Who can best defend the nation against terrorism; Democrats or Republicans?

Posted by: mmartinez36

  • Democratic Party

  • Republican Party

34% 14 votes
66% 27 votes
  • The Story of Iraq: Once upon a time.... George Bush went into Iraq. After the war, we left a power vent and an unstable environment. This unstable environment allowed terrorist groups to rise.

  • We aren't the ones makng all the teerorists

    Posted by: TBR
  • Considering the historical context of the Iraq and Afghan Wars America incited on false pretenses that violated international law, and the war-profiteering that ensued thereafter under the watch of a republican administration, it is evident that a leftist agenda that handle wars and terrorism with better efficiency. The majority of the terrorists that performed the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center were Saudi, and yet under Bush, Saudi Arabia remained America's biggest ally, and biggest source of oil imports. Yet, Iraq received the flak for the attacks. Saudi Arabia has, on record, beheaded more people than ISIS. But the republicans wouldn't let THAT stand in the way of their precious fossil fuels, so they've omitted this fact. ISIS became a thing because it was a product of a broken nation that was bent in two as a result of imperialism. When America left, the nation was unstable and there was an arsenal weapons not very well secured. America has also gained notoriety in killing "evil leaders" and installing fascist dictators.

  • They support the war on terror. Democrats usually don't.

    Posted by: Bob13
  • How does "tearing apart terrorists, then pulling out under Democrats" make the Republican Party suck a fighting terrorism? Nobody knows, but apparently, Democrats think that somehow.

  • "Oh, did I hurt your feelings Iran and Syria? I'm so sorry, here, have all of my money and all of my valuebules because remember; you are not an American!" At least a Republican will get the job done! *whispers under breath; dear God please do not let a Republican in office, I want Sanders so that I can go to college tuition free!*

    Posted by: Sciguy
  • not even close

  • More military like strategies.

  • Democrats are too soft on terrorism, and when it does strike, their response is to restrict gun ownership. Republicans are smart enough to really do something about it.

  • Just look at Obama and Hillary then you know what to pick.

  • The republicans are being realistic about the threat, and understand that you can't fight serial murderers with nice words to not hurt their feelings.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
tajshar2k says2015-12-04T22:38:10.7151670Z
@TBR Wow, that was surprising.
TBR says2015-12-04T23:24:56.1450576Z
Thanks for the heads up. On phone, simple mistake
Vox_Veritas says2015-12-04T23:43:54.7674127Z
Excusez-moi? Who is it that's having our troops stand by almost idly in the face of the Islamic State? Who refused to return to Iraq whenever the situation became dire? To achieve one good objective (the liberation of Iraq) inevitably caused some degree of increase in terrorism, but this could be dealt with if it wasn't for a certain party (*ahem*). Essentially it's the equivalent of a pilot sending a plane up into the air, somebody shooting the pilot (causing the plane to crash), and then people blaming the pilot instead of the guy who shot the pilot. Unfortunately, the sheeple have bought into the media's narrative.
Vox_Veritas says2015-12-04T23:46:04.3591048Z
Once the course to a good destination starts, it can be hazardous to stop, and we shouldn't blame those who started the journey when saboteurs cause the plane to stop (and thus crash).
Vox_Veritas says2015-12-04T23:48:02.1101692Z
Ya' know, I feel like I have this conversation with DDOers way too much...
Pigzooka says2015-12-05T03:12:13.5587882Z
Republicans voted against banning people on the no-fly list from buying guns.
briantheliberal says2015-12-05T04:00:32.6405387Z
I hope you people realize most terrorist attacks are being committed by American citizens on American soil towards their fellow Americans. As soon as you see or hear the word "terrorist" you think of Middle Eastern Muslims, ignoring the real potential terrorist threat in this country. That being said, because of this fact, Democrats are the ones who support gun reforms and background checks. Therefore Democrats are the ones who can best defend the nation against terrorism, not Republicans. It is Republican policies and Republican groups like the NRA who are pushing to ensure that any and everyone has access to guns, even people who are clearly not fit to have them in the first place.
58539672 says2015-12-05T04:11:20.9196688Z
Based of a 13 year study by the Gallup polls, Republicans have always been the better party in the eyes of Americans for fighting terrorism, with Democrats only every passing them in 2006 and 2007 (mainly due to concerns about the Iraq war). In 2014, the gap was at its widest with 55% favoring Republicans to 32% Democrats (mainly do to concerns about ISIS).
briantheliberal says2015-12-05T04:19:06.6423614Z
Because most Americans are ignorant when it comes to this issue in the first place, mainly because of the reason I described above. And even if our biggest threat wasn't domestic terrorism, the fact that Republicans support going to war under any circumstance only increases the likelihood of us being attacked by international terrorists.
briantheliberal says2015-12-05T04:21:14.0344112Z
Simply put, the only reason people think Republicans are fit to deal with this issue more so than Democrats is because they scream the loudest about it. "Kill all those damn terrorists! Yee haw!"
58539672 says2015-12-05T06:21:45.5222756Z
@briantheliberal Interesting that you bring up guns as a main cause of terrorism, despite the top 8 worst terror attacks in US history not using them (which also make up 3455 of the 3594 people killed in terror attacks in the US) and who predate the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (this isn't directed at you, but others who keep bringing the wars up). Also with the rise of terror attacks in places with strong gun regulation, like France, it doesn't seem like gun control is working to fix that particular problem. Radicalization is far more of a problem with terrorism than gun control.
Forthelulz says2015-12-05T06:41:07.2888635Z
@TheSatiricalAnarchist How does Realpolitik have anything to do with this?
briantheliberal says2015-12-05T08:27:25.8804797Z
58539672, "Interesting that you bring up guns as a main cause of terrorism" - I never said guns were specifically the cause of terrorism. They only make it worse. Obviously guns cannot get up and kill people themselves. I said and I quote "most terrorist attacks are being committed by American citizens on American soil towards their fellow Americans" which is true. Domestic terrorists have killed more Americans than Islamic terrorists and Jihadists since September 11, 2001 and those numbers are rising dramatically. - http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/tally-of-attacks-in-us-challenges-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html?_r=0 - Oh, and the overwhelming majority of these domestic terrorists use guns, not planes or bombs, guns, most of which are bought legally through lax gun laws that allow even the most mentally disturbed people to obtain them. Yet the Republican response is the make this even easier, so that everyone and their grandma and demented uncle can get one (This is part of the problem). Also, faulty correlation on your part. The terror attacks that occurred in France have absolutely nothing to do with their gun laws being heavily regulated. We have much less regulated gun laws in the United States, yet more people die from terrorist attacks and mass shootings than countries like France. Lastly, the lack of gun use to commit "worst" terrorist attacks on American soil is also irrelevant because, again, more Americans have died from mass shootings anyway. It is clear which one is more of a threat to the general public.
briantheliberal says2015-12-05T08:28:37.3766546Z
Or rather - the laws in place to govern them make it worse*
stargate says2015-12-05T14:52:06.6633602Z
It is. In the bill of rights "the right to bear arms" even If we make it impossible to own a gun it will not stop criminals from getting them. There is such a thing called the black market. The only gun control we should have is background checks. That is due to making sure such Indian person doesn't get a gun. But making sure no one can get one will only limit goodpeople from having them. It is a part of our cutler, a part you want gone. It simply is not a good idea, and will not happen.
stargate says2015-12-05T14:54:31.5533221Z
Gun reforms do not work, let's look at some places where there's a high murder rate chicago and Detroit. Both are heavly democrat cities in democrat states. So why is there a high murder rate there yet it has democrats in charge? Please tell me
tajshar2k says2015-12-05T15:07:33.0035497Z
@Stargate Umm because those places already have high levels of poverty, unemployment and racial injustice. First of all, not all of Chicago is violent. It's really only the South and West Side which is like this, and 70% of it is just gang violence. 2nd, of all, it has nothing to do with whether democrats are in charge, or whether Republicans are. The real problem is the poverty and racial injustice which is make the situation worse. Why does New Orleans have such a high murder rate? It has loose gun laws, yet it's actually worse than Chicago. Banning guns, will do nothing, and doing nothing is even worse. Republicans are always trying to tell lies about Chicago and high gun control, but everybody doesn't see the real problem.
tajshar2k says2015-12-05T15:09:49.0381657Z
@BriantheLiberal The attackers were from Pakistan I believe, and they had links to Radical Islamic groups.
tajshar2k says2015-12-05T15:16:54.6455503Z
Another big ones, is the War on Drugs. This is a huge reason for our high crime rate. Which ironically, Republicans want to continue.
stargate says2015-12-05T15:21:59.4038682Z
Drugs hurt our society, witch is one reason we have the war on drugs. It also helps kill people who take it and ruin there lives.
TBR says2015-12-05T15:24:39.3628870Z
Drugs hurt society, sure, so to does the war on drugs. It is easily arguable the effects of the war are much worse than the thing we are declaring war on.
tajshar2k says2015-12-05T15:25:19.8924664Z
No, it doesn't hurt society. If I do crack,(which I don't) why would that effect you? The War on Drugs has not made it any harder to get access to drugs. It's a failure, and should be stopped. Not only that it militarized the police.
TBR says2015-12-05T15:41:43.6858766Z
The war on drugs is a great example for another metaphor war - war on terror. Stargate, the right has pushed this bullsh1t with no real intent to win, and no way to do it. Please reconsider this nonsense.
briantheliberal says2015-12-05T17:06:43.2463869Z
Tajshar2k, I don't really know what attackers you're referring to...
tajshar2k says2015-12-05T17:08:52.9147453Z
@Briantheliberal Sorry, I thought I was on the San Bernardino Shooting poll, so I assumed you were talking in that context.
stargate says2015-12-05T20:55:15.8303021Z
1. These highly toxic and illegal drugs eat away at America and its people. Many have died due to simply taken these drugs once. If we end the war on drugs you are letting the drug traffic expand even more, and allowing Americans to die even more. You say you are not for the war on drugs and want it to end, but what is would you replace the war on drugs with? Would you allow it all to be legal? 2. These drugs have caused tons of deaths and help drag the people who take them down. This is due to many of these drugs targeting areas of our Brian's that cause the effects of being high and whatever effect you want. But this can lead to damages to there bodies, this includes but is not limited to liver disase, loss of memory, loss of areas of your brain ex. 3. This war on drugs helps hit the criminal underbelly and is meant to protect American lives. This is a war for the people, the reason we make the police stronger is to combat stronger enemies. I will never end my support for the war on drugs, not this year, nor any other year.
TBR says2015-12-05T23:39:49.6778078Z
@stargate - Decriminalization of drugs turns the health problems of drug use and addiction into a medical issue, where it should be. Users and addicts being criminals worsens the issues. Legalization combats the black market for the drugs. During liquor prohibition, ruthless criminal black market existed just the same as in drugs markets today. Not, modern liquor companies may not be perfect corporate citizens, they are hardly battling it out with tommyguns on the streets. The entire war on drugs is a farse.
mmartinez36 says2015-12-06T01:14:53.4692448Z
All though this no longer pertains to terrorism at all I do have to put my "two cents" in on this debate. The war on drugs is a joke. If Americans were given the freedom of doing heroin(which they pretty much do already), most Americans would not do it. If Americans were given the freedom of doing cocaine(which they pretty much do already), most wouldn't do coke either. Marijuana is a different story but compared to all others is far less toxic. The war on drugs does nothing to stop drug flow whatsoever in the US. Its a joke, I won't go into detail about how i know this but i'll say this. If you want illegal drugs, you can get illegal drugs on the street lol. And finally, Americans often look past the severity of legal drugs. Currently, "Prescription drug abuse, while most prevalent in the US, is a problem in many areas around the world including Europe, Southern Africa and South Asia. In the US alone, more than 15 million people abuse prescription drugs, more than the combined number who reported abusing cocaine, hallucinogens, inhalants and heroin." And this is what makes me laugh when people talk about the necessity of the war on drugs..."Depressants, opioids and antidepressants are responsible for more overdose deaths (45%) than cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and amphetamines (39%) combined."(http://www.Drugfreeworld.Org/drugfacts/prescription/abuse-international-statistics.Html)
58539672 says2015-12-06T06:34:14.4318710Z
@briantheliberal Being, "more of a threat to the American public" isn't the topic of discussion in this poll, Terror attacks are. If we are talking about what is the bigger threat, then smoking, fast food, cars, and medical mistakes all outrank guns by a significant margin (and make terror attacks look like a drop in the bucket). But on the topic of terror attacks, most of the deaths caused by them come from something other than guns | http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/wrjp255us.html |. As for the domestic terrors thing, the word "Domestic Terrorist" just means that it was caused by a US citizen. Islamic terror attacks can be domestic just as easily as international. If you are talking about what kind (meaning ideology) the terror attack was (Islamist, Left, Right, Nationalist, Religious, etc.), then you should clarify it as such. Here is all known terror attacks and related incidents thus far and there type | http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/wrjp255a.html |. The attack in Paris did have something to do with guns. The weapons the terrorists used were smuggled into the country from the Balkan states. Despite having some of the strictest gun laws in the EU, France has one of the largest black market gun trades in the world. Also I forget to bring this up earlier, so here it is. With the newest measure by Democrats to ban people on the no fly list from purchasing a firearm, Ive noticed that it wouldn't do anything. Most terrorists aren't on the list (the ones from California weren't) and neither are large members of far-right extremists. This bill doesn't really solve anything. Plus people on the list are their because they are under investigation. They have not committed a crime yet, so removing a constitutional right from them without committing one is ethically wrong. This bill, and the discussion around it, is simply the Democrats using a tragedy to push forward their own agenda, just as the Republicans are doing in regards to Immigration.
BrendanD19 says2015-12-07T14:07:38.3692194Z
Neither. The two party system has failed. 60 years of failed foreign policy has resulted in Terrorism. And Both parties are responsible
briantheliberal says2015-12-07T14:10:35.7712822Z
"Being, "more of a threat to the American public" isn't the topic of discussion in this poll, Terror attacks are." - Are these mass shootings not acts of terror? Do you even know what terrorism is?
58539672 says2015-12-08T00:42:16.6195628Z
@briantheliberal "Terrorism- the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." Not all of the mass shootings are terror attacks. My point still stands.
58539672 says2015-12-08T03:54:14.7391409Z
And of all the gun related deaths each year, mass shootings are the smallest contributors at around 1%. Suicide is the largest contributor at around 59% and Single victims homicide is second at 23%. Of the homicides, 75% were committed with a handgun, 4% with a rifle, 5% with a shotgun, and the rest with an unspecified firearm.
TheSatiricalAnarchist says2015-12-12T18:09:49.3858216Z
@ForTheLulz because if we are thinking about which party can better defend the nation of the United States, we have to dig deep into the historical context to help draw conclusions, as opposed to leaning on false promises and common political rhetoric used to gain the national vote. Politics can be about shaking the right hands, but history will not lie to us.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.