On terrorism, why you should never listen to the liberals

Easy. All immediate families.

No, unless there's an organized, well-coordinated war effort at global scale. I know it's going to sound incredibly racist but... Arabic people kinda... not all that good at organizing. I mean $@#t, they tried to take on tin-pot little Israel for how many times? Every time they done, Israel grew larger. Insha Allah indeed!

Depends. I'm kind of a balanced and well-traveled guy. There's the secular, "just-doing-my-job-and-get-paid" part of the Iranian govt, then there's the fundamentalist, very fanatical and ideological part of the Iranian govt. I think it's OK to support building hospitals and retirement homes, but not OK to love Iranian military or Ali the Khameineyi

 

The election will come down to the debates. Americans hate Hillary; 56% want her in jail. They want to believe in Trump, but he scares them.

If Trump looks sane in the debates, he wins. If he looks crazy in the debates, he loses.

 

All of them are Muslims. I'm not talking about race or refugees. I'm talking about religion. America openly bans communist immigration (not sure if lifted or not).

Look at you. You said it as if we weren't on a slippery slope already. "The rights to bear arms shall not be infringed" yet we have tight gun regulations.

There's always flexibility and there's always latitude. Before you call me a hypocrite, I never said anything about gun regulation being bad, I'm just saying we should do it right.

Which one are you scared more, a Finnish immigrant living in CT who is a scientist with an M60, or a guy just escaped from a mental facility with a crowbar in his hand?

 

COME ON! Bro, you got put things into perspective. I mean it clearly took Bin Laden at least 3 or 4 years to plot the attack, and 1 year more for the terrorists to learn how to flight straight.

If 911 happened 4 years after Bush took office, then snap, it's a cold case. But just 1 year? It's squarely on Clinton.

 

What tight gun regulations? I can literally go buy an AR-15 right now at 9PM and no regulation will stop me.

In case you haven't noticed, religions are protected by the 1st Amendment. So you want to (*)(*)(*)(*) on both the 1st and 14th Amendments.

 

Sure! typical Republican response, you were probably one of those Clowns outside the gates of GW Bush's Crawford ranch congratulating him on getting Osama Bin Laden and believe Barack Obama had nothing to do with it.

 

The Khamenei question is useless if they're a member of ISIS. Sunnis hate Shias and vice versa.

 

I checked with Apacherat on the military numbers I used and he gave me some better figures:

"The Heritage Foundation is an excellent source when it comes to the military, it's what Republican conservatives in Congress use.

As of last year 2015 there were 202,000 Army reservist and 350,000 Army Guardsmen. A total of 552,000 Army reservists and National Guard. Active duty strength of the Army is 490,000."

Source -> http://index.heritage.org/military/2016/assessments/us-military-power/us-army/

 

Would you prefer to wait until we have to have an all-out Inquisition?

 

Americans shoot other americans in vast numbers each year.

Muslims shoot far less americans than americans do.

Why so frightened of muslims?

Police kill far more americans than terrorists do.

I shouldn't worry about the muslims too much, its your fellow americans who are far more likely to shoot you.

 

Cool thanks, if an American Muslim would like to see Israel destroyed would it be ok to deport him?

 

No ones ever attempted to deport a sitting president before. We'll take your suggestion under advisement.

 

Donald Trump is not a fascist. He's a moron. I'm an actual fascist. And yes, we'd be much better off under a fascist regime than a democratic one. It's under this democracy, that the oligarchy has grown into the billion dollar 1% disease that it is.

 

In the Japanese case, it was the Japanese air force who attacked us. Japanese-Americans were not loyal to the Empire(otherwise they would've remained in Japan), it was wrong to put them into the camps. But if FDR pulled a Trump and said they should go back to their native Japan, would that be unreasonable?

What's worse? Forced imprisonment and servitude, or going back to their home country.(Presuming not many first generation Japanese-Americans were actually born in the US.). But mind you, it'd be justified to do nothing at all, since it was a foreign nation who attacked us.

In this case, a rapid ideology is what's attacking us, and we don't know who exactly is going to scream a battle cry and chop heads that day. It's a much greater risk than the Nazis ever were IMO.

 

FDR was such garbage, and it looks like Trump might be following him more closely than one might think. Why did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor? Well, months prior, FDR seized Japanese assets and stopped selling oil to them. Which during a time of war, can be interpreted as a declaration or act of war. Trump's plan with China and other countries is eerily similar to that end.

 

Wow Loki, major thumbs up. I never looked at it that way(Of course, as a Third Positionist. I know of all of the angles of WW2. In the mind of the AXIS Nations, they certainly could have looked at Lend-Lease as giving assistance to Allied Nations, even while the US portrayed a so-called "neutrality". We can actually say that FDR's embargo on China not only gave us pretext to enter the war, but it was the groundwork for what would become modern day political stategem or thought: To be aggressive towards nations that don't toe the American Line.

Usually under some kind of humanitarian ideal. In the modern day, these other nations(like NATO,Europeans) would possibly see that a disruption to their
international world, is the same thing as such an embargo restriction. I'd hate for that development to take place. All it should be, is a shared responsibility among NATO powers.

I think the message could be sold better if it weren't a buffoon in Donald Trump.

 

That's the thing. We have historical precedent (in WW2)of what happens with a trade embargo. Internationally, the world is kept together by free trade between nations, with all the negatives that come with that. It's proven to be more successful than MAD (as it hasn't stopped North Korea from bragging about nukes). Also if we look at countries that aren't a part of the trade community, North Korea, Iran, Russia (to an extent) and it breeds radicalization, conspiratorial meanderings, and eventually war. This is a problem that may be exacerbated by Trump's proposals.

 

Wanna be my Secretary of State if I'm elected? I could use a guy whose outspoken and having a smart mind of his own. Hard shoes to fill. Unlike these political hacks, I want the best qualified, not asskissers. You'd be great. Lol.

I for my part wanted a Mixed Economy.(It's basically not a Closed Economy, but not a totally open one either.) I wanted to clear the board of derivatives and other such junk that weighs down the system. And I wanted to engage in a deficit-neutral trade policy, that would help us get in the green again. I think the deals should be reworked, but favorable for both sides.

I come to the INTL. Community, with a healthy and open message: Cooperate with us, and we'll cooperate with you. Surely, there's a way to get a win-win. Trump doesn't care about win-win, he cares only about his own victory, irregardless of the consequences. That can't be commander in chief thought.

 

It's funny you ask, I've been getting more in touch with my hard Centrist/Third Position younger self lately.

I don't think Trump is smart or long term visioned enough to even realize the consequences of what he wants.

What you describe is essentially what needs to happen. When trade deals no longer serve both parties involved equally, then they need to be reworked, not thrown out. How this is accomplished with global competition for labor, which has disparities due to higher standards of living (US compared to China and India for example), I'm not entirely sure.

 

People wonder how people become Third Positionists. The answer? When the Dems/Repubs are so horrible, the fog clears up and forces you to look at politics in a different perspective. They were too busy attacking each other in a partisan way to make government work and so now, people want answers lol.

You're certainly right about economies of scale. The US compared to China and India certainly has a higher scaled dollar(or at least higher wages), and despite our low infrastructure, on the whole our cities are better than their provinces. So, how do we balance these trades? If there are economies of trade, then there needs to be a trade scale.

Simply put: The trade deficit is a sum cost of goods. If that sum cost can be simplified into a percentage.(As an example, I heard we have a 75/25 ratio with China. What if we could convince them to take 60/40. We'd gain 15% of our stuff back.) And minor adjustments like that, with every country we're in a deficit with.

Combined with creating more here at home, and we should be able to get back to a surplus in time.

 

Trade deficits can only go away if we have the capability to provide as an export country to begin with. We're not exactly a superpower economically. Unfortunately the government doesn't even want to talk about fixing the economy and would rather sweep the issue under the rug by dragging attention away from a stagnating economy and towards less-significant problems such as civil rights and terrorism. A lot of the problems we face today can easily be solved by a thriving economy, but it seems as though no one wants to hear about it.

 

How exactly is that an inevitability?

 

Can you name a single fascist state in history without a 1%er oligarchy?

 

Nonsense. China has an on-going and continuous problem with Muslim terrorism in its west despite brutal suppression. If you are a suicide killer, you don't care how brutal the suppression is. China has a police state. Trump wants a police state. My guess is you support Trump. He'll keep you "safe".