American-white American relations.

That also means I think that both the "ban Muslims" and "ban guns" approaches won't do jack sh!t to fix the issue. The problems lie deeper than that - shortsighted solutions are meaningless and can have adverse side effects that we cannot afford at this point in t
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 5:00:41 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/18/2016 4:35:20 PM, TBR wrote:

" What disturbs me most is the prospect that Donald Trump is what a very large number of Republican voters want: not a wonk, not an orator, not a statesman, not even a leader, really, if by leader you mean someone who persuades and inspires and manages a team to pursue a common good. They just want a man who vents their anger at targets above and below their status".

That is the role of a democratic populist. Would you rather a benevolent dictator?