2017 Democratic Thread

[Soxbadger]

I said there's a thread for gun talk. The reason we have different threads for difference topics is for coherence. Sometimes you broaden your arguments to include so many extraneous points they become hard to follow and respond to.

 

You say there are more murders in the US than all of those countries other than India. There are more people in the USA in all of those countries other than India. I am more concerned with the rate of violence. That's usually an indicator with more relevance and faithful representation.

 

If you really believe the middle east is safer than the US I don't know what to tell you.

 

PEOPLE FROM THE MIDDLE EAST.

 

Do I need caps so you wont completely misconstrue my argument?

 

(edit)

 

I mean seriously, it clearly states "People from the Middle East." Not once have I said "its safer in other countries", let alone said "its safer in the Middle East." Last I checked people are not countries.

 

If you want to believe that PEOPLE from the Middle East are more dangerous, that is your choice.

 

(final edit)

 

And the reason we have a "Democratic" thread is a place for ideas to be discussed that are more general. I get that you dont want to answer the questions because you dont like the answer. That is the point of me asking. Its not extraneous or hard to follow, it just erodes the entire basis for your argument. So you will do whatever you can to avoid and evade.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Soxbadger

[caulfield12]

Most violence never gets counted in any meaningful or official government statistics.

 

Thailand is extremely dangerous now for foreigners, but nearly every murder there is blamed/excused either on a suicide (with little to no investigation) or Burmese to protect the local tourist industry. That’s a Buddhist country.

 

Russia and Ukraine are incredibly violent and dangerous...to make a sweeping generalization about a region or religion being more or less prone to violence is hard to pin down because of other factors like wars/genocide or internal ethnic conflicts.

 

Or go back to India...when I was there in 2013, every woman was afraid to be out by herself after dark because of the infamous bus gang rape case in New Delhi. It was palpable. You could see the fear in their eyes whenever local men even looked at them. Shouldn’t we ban Indians too, because of rapes and acid attacks?

[NorthSideSox72]

You say there are more murders in the US than all of those countries other than India. There are more people in the USA in all of those countries other than India. I am more concerned with the rate of violence. That's usually an indicator with more relevance and faithful representation.

 

If you really believe the middle east is safer than the US I don't know what to tell you.

 

Murder rates by country you say?

 

None of the 26 top countries by murder rate are majority Islam - most are in South or Central America

 

None of the top 63 are even in the Middle East (the outlier from above to here is South Sudan, which is a war crime zone)

 

There are 125 countries with lower murder rates than the United States - that is over half the world

 

Among wealthy or "first world" nations. the only ones with a higher murder rate are Russia, and if you want to stretch the definition perhaps Brazil and South Africa

 

The rate of deaths due to Islamic Terrorism in the United States is a miniscule fraction of all murders of course, but it is ALSO a small fraction of terrorism by non-Islamic actors

 

Here's the source on international murder rates

 

Fact is, much of the world is safer than the United States in terms of risk of intentional homicide. Also clear is that Islamic Terror is barely a blip risk-wise in this country.

 

(also worth noting from the earlier post, India's rate is about 40% lower than the US, though they do have higher rates of some other crimes)

[StrangeSox]

That's not what a strawman is

[Soxbadger]

As the Champion of the keyboard warriors I already destroyed your argument and made your stance look horrific in the process.

 

Last I checked you dont get to make the rules about what is "okay" or "not okay", in the context of this discussion. Perhaps your avoidance and trying to obfuscate the topic works in your circle of friends or other places, but it wont work with me.

 

So please, if you want to play keyboard warriors, Im up for the challenge any day of the week (except for weekends and when im not at work because I only play keyboard warrior when im being paid).

 

And Im not agreeing with you. I never said "American Muslims" in fact I dont believe I ever used the word "Muslim." Which is ironic since you went all "you should be more specific" then use a term that I never used. But I digress.

 

I am not agreeing that Middle Eastern people are more dangerous. I would agree that the AREA where many Middle Eastern people live have DIFFERENT dangers than the US.

 

(edit)

 

Can you source these "violence" rates? Because most of what I find comes up with the same stuff NSS posted.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Soxbadger

[NorthSideSox72]

I am well aware of murder rates in the USA and around the world. As am I aware of the place firearms have in those murders in the Americas which have a much higher rate of murder. In the post you quoted, I said violence rates. I have also said multiple times that muslim extremism isn't an issue an America. Muslim extremism is a problem in the middle east. Terrorism, the topic I started with all this, is far more likely to occur in the middle east. It is far more likely to occur in countries where the United States have unjustly toppled regimes. The countries that have a lot of terrorism are far more likely to have citizens who look to immigrate. Given America's place in causing plenty of this unrest and the adversarial relationship with these countries, I think there is merit to the idea that we should consider our immigration policy when it comes to people that are coming to America from adversarial states and actors.

Oh I certainly think that nation of origin should be a factor in overall rates of immigrants. And that is already true, even before Trump's attempts at bans.

 

[Reddy]

This may or may not have been said. Sure it probably was.

 

Only 8 people are dead because the terrorist was able to get a truck far more easily than a gun in NY/NJ/CT. This is why he had paintball and pellet guns instead of real ones. Have a nice day. Gun control works.

[Reddy]

I'll leave on this - the US can't go around toppling regimes, killing civilians and disrupting the middle east as a whole, and then take in mass amounts of people who have a bone to pick with the USA for the transgressions our government has committed and in many cases, have nothing to live for. Our governments racketeering destroys stability in the middle east. The lack of stability gives power to extremists. The war on the terrorists results in more dead civilians. The civilians who have lost family members and their way of life as a result of the actions of the US military/CIA/Mossad/contractors, etc. become sympathetic to extremists who have malcontent for our country. This creates more extremism and more concern for immigration policies regarding the middle east. Of course, I wish our government never partook in these atrocities, but I don't think we should open the floodgates for refugees who will inevitably be accompanied by terrorists.

 

It also can't do the above then blame people for radicalizing... WE created ISIS. End stop.

[Soxbadger]

Congrats. Despite me sticking to the topic at hand and you patting yourself on the back and proclaiming victory multiple times as you engendered a broader, less coherent discussion, I still lose. What's hilarious is your accusing me of avoidance and obfuscating but you're the one who is broadening the subject from your initial argument that was impossible to follow in the first place.

 

As for the rest, you've yet to classify who you are talking about so your point is still rendered incomprehensible and I am confused as to how you think I am wrong on violence rates as I didn't post any. I am also confused as to how you agree with the violence rates NSS posted, because he posted murder rates. But continue you on with your victory lap. You knew you were right before our exchanged even started.

 

Seriously?

 

This all started because you tried to swap PEOPLE for COUNTRIES. I said "I dont believe people from the Middle East are more dangerous." This explicitly relates to the question of whether we should accept more/less/fewer immigrants.

 

You responded that there is more violence in the countries that Middle Eastern people live in.

 

In what world is that sticking to the topic? I mean really, do you actually go back and read what you write and how you jump around to suit your conclusions?

 

The initial discussion was whether the US should restrict immigrants. How is discussing whether middle eastern people are more dangerous not "sticking to the argument."

 

As for NSS, I asked you to source the evidence where you said that certain people in other countries are more violent. I said the only information I could find was similar to NSS (the homicide rates) and I could not find anything I considered legitimate enough to repost for violence rates. You were the one who said that there was evidence, I merely asked you to provide it.

 

Again, you completely misunderstand.

 

The only thing I will agree with, is that I knew I was right. I knew that people from the Middle East arent more dangerous. But if you want to believe that feel free.

 

 

This may or may not have been said. Sure it probably was.

 

Only 8 people are dead because the terrorist was able to get a truck far more easily than a gun in NY/NJ/CT. This is why he had paintball and pellet guns instead of real ones. Have a nice day. Gun control works.

 

Stick to the topic at hand, which is the Middle East is more dangerous than America.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Soxbadger

[Soxbadger]

but I don't think we should open the floodgates for refugees who will inevitably be accompanied by terrorists.

 

To circle back. I disagree. And do you have any evidence that refugees are "inevitably be accompanied by terrorists."

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/us/refugee-t...trnd/index.html

 

As of January the answer was 0, now it may have changed but I still think its closer to 0.

[Soxbadger]

SB your form of discourse is insufferable. How many times do you have to say you're right? Haven't you convinced yourself of that? What does saying you're right all the time do for your argument? You remind me of the POTUS. He has the greatest memory and you're always right on the internet. Both of you are the best. You have the best points and character traits.

 

Plus the whole each sentence is a paragraph hurts my eyes. I think we've gone back and forth enough and I am going to move on. I am sure that makes me wrong and you're right again, etc. and you're the champ. That's okay with me.

 

 

You crack me up. As for the paragraph thing, thats because in the olden days message boards didnt do page breaks as well. That is why you may notice many of the older posters post in a similar fashion. On different devices its hard to see how big of a block of text it will be, so to make it easier people break it up on the internet.

 

And you should move on, you should have done that when you misrepresented my argument the first time.

[StrangeSox]

Recognizing that US foreign policy is a major factor in why the middle East is what it is today and then saying we shouldn't offer refuge to the people that are suffering from our country's actions send pretty cruel.

[Soxbadger]

Recognizing that US foreign policy is a major factor in why the middle East is what it is today and then saying we shouldn't offer refuge to the people that are suffering from our country's actions send pretty cruel.

 

Of course its cruel, the whole discussion is cruel, but its easy. Its easy to blame other people. Its easy to say "oh they are dangerous", etc. That is the easy route. The hard route is to stand up for other people, to take risks, to give people a chance.

 

(This isnt to you SS)

 

I have no problem if people have different opinions. That is what the world is built on. I do have a problem when people try to mislead others into believing something is more than "opinion." That is why I clash heavily with certain people on these boards. I dont care if people want to say that we should ban refugees, immigrants, etc. But I am going to argue just as hard for the reverse. Because while I may be here, while its been over a century since any of my immediate family has lived in an area that was oppressed or dangerous, I feel an obligation to fight for those who are oppressed/suffering. Because when my family moved here, they were the "others" they were the people that nobody wanted. And if people like me forget where we came from, then who will be left to give the other people a chance, to argue for those who dont have a say?

 

Maybe Im wrong, maybe letting in immigrants/refugees will be the end of the US as we know it, that everything I care about, believe in, will be destroyed. I dont know, and hopefully I never will know.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Soxbadger

[Reddy]

I don't know what you mean by anything other than the bolded but I agree with the bolded. Extremism has exploded since the GWOT because of American foreign policy. This has not translated over to a relative increase in muslim extremism in the US though.

Whoa. We agree on something that typically polarizes partisans. This is quite a moment.

[Reddy]

Stick to the topic at hand, which is the Middle East is more dangerous than America.

 

You serious right now? I hadn't read the other recent posts. I'm allowed to post about whatever the hell I want to post about.

[GoSox05]

Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC

 

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Inside Hillary Clinton's Secret Takeover of the DNC

 

Just for references sake, in the private sector, this is what is called money laundering and fraud. I am sure that both parties do this as standard operations, but holy crap.

 

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the thirty-two states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.

[Soxbadger]

You serious right now? I hadn't read the other recent posts. I'm allowed to post about whatever the hell I want to post about.

 

It was sarcastic. Rabbit kept trying to avoid arguments by saying I should create another thread.

 

If you read the previous posts I try to explain it's the Democrat catch all thread. So I was just joking about the post.

[bmags]

Just for references sake, in the private sector, this is what is called money laundering and fraud. I am sure that both parties do this as standard operations, but holy crap.

 

Unfortunately, it's SOP

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/bern...sing-dnc-215559

[Reddy]

It was sarcastic. Rabbit kept trying to avoid arguments by saying I should create another thread.

 

If you read the previous posts I try to explain it's the Democrat catch all thread. So I was just joking about the post.

Hahaha touche. That's what I get for not reading

[Balta1701]

Just for references sake, in the private sector, this is what is called money laundering and fraud. I am sure that both parties do this as standard operations, but holy crap.

Can we count on your support for any bills to end private financing of campaigns?

[Balta1701]

Just for references sake, in the private sector, this is what is called money laundering and fraud. I am sure that both parties do this as standard operations, but holy crap.

Apparently even though he didn't need to use it because of how his fundraising worked, 2 months after the "Hillary Clinton Victory Fund" was established, Bernie Sanders set up a "Bernie Sanders Victory Fund" that would have worked the same way, basically treating DNC fundraising as a pass-through or as you say it as money laundering.

[GoSox05]

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

 

 

Something tells me Bernie didn't have the same deal.

[bmags]

The VA Gov campaign underscores how bernie should be the candidate in 2020 despite age. He's the only democrat-aligned politician capable of effectively playing offense.

[Reddy]

Something tells me Bernie didn't have the same deal.

Which is fine, allowed, and deserved.