It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
The man self-funded to beat all his Republican opponents, to the sum of tens of millions of dollars. Now that his message has prevailed, its time for the party apparatus to fall in line.
Unless of course you believed that he had a billion dollars in liquid assets just ready to go, I thought you worked in finance?
Trump is just playing his cards correctly, he's now in a position to demand the release of Clinton Foundation financial statements (the non-fraudulent ones) as a condition for the release of his returns.
When is your Hillary 2016 hijab showing up?
Well, correct me if I am wrong, I am not a tax auditor, but do you not have to disclose the income you make from your non-liquid assets? He does rent out a lot of office space from those towers....
If you knew anything about economics you would see this is a case of asymmetric information, one where one party has all the information, and the other has none. As a result, the party of none, the US populous, can approach this from three different angles.
1st. They can trust Trump and believe his net worth, givings, and other finance-related statements are what he claims them to be.
So far, it seems like a tall task seeing as he flips around his statement's as often as Hillary. Additionally, his excuse is rather poor, auditing should not impede releasing tax statements. The IRS has even commented on it.
2nd. They can believe his statements about his financial generosity are overstatements.
Imagine, a man worth the amount he is who is not giving as much money as he says he is. That would put him right up alongside Hillary for being morally dishonest with donations.
3rd. He is not as rich as he claims to be. Imagine a man claiming to be worth billions of dollars, yet, he is not that rich. That would CRUSH him and his message.
Anyway, little economic theory at work there put to real life.
There is no reason for him NOT to disclose these statements if he has nothing to hide. It is that simple. It is the EXACT same situation as Hillary and her Wall Street statements. There is something to hide if you are not releasing them and following protocol of EVERY other candidate.
By the way, here are the Clinton Foundation's statements. I dont' think PWC, one of the big 5, would put their reputation on the line for a single person.
.MASSHOLE.Well, correct me if I am wrong, I am not a tax auditor, but do you not have to disclose the income you make from your non-liquid assets? He does rent out a lot of office space from those towers....
If you knew anything about economics you would see this is a case of asymmetric information, one where one party has all the information, and the other has none. As a result, the party of none, the US populous, can approach this from three different angles.
1st. They can trust Trump and believe his net worth, givings, and other finance-related statements are what he claims them to be.
So far, it seems like a tall task seeing as he flips around his statement's as often as Hillary. Additionally, his excuse is rather poor, auditing should not impede releasing tax statements. The IRS has even commented on it.
2nd. They can believe his statements about his financial generosity are overstatements.
Imagine, a man worth the amount he is who is not giving as much money as he says he is. That would put him right up alongside Hillary for being morally dishonest with donations.
3rd. He is not as rich as he claims to be. Imagine a man claiming to be worth billions of dollars, yet, he is not that rich. That would CRUSH him and his message.
Anyway, little economic theory at work there put to real life.
There is no reason for him NOT to disclose these statements if he has nothing to hide. It is that simple. It is the EXACT same situation as Hillary and her Wall Street statements. There is something to hide if you are not releasing them and following protocol of EVERY other candidate.
By the way, here are the Clinton Foundation's statements. I dont' think PWC, one of the big 5, would put their reputation on the line for a single person.
The way you attempt mix economics and political opinion is worse than Paul Krugman, at least Krugman's got a phony Nobel prize to back him up.
1. He's already filed with the FEC, and it is known that his net worth is anywhere between $4 billion (Forbes) and $8.7 to $10 billion (Trump himself). Regardless of the exact number, he's still a billionaire. Even WSJ admits that at the very minimum, he is worth $1.5 to $2.1 billion.
2. Oh my goodness, how could he ever survive overstating the amount of money he gave to charity? He'd still be more honest than Hillary's campaign slush fund, sorry I mean "charity".
3. So he's worth $2.1 billion, $4 billion, $8.7 billion, or $10 billion, how exactly does that "CRUSH" him? If anything it seems lightweight in comparison to everything else he's dealt with. Everyone can see Trump Tower, Mar-a-Lago, Trump National Golf Club in Palos Verdes, Trump World Tower, the list goes on.
The Big 5 you say? That's funny, because it used to be the Big 5, care to remind me what happened to Arthur Andersen?
And your source is the Clinton Foundation, well done there chief, Hillary should put you on the payroll.
Answer this, based on your extensive knowledge of accounting and economics, should the Clinton Foundation qualify for 501(c)(3) tax exempt status?
CampeadorThe way you attempt mix economics and political opinion is worse than Paul Krugman, at least Krugman's got a phony Nobel prize to back him up.
1. He's already filed with the FEC, and it is known that his net worth is anywhere between $4 billion (Forbes) and $8.7 to $10 billion (Trump himself). Regardless of the exact number, he's still a billionaire. Even WSJ admits that at the very minimum, he is worth $1.5 to $2.1 billion.
2. Oh my goodness, how could he ever survive overstating the amount of money he gave to charity? He'd still be more honest than Hillary's campaign slush fund, sorry I mean "charity".
3. So he's worth $2.1 billion, $4 billion, $8.7 billion, or $10 billion, how exactly does that "CRUSH" him? If anything it seems lightweight in comparison to everything else he's dealt with. Everyone can see Trump Tower, Mar-a-Lago, Trump National Golf Club in Palos Verdes, Trump World Tower, the list goes on.
The Big 5 you say? That's funny, because it used to be the Big 5, care to remind me what happened to Arthur Andersen?
And your source is the Clinton Foundation, well done there chief, Hillary should put you on the payroll.
Answer this, based on your extensive knowledge of accounting and economics, should the Clinton Foundation qualify for 501(c)(3) tax exempt status?
I guess you've never heard of Hayek or Mises which is shocking considering you seemingly follow Chicago/Austrian schools of thought. Economics is not just numbers, models, and equations, it also can be applied to manners of thought.
Hell, for someone who apparently took a bunch of economics courses, you lack a lot of the basic knowledge you learn the first year. Game Theory is the perfect example of an economic model that can be applied to thought .
1. Well there is a massive difference between $1.5 and $10b...To say you're worth $10b and only be worth $1.5b is a little under a 7x difference. Talk about misleading.
2. He has stated numerous times he has given loads to charity, saying that he cares about the American people and veterans. Imagine the public backlash if he gave little to no money to charities.
3. It crushes him because it paints him as a liar, it puts him on the same level as Hillary. Imagine running a campaign saying all politicians are liars, then being labeled as one himself. Casts a massive shadow of doubt over him (not that there isn't one for any rational person now anyway).
My mistake, GSM has a big presence in the northeastern part of the US, I always mislabel them as part of the KPMG, PwC, Deloitte, and EY group.
That being said, what happened to Arthur Andersen is exactly why PwC would not put their entire company on the line when it comes to auditing the Clinton Foundation. A company that large has no reason to expose themselves to that kind of risk when it is a drop in the bucket of their whole portfolio of business.
I guess your reading comprehension skills are lacking, I said I am not a tax expert. Economics doesn't dictate tax exempt status, that is left to politicians and accountants.
Campeador2. Oh my goodness, how could he ever survive overstating the amount of money he gave to charity? He'd still be more honest than Hillary's campaign slush fund, sorry I mean "charity".
Trump isn't charitable at all. Let's take Trump's 3.7 million donation to and his 10 billion worth.I'm sure you can do the maths. But if you can't, that's about 37 cents donation for every 100 dollars earned.
Trump isn't charitable at all. Let's take Trump's 3.7 million donation to and his 10 billion worth.I'm sure you can do the maths. But if you can't, that's about 37 cents donation for every 100 dollars earned.
There are still three more zeroes in that number than the amount Bernie contributed.
And since when were charitable donations a prerequisite for public office?
Trump isn't charitable at all. Let's take Trump's 3.7 million donation to and his 10 billion worth.I'm sure you can do the maths. But if you can't, that's about 37 cents donation for every 100 dollars earned.
CampeadorThere are still three more zeroes in that number than the amount Bernie contributed.
And since when were charitable donations a prerequisite for public office?
When you talk about donations, especially when it amounts to $102m, you don't want to lie.
Trump isn't charitable at all. Let's take Trump's 3.7 million donation to and his 10 billion worth.I'm sure you can do the maths. But if you can't, that's about 37 cents donation for every 100 dollars earned.
I wouldn't base it on the 10 billion because it seems fairly likely that he is worth a lot less.
.MASSHOLE.I guess you've never heard of Hayek or Mises which is shocking considering you seemingly follow Chicago/Austrian schools of thought. Economics is not just numbers, models, and equations, it also can be applied to manners of thought.
Hell, for someone who apparently took a bunch of economics courses, you lack a lot of the basic knowledge you learn the first year. Game Theory is the perfect example of an economic model that can be applied to thought .
1. Well there is a massive difference between $1.5 and $10b...To say you're worth $10b and only be worth $1.5b is a little under a 7x difference. Talk about misleading.
2. He has stated numerous times he has given loads to charity, saying that he cares about the American people and veterans. Imagine the public backlash if he gave little to no money to charities.
3. It crushes him because it paints him as a liar, it puts him on the same level as Hillary. Imagine running a campaign saying all politicians are liars, then being labeled as one himself. Casts a massive shadow of doubt over him (not that there isn't one for any rational person now anyway).
The wet towel strikes out!
You guessed wrong. Again, you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. You're worse than Krugman. You talk about Economics, and then type out what one would expect from a first year poli sci student.
1. This is about how he values his own brand. Everyone realizes Trump is superfluous to an extent. If the number is between $4 billion and $10 billion, does it really matter? You're grasping at straws here, you'll be quite welcome among the #nevertrump crowd.
2. Again, Trump's language is purely subjective. Just this year he's given millions of dollars to veterans groups. Is it a massive chunk of his net worth? No. But that doesn't make the total amount any less (you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't think millions of dollars is a significant amount). But weasels like you will always look at it as a percentage.
3. No, it doesn't. Forbes estimates his net worth, at a minimum, as $4 billion. Again, if his worth is less than $10 billion, but more than $4 billion, does it make any difference? At a certain point, the number becomes irrelevant. Compared to Hillary's lies on Benghazi that cost four men their lives, deliberate negligence in the handling of highly classified information, Clinton Cash corruption scandals, and enabling of her husband's rapes and sexual assaults, this seems rather inconsequential in comparison.
Are you really so obtuse to think the common voter cares if Trump has $4 billion or $10 billion?
I must give you credit for never giving up in your attempts to defend losing positions.
I imagine you will complain and cry "Liberal bias! It is the Washington Post."
Well given that Jeff Bezos bought that failing rag as a tax write-off, and to attack his political enemies, I'd say it's mostly garbage.
Not to mention, there are I think somewhere in the ballpark of 20 or more paid staff who's only job is to attempt to dig up dirt on Trump. The Washington Post is pathetically Trump-obsessed.
You guessed wrong. Again, you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. You're worse than Krugman. You talk about Economics, and then type out what one would expect from a first year poli sci student.
1. This is about how he values his own brand. Everyone realizes Trump is superfluous to an extent. If the number is between $4 billion and $10 billion, does it really matter? You're grasping at straws here, you'll be quite welcome among the #nevertrump crowd.
2. Again, Trump's language is purely subjective. Just this year he's given millions of dollars to veterans groups. Is it a massive chunk of his net worth? No. But that doesn't make the total amount any less (you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't think millions of dollars is a significant amount). But weasels like you will always look at it as a percentage.
3. No, it doesn't. Forbes estimates his net worth, at a minimum, as $4 billion. Again, if his worth is less than $10 billion, but more than $4 billion, does it make any difference? At a certain point, the number becomes irrelevant. Compared to Hillary's lies on Benghazi that cost four men their lives, deliberate negligence in the handling of highly classified information, Clinton Cash corruption scandals, and enabling of her husband's rapes and sexual assaults, this seems rather inconsequential in comparison.
Are you really so obtuse to think the common voter cares if Trump has $4 billion or $10 billion?
I must give you credit for never giving up in your attempts to defend losing positions.
Really? You haven't refuted a single point I made, rather just your own opinion on the subject. So, facts vs. opinion.
He mentioned $102m, donating millions (which by the look of it, is somewhere between $5-$10 in actual monetary form) is FAR short. You hate Hillary for lying, yet you support Trump when he does the same? Hypocritical much? Lying is one of those slippery slopes. Where does it stop? That is the point.
CampeadorWell given that Jeff Bezos bought that failing rag as a tax write-off, and to attack his political enemies, I'd say it's mostly garbage.
Not to mention, there are I think somewhere in the ballpark of 20 or more paid staff who's only job is to attempt to dig up dirt on Trump. The Washington Post is pathetically Trump-obsessed.
Ah, of course. Find the excuse.
ALL ABOARD THE TRUMP EXCUSE TRAIN. CONDUCTOR CAMPEADOR IS ABOUT TO LEAVE THE STATION.
"We hear terrible things about outsourcing jobs--how sending work outside of our companies is contributing to the demise of American businesses. But in this instance I have to take the unpopular stance that it is not always a terrible thing.
I understand that outsourcing means that employees lose jobs. Because work is often outsourced to other countries, it means Americans lose jobs. In other cases, nonunion employees get the work. Losing jobs is never a good thing, but we have to look at the bigger picture.
Last year, Nobel Prize-winning economist Dr. Lawrence R. Klein, the founder of Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates, co-authored a study that showed how global outsourcing actually creates more jobs and increases wages, at least for IT workers. The study found that outsourcing helped companies be more competitive and more productive. That means they make more money, which means they funnel more into the economy, thereby, creating more jobs.
I know that doesn't make it any easier for people whose jobs have been outsourced overseas, but if a company's only means of survival is by farming jobs outside its walls, then sometimes it's a necessary step. The other option might be to close its doors for good."
"We hear terrible things about outsourcing jobs--how sending work outside of our companies is contributing to the demise of American businesses. But in this instance I have to take the unpopular stance that it is not always a terrible thing.
I understand that outsourcing means that employees lose jobs. Because work is often outsourced to other countries, it means Americans lose jobs. In other cases, nonunion employees get the work. Losing jobs is never a good thing, but we have to look at the bigger picture.
Last year, Nobel Prize-winning economist Dr. Lawrence R. Klein, the founder of Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates, co-authored a study that showed how global outsourcing actually creates more jobs and increases wages, at least for IT workers. The study found that outsourcing helped companies be more competitive and more productive. That means they make more money, which means they funnel more into the economy, thereby, creating more jobs.
I know that doesn't make it any easier for people whose jobs have been outsourced overseas, but if a company's only means of survival is by farming jobs outside its walls, then sometimes it's a necessary step. The other option might be to close its doors for good."
Charlie_Kelly"If a companies only means of survival..." Bullshit
Shouldn't you have more than a high school degree and worked more than an entry level position to call bullshit on companies?
Do us all a favor and shut the fuck up
CampeadorYou must be getting text message updates from the #nevertrump crowd.
Can't face the facts that Trump is just like Hillary in that he seemingly has no issues pivoting on any issue that would garner him support.
CampeadorYour opinion does not constitute "facts".
Well, seeing as I have provided you both logic and actual statistics behind what I've said, while you merely throw ad-hominem attacks at people, I think most people would fall in my crowd
At this point, I see Trump as nothing more than a combination of the shitty parts of Sec Clinton and Sen Sanders, with a little added foux nostalgia for some perceived greatness of the post war era United States.
I generally don't vote in Presidential elections, but may make an exception in this case if a worth third party candidate was to make a viable run.
cobra_commanderAt this point, I see Trump as nothing more than a combination of the shitty parts of Sec Clinton and Sen Sanders, with a little added foux nostalgia for some perceived greatness of the post war era United States.
I generally don't vote in Presidential elections, but may make an exception in this case if a worth third party candidate was to make a viable run.
Trump is literally the culmination of the republican parties bigotry and hatred over the past years. You see the hateful rhetoric he is spitting? That's literally what the republican party has been saying for the past 8 years while Obama has been in office. Republicans vowed to block any bill he put forward, and they won't even have a saying for a supreme court justice. The only way Trump is similar to Sanders is within them both bashing trade deals, and Trump similar to Clinton with how much they both lie.
S.J.WTrump is literally the culmination of the republican parties bigotry and hatred over the past years. You see the hateful rhetoric he is spitting? That's literally what the republican party has been saying for the past 8 years while Obama has been in office. Republicans vowed to block any bill he put forward, and they won't even have a saying for a supreme court justice. The only way Trump is similar to Sanders is within them both bashing trade deals, and Trump similar to Clinton with how much they both lie.
What you call "bigotry and hatred" is just leftist hyperbole. Enforcing immigration laws and severely limiting Islamic immigration is just common sense.
You just want the evil white taxpayer to fund every 3rd worlder looking for every last welfare benefit, because "racism" and "social justice" I suppose.
As far as the Supreme Court issue, they're just following Biden's advice, what's good for the goose and all that.
And your rhetoric is nonsense, those Republican pushovers have funded almost everything Obama has wanted. And when they haven't, that piece of shit just signs executive orders anyway.
CampeadorWhat you call "bigotry and hatred" is just leftist hyperbole. Enforcing immigration laws and severely limiting Islamic immigration is just common sense.
Why? Why is it common sense to limit ISLAMIC immigration? How is that not bigotry? If you are worried about the scary terrorists then the only fair and Just option would be to limit immigration, not "Islamic" immigration.
Because it's more likely that a scary terrorist will be a male adherent of Islam between the ages of 18 and 50 than, say, an elderly Buddhist Japanese woman? Maybe focusing on the former while ignoring the latter is just common sense?
J.D.Because it's more likely that a scary terrorist will be a male adherent of Islam between the ages of 18 and 50 than, say, an elderly Buddhist Japanese woman? Maybe focusing on the former while ignoring the latter is just common sense?
100% false and ignorant. If you do any research on domestic terrorism, at all, you would quickly see that there is no correlation between domestic terrorism and Islam. It is a fabricated lie perpetuated by an incredibly powerful military complex. We are in no more danger now than we were 30 years ago. Stop letting fear cloud your judgement.
J.D.Because it's more likely that a scary terrorist will be a male adherent of Islam between the ages of 18 and 50 than, say, an elderly Buddhist Japanese woman? Maybe focusing on the former while ignoring the latter is just common sense?
I'm just scared of jews, jews scare me, i dont like their beards
CampeadorWhat you call "bigotry and hatred" is just leftist hyperbole. Enforcing immigration laws and severely limiting Islamic immigration is just common sense.
You just want the evil white taxpayer to fund every 3rd worlder looking for every last welfare benefit, because "racism" and "social justice" I suppose.
As far as the Supreme Court issue, they're just following Biden's advice, what's good for the goose and all that.
And your rhetoric is nonsense, those Republican pushovers have funded almost everything Obama has wanted. And when they haven't, that piece of shit just signs executive orders anyway.
It's not just muslims, I really don't care about that.It's trump in his very first speech he gave scapegoating his problems onto mexico saying they're bring crime and rapists even though there isn't a single piece of evidence out there to suggest that illegal immigrants commit crime at a higher rate, and actually the opposite has been found. He refuses to condemn the KKK for endorsing him and acted like he didn't know who they were. Trump has justified beating a BLM supporter. And I could go, womans rights, gay marriage, trans gender, etc,etc,etc.
Republicans have filibustered over 500 bills from Obama. Please tell me again how they have 'funded everything' ???
And supreme court, hahaha it's their fucking job. You don't have to confirm the suggestion. But you have to hold a fuckign hearing. I don't get how you can vilify peole on welfare then praise politicans who don't do their fucking jobs.
cobra_commanderWhat happens if you limit the data to 1996-2016 and expand it to include the entire globe?
So you are in favor of scapegoating the worlds largest religion? Literally telling 2 billion people that they are not welcome because of their religion in the country that was founded on religious freedom?
YOU are unamerican. 100%.
If you are in favor of neither, i misread your question.
I'm not scapegoating anyone, but we do have to acknowledge that Islamic Terrorism is real threat to our way of life and western democracy. Is that a reason to impose a wholesale ban on a religion or immigration? No. Does it mean fucktwats like SJW should stop trying to post outdated statistics to be Islamic apologists? Yes.
There are many good meaning Muslims, both in the United States and across the world. I've gone to school with some and helped train others how to go out and kill the bad Muslims.
This does not however mean that Islam does not have some deep rooted ideological issues that are at odds with western civilizatioNA. Even the 'good' Muslims who don't seek out to commit violent jihad are generally able to justify it after the fact. I have also never met any Muslim from a predominately Islamic Country that didn't have a fundamental hatred for Isreal; even those students and professionals in the United States. This is a real problem.
If Islam wants to be treated as a Religion and respected in the same way as Christians, Jews, Hindus and others, they will need to figure out how to remove the dogmatic Ideological violence and repression that is inherent in their teaching, actions, and public image.
Is barring Muslims from entering the United States the right thing to do? No. Is Islam the justification for the vast majority of terrism commuted over the last two decades? Yes.
cobra_commanderI'm not scapegoating anyone, but we do have to acknowledge that Islamic Terrorism is real threat to our way of life and western democracy. Is that a reason to impose a wholesale ban on a religion or immigration? No. Does it mean fucktwats like SJW should stop trying to post outdated statistics to be Islamic apologists? Yes.
There are many good meaning Muslims, both in the United States and across the world. I've gone to school with some and helped train others how to go out and kill the bad Muslims.
This does not however mean that Islam does not have some deep rooted ideological issues that are at odds with western civilizatioNA. Even the 'good' Muslims who don't seek out to commit violent jihad are generally able to justify it after the fact. I have also never met any Muslim from a predominately Islamic Country that didn't have a fundamental hatred for Isreal; even those students and professionals in the United States. This is a real problem.
If Islam wants to be treated as a Religion and respected in the same way as Christians, Jews, Hindus and others, they will need to figure out how to remove the dogmatic Ideological violence and repression that is inherent in their teaching, actions, and public image.
Is barring Muslims from entering the United States the right thing to do? No. Is Islam the justification for the vast majority of terrism commuted over the last two decades? Yes.
Islamic terrorism is not a threat. Let's put this into context, there has been 140,000 terrorist attacks since 1970. Assuming muslims are responsible for every single one of them, because you know islam is terrible and every other religion is perfect. That would mean that out of all the muslims in the world 0.00009% of muslims commit terrorism. That's a possibility of one in 10 million chance of being involved in a terrorist attack. You are more likely to be struck by lightning than be involved in a terrorist attack. You're more likely to be involved in a school shooting, than terrorism. You're more likely to be killed by a partner than terrorism. And the list goes on and on. The problem with fearing terrorism as it allows to government to impede on your rights. Mainly the Patriot ACT, among other things. Meanwhile the US has killed over hundreds of thousands civilians in the middle east with a 90% civilian kill rate. What's the difference betwene the US and ISIS? Both kill civilians, both want control and power over others. One is motivated by Islam, the other is motivated by money.
Additionally, terrorist attacks in the middle east is directly linked to US occupation. Prior to the American invasion of the middle east there was very little suicide bombings. Louie.Mirags brought up some great points about terrorism within the middle east on page 9. I suggest you go read them. But in Europe, muslims only make up for eight of the 742 terrorist attacks withiin Europe from 2011-2014.
There are problems with Islam, however terrorism is not one of them. If you live in your life in fear of this boogey man you're gonig to have a pretty shit life. One in 10 million chance of being involved in a terrorist attack. Does that really justify giving up your privacy and rights to the Government? Also if you look at Harvards analysis of Muslim opinions and views that they would fall in line with christians with regards to sexual liberation, womans right, etc,etc.
S.J.WAdditionally, terrorist attacks in the middle east is directly linked to US occupation. Prior to the American invasion of the middle east there was very little suicide bombings. Louie.Mirags brought up some great points about terrorism within the middle east on page 9. I suggest you go read them. But in Europe, muslims only make up for eight of the 742 terrorist attacks withiin Europe from 2011-2014.
There are problems with Islam, however terrorism is not one of them. If you live in your life in fear of this boogey man you're gonig to have a pretty shit life. One in 10 million chance of being involved in a terrorist attack. Does that really justify giving up your privacy and rights to the Government? Also if you look at Harvards analysis of Muslim opinions and views that they would fall in line with christians with regards to sexual liberation, womans right, etc,etc.
Louie did not bring up good points, nor did his sources who analyzed statistical data and shaped it to fit their agenda. They absolutely fail to realize that at the core of this violence is religious intolerance, an absolute belief in jihad, and an absolute belief in martyrdom. They fail to realize that invasion and occupation do not directly cause suicide terrorism- if that were the case you would see the same exact scenario in Tibet. But we don't. Why is that? Because there is no ideological basis for it in Tibetan Buddhism. However, in Islam, there are ideological basis for suicide terrorism and this is why we see it in Muslim countries. Did the US occupation make it worse? Of course it did/does, but the absolute belief in jihad & martyrdom are present, intrinsic, and given as motive by the suicide terrorists themselves and will still be there even if all US presence was removed from that area.
Are all Muslims terrorists? Of course not. But does Islam give reasoning and encouragement for such behavior. Absolutely yes it does. And this is why people ought to be cautious of Islam. Should they also be cautious of Christianity, given its highly violent scripture and history? Yes, but to a lesser extent. At least Christianity has gone through a reformation, an enlightenment, and hundreds of years of secular pressure to soften its stance on societal issues. Islam has not seen any of this and this also should be everyone's cause for concern.
While the vast vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, there are millions and millions of terrorist sympathizers within Islam and Muslim communities. According to Pew research, 15% of Muslims in Turkey believe that suicide terrorism in the defense of Islam is often justified. That equates to almost 12 million people who think that it's often ok to blow up innocent people in the name of Islam. And this is in Turkey, the supposedly "secular" ally we have in the Middle East. Millions and millions of people aren't pulling the trigger but they are more than ok with it happening. And when this mindset and ideology wants to enter a liberal society, it absolutely needs to be critically looked at and examined.
onenerdykidLouie did not bring up good points, nor did his sources who analyzed statistical data and shaped it to fit their agenda. They absolutely fail to realize that at the core of this violence is religious intolerance, an absolute belief in jihad, and an absolute belief in martyrdom. They fail to realize that invasion and occupation do not directly cause suicide terrorism- if that were the case you would see the same exact scenario in Tibet. But we don't. Why is that? Because there is no ideological basis for it in Tibetan Buddhism. However, in Islam, there are ideological basis for suicide terrorism and this is why we see it in Muslim countries. Did the US occupation make it worse? Of course it did/does, but the absolute belief in jihad & martyrdom are present, intrinsic, and given as motive by the suicide terrorists themselves and will still be there even if all US presence was removed from that area.
Are all Muslims terrorists? Of course not. But does Islam give reasoning and encouragement for such behavior. Absolutely yes it does. And this is why people ought to be cautious of Islam. Should they also be cautious of Christianity, given its highly violent scripture and history? Yes, but to a lesser extent. At least Christianity has gone through a reformation, an enlightenment, and hundreds of years of secular pressure to soften its stance on societal issues. Islam has not seen any of this and this also should be everyone's cause for concern.
While the vast vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, there are millions and millions of terrorist sympathizers within Islam and Muslim communities. According to Pew research, 15% of Muslims in Turkey believe that suicide terrorism in the defense of Islam is often justified. That equates to almost 12 million people who think that it's often ok to blow up innocent people in the name of Islam. And this is in Turkey, the supposedly "secular" ally we have in the Middle East. Millions and millions of people aren't pulling the trigger but they are more than ok with it happening. And when this mindset and ideology wants to enter a liberal society, it absolutely needs to be critically looked at and examined.
Then how do you explain there being very very little terrorist attacks in the middle east prior the US invasion and now it's the capital of the world for terrorism? Surely has got nothing to do with the US creating a power vacuum within the middle east leaving room for groups to want to claim power. You give anyone with enough poverty and corruption a power vacuum and watch terrorist groups thrive. I'm not denying that IS doesn't have roots in Islam, I just think it's stupid to think it's the main cause and there is alot more factors at play than just Islam=terrorism.
And there has been cases of terrorism in Tibet, cbf to copy and paste everything.
But if you look at the Harvard research into how muslims integrate into society, you would see for the most part they are on par with Christians. While the middle east is very fucked up, it does reflect the views of immigrants and muslims in the west.
S.J.WThen how do you explain there being very very little terrorist attacks in the middle east prior the US invasion and now it's the capital of the world for terrorism? Surely has got nothing to do with the US creating a power vacuum within the middle east leaving room for groups to want to claim power. You give anyone with enough poverty and corruption a power vacuum and watch terrorist groups thrive. I'm not denying that IS doesn't have roots in Islam, I just think it's stupid to think it's the main cause and there is alot more factors at play than just Islam=terrorism.
And there has been cases of terrorism in Tibet, cbf to copy and paste everything.
But if you look at the Harvard research into how muslims integrate into society, you would see for the most part they are on par with Christians. While the middle east is very fucked up, it does reflect the views of immigrants and muslims in the west.
Foreign policy and occupations simply exacerbate an existing problem, not create it. As groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda clearly show, Muslims are the primary victims of extremist Islam (just as Christians were the primary victims of extremist Christianity during the middle ages). Prior to the US invasion, Islamic violence was mainly targeted towards other Muslims but a solid percentage of that was towards non-Muslims too, as obvious terrorism attacks demonstrate. The violence that Islam perpetuates will take different forms depending on the scenario, whether that be towards their own citizens or towards occupiers or towards completely foreign people they have never met. But make no mistake, Islamic terrorism has its roots and main causes in Islam, not foreign policy or occupations. Mistakes in foreign policy & the occupation of Iraq had NOTHING to do with the Charlie Hebdo murders or the murder of Danish cartoonists. Yet, these acts are clearly related to Islamic terrorism and Islam.
What you are also not noting is that many terrorists are not from poverty stricken areas and/or areas with poor education. Many if not all of the high profile terrorists come from well-off families and are well educated (often with advanced degrees). Economic hardship and lack of education were not the reasons the 19 hijackers flew planes into the Twin Towers. It was an absolute belief in martyrdom and righteousness that led to it. Of course the grunts on the front lines will more often than not be from poor area with less education. But again, they're not on the front line because they are poor or stupid and they even tell us why they are on the front lines. You shouldn't ignore their explicitly expressed motives.
Whatever cases of terrorism have happened during 60 years of Tibetan occupation absolutely pale in comparison to the attacks that have happened in the middle east in recent years. Do you honestly think that if you swapped out Islam in the Middle East with Tibetan Buddhism or with Jainism that we would have the same scenario in the Middle East today? I genuinely want your answer.
Obviously when you compare Buddhism to Radical Islam there are going to be idealogical differences, being that they are on opposite ends of the religious spectrum...
My only point is that if we are going to stop immigration due to fear than we need to put all countries in check.
A huge flaw in the "stop Muslims from coming into this country" argument is that a methodical terrorist isn't going to wear his identity for everyone to see. In other words, a terrorist isn't going to try and enter the country as a Muslim. His odds of getting caught would sky rocket. It would make way more sense to enter the country as a Canadian or a Christian refugee or on a work visa from Belgium.
I can't believe this hasn't been mentioned yet....
so by putting a lock on "Islamic" immigrant/refugees we would effectively alienate 1.6 billion people, create more hatred, and prevent literally nothing.
What are the domestic violence numbers in Latin America? How many people have been murdered by Cartels in Mexico in the last 30 years?
Why don't we call them terrorists?
REGRESSIVELEFTHow many people have been murdered by Cartels in Mexico in the last 30 years?
Why don't we call them terrorists?
Because they are not from the Middle East...
We don't label the Mexican cartels as "terrorists" because they are not trying to intimidate for political or ideological purposes. They mainly murder to protect their business interests & profit channels, not in order to change the world or make people live a certain way.
onenerdykidForeign policy and occupations simply exacerbate an existing problem, not create it. As groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda clearly show, Muslims are the primary victims of extremist Islam (just as Christians were the primary victims of extremist Christianity during the middle ages). Prior to the US invasion, Islamic violence was mainly targeted towards other Muslims but a solid percentage of that was towards non-Muslims too, as obvious terrorism attacks demonstrate. The violence that Islam perpetuates will take different forms depending on the scenario, whether that be towards their own citizens or towards occupiers or towards completely foreign people they have never met. But make no mistake, Islamic terrorism has its roots and main causes in Islam, not foreign policy or occupations. Mistakes in foreign policy & the occupation of Iraq had NOTHING to do with the Charlie Hebdo murders or the murder of Danish cartoonists. Yet, these acts are clearly related to Islamic terrorism and Islam.
What you are also not noting is that many terrorists are not from poverty stricken areas and/or areas with poor education. Many if not all of the high profile terrorists come from well-off families and are well educated (often with advanced degrees). Economic hardship and lack of education were not the reasons the 19 hijackers flew planes into the Twin Towers. It was an absolute belief in martyrdom and righteousness that led to it. Of course the grunts on the front lines will more often than not be from poor area with less education. But again, they're not on the front line because they are poor or stupid and they even tell us why they are on the front lines. You shouldn't ignore their explicitly expressed motives.
Whatever cases of terrorism have happened during 60 years of Tibetan occupation absolutely pale in comparison to the attacks that have happened in the middle east in recent years. Do you honestly think that if you swapped out Islam in the Middle East with Tibetan Buddhism or with Jainism that we would have the same scenario in the Middle East today? I genuinely want your answer.
I choose to believe the main cause is indeed occupation and invasion. Other studies have shown this as well.
But to bring up your point to buddhism. I think that's the exception and not the rule. Every other religion has violence in it. It's human nature to want to be better than other people and assert your dominance. If you took away religion, I believe these tendencies would still exist. Atheists still commit terrorism but from your stand point there should be no reason for them to commit terrorism because they don't worship a god.
We do call them terrorists. My friend spent the better part of two decades fighting narco terrorism south of the boarder.
If you haven't noticed their is a sizable counter insurgency being fought down there. Prior to the rise of Al Queda it was viewed as one of the primary threats to the United States.
onenerdykidThey mainly murder to protect their business interests & profit channels, not in order to change the world or make people live a certain way.
But to bring up your point to buddhism. I think that's the exception and not the rule. Every other religion has violence in it. It's human nature to want to be better than other people and assert your dominance. If you took away religion, I believe these tendencies would still exist. Atheists still commit terrorism but from your stand point there should be no reason for them to commit terrorism because they don't worship a god.
It is a fundamental fact that if you remove occupation and invasion from the equation, Islamic violence & terrorism will continue to exist. The concepts of jihad and martyrdom predate any occupation in the Middle East by hundreds and hundreds of years. They are not a product of occupation or invasion but rather are the root cause of the violence. Adding an invasion and/or an occupation is only exacerbating the violence that underlines their belief system. Islamists and jihadists will still be murdering cartoonists and calling for their deaths long after any occupation is over. What horrible foreign policy mistake did Denmark make that led to their cartoonists being murdered? None- their deaths were purely caused by Islamic fanaticism. These are inescapable truths (yes actually true things) that your first source (again by Pape) fails to take into consideration. You both are ignoring huge amounts of evidence in order to defend your position and no one should do that.
There are other, mainly Asian, religions that have non-violence at their core. The most non-violent one is Jainism, whose followers are so opposed to violence that they don't kill anything. They only eat fruits & nuts and cover their mouths with cloth so they don't accidentally inhale any bugs. When they become more "fundamental" they only become more peaceful. The point I am making with both of these religions is that actions stem from beliefs. If you truly believe X, then you act accordingly to X. If your religion has jihad & martyrdom at its core fundamental belief structure, then its faithful adherents act in violent and suicidal ways. If your religion has peace and non-violence at its core, then its easy to see why its faithful adherents will not become violent. This is why if you put Islamists in Tibet or Jains in the Middle East, the situations in each area will be totally different from now.
I have never made the claim that atheists cannot be terrorists but rather that the doctrine of Islam promotes terrorism (along with peace and other contradictory claims). Atheism does not promote terrorism or reject it- it only says that I don't believe in God. If someone says they are an atheist, it does not tell you anything about their ethical beliefs. It contains no rules for how to conduct your life- that education comes from somewhere else and I do believe that such an education is needed. So yes of course an atheist can become a terrorist, but their violent actions do not stem from atheism. Whereas an Islamist's violent actions do stem from their belief in Islam because Islam promotes and encourages such behavior. Action follows belief and that is ultimately the problem with Islam and other ideologies that promote & encourage violence.
Ok, I see what you're saying and I am sympathetic to that. But it strikes me as becoming more and more of a general blanket label that can be attached to any violent activity because violence is about gaining control of a situation through force. And if we say terrorism is all about using violence to gain control, then every violent activity becomes terrorism and it loses its specific meaning.
Where then is the line between violence and terrorism? Is a school yard bully a terrorist if he uses chaotic violence to gain control of his little ecosystem?
When is organized crime involving murder something separate from terrorism? Or gang-land violence separate from terrorism?
They all involve elements of fear, chaos, and violence. But if they all become terrorism then I think it loses its meaning.
onenerdykidOk, I see what you're saying and I am sympathetic to that. But it strikes me as becoming more and more of a general blanket label that can be attached to any violent activity because violence is about gaining control of a situation through force. And if we say terrorism is all about using violence to gain control, then every violent activity becomes terrorism and it loses its specific meaning.
Where then is the line between violence and terrorism? Is a school yard bully a terrorist if he uses chaotic violence to gain control of his little ecosystem?
When is organized crime involving murder something separate from terrorism? Or gang-land violence separate from terrorism?
They all involve elements of fear, chaos, and violence. But if they all become terrorism then I think it loses its meaning.
This should help with the above confusion about the link between literalist interpretations of Islam and the violence we see from the people who practice those interpretations. Yes, Jihad and martyrdom and the example of a prophet who was a warlord do link directly to violent, suicidal practices by adherents.
Back to Trump specifically, this is pretty scathing.
There is a difference between major and minor issues, and between primary and secondary values. Many of us think that it would be terrible if the radical-revisionist reading of the Second Amendment created by the Heller decision eight years ago was kept in place in a constitutional court; many on the other side think it would be terrible if that other radical decision, Roe v. Wade, continued to be found to be compatible with the constitutional order. What we all should agree on is that the one thing worse would be to have no constitutional order left to argue about.
He might not be 100% right about Trump, but no one knows for sure how bad it could be. But this is noteworthy:
"If Trump came to power, there is a decent chance that the American experiment would be over. This is not a hyperbolic prediction; it is not a hysterical prediction; it is simply a candid reading of what history tells us happens in countries with leaders like Trump. Countries don’t really recover from being taken over by unstable authoritarian nationalists of any political bent, left or right—not by Peróns or Castros or Putins or Francos or Lenins or fill in the blanks. The nation may survive, but the wound to hope and order will never fully heal."
