If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for?

[Mephistopheles]

 

Sure, but before you step out the door, if you own a gun and have children or family members with depression, you should probably be more concerned with suicide than homicide.

 

Oh absolutely. I was just responding to Cardboard's comment that if you include suicides, France and the U.S. have almost the same rate of purposeful deaths. I just think it's

important to distinguish suicide and homicide and was pointing out that when it comes to the latter, we still take the cake.

 

Having said that, I happen to work in healthcare, and I can confirm that firearm access is certainly a risk for completed suicide in people who have depression. So I don't know why Japan or France have a higher or equal rate. Maybe they have a higher rates of depression? I really don't know.

 

Regarding availability of guns and number of homicides there is certainly a correlation. What to do about it is a tough question.

 

I believe nobody should have guns, just like in Europe. But to start with, we can ban assault weapons, or prevent those on the terror watch list from buying guns. The latter bill which Congress Republicans blocked recently. It's amazing that the party that is supposedly the toughest on terror is willing to let suspected terrorists buy guns.

[Cardboard]

"I believe nobody should have guns, just like in Europe."

 

Do you mean hand guns and assault weapons? It is regulated but, they do have firearms. And some do have hand guns.

 

"But to start with, we can ban assault weapons, or prevent those on the terror watch list from buying guns.

The latter bill which Congress Republicans blocked recently. It's amazing that the party that is supposedly the toughest on terror is willing to let suspected terrorists buy guns."

 

I agree on assault weapons.

 

The Republican party, like the Democrat party, is owned by lobbyists and special interests. Trump is the only one who wants to stop that. Sanders blames only Wall Street. If Trump was elected, stupidity like that would be stopped rather quickly I would hope.

 

Regarding this specific event and if you understand that this guy has been planning this for months, it would still have happened with different means, maybe a different target and possibly could have been even more lethal. That is why I am so pissed off at the left blaming this entirely on gun control.

 

Cardboard

[Mephistopheles]

"I believe nobody should have guns, just like in Europe."

 

Do you mean hand guns and assault weapons? It is regulated but, they do have firearms. And some do have hand guns.

 

"But to start with, we can ban assault weapons, or prevent those on the terror watch list from buying guns.

The latter bill which Congress Republicans blocked recently. It's amazing that the party that is supposedly the toughest on terror is willing to let suspected terrorists buy guns."

 

I agree on assault weapons.

 

The Republican party, like the Democrat party, is owned by lobbyists and special interests. Trump is the only one who wants to stop that. Sanders blames only Wall Street. If Trump was elected, stupidity like that would be stopped rather quickly I would hope.

 

Regarding this specific event and if you understand that this guy has been planning this for months, it would still have happened with different means, maybe a different target and possibly could have been even more lethal. That is why I am so pissed off at the left blaming this entirely on gun control.

 

Cardboard

 

"it would still have happened with different means, maybe a different target and possibly could have been even more lethal. "

 

So now the fact that he had access to an assault weapon prevented it from being more lethal?

 

I'm willing to bet anything that he would have liked to see it as lethal as possible, regardless of the guns. He could have set off a bomb in Disney World for instance. But no, he chose the "less lethal" option - and that's entirely because it's much easier to legally buy an assault weapon than it is to illegally make a bomb (or buy an assault rifle).

 

So yes I think if we made it harder for these people to have access to legal firearms, it would make it that much harder for them to do damage.

 

[Jurgis]

To paraphrase their argument, many suicidal crises are short-lived.

 

Maybe there's a research, but my hunch is that many homicidal crises are also short-lived. So (irrational) conflict situation escalates and the ready availability of means (guns) lead to more fatal results. This could happen with domestic conflict, workplace conflict, bar conflict, road rage, or even less-violent crime.

[Mephistopheles]

 

The Republican party, like the Democrat party, is owned by lobbyists and special interests. Trump is the only one who wants to stop that. Sanders blames only Wall Street. If Trump was elected, stupidity like that would be stopped rather quickly I would hope.

 

Idk, Trump certainly wants us to believe that he isn't funded by special interests, but now as we know he's actively seeking major donors. There's a super PAC for him. All the stuff that he was highly critical of during the primaries, he's embracing. And the NRA is fully in support of him; I don't see any indication that he'd stop their influence.

 

[Cardboard]

What did they use at the Boston marathon? In Brussels?

 

Sure, it was convenient for him and I never said that we should not try to prevent terrorists from accessing any kind of gun.

 

You should still remember that this guy was in the security industry. Even if we had in place tougher laws, it is not hard to imagine that he would have had contacts to get them illegally.

 

The real problem here is ideology. Why are you so opposed to go after that?

 

Cardboard

[Mephistopheles]

What did they use at the Boston marathon? In Brussels?

 

Sure, it was convenient for him and I never said that we should not try to prevent terrorists from accessing any kind of gun.

 

You should still remember that this guy was in the security industry. Even if we had in place tougher laws, it is not hard to imagine that he would have had contacts to get them illegally.

 

The real problem here is ideology. Why are you so opposed to go after that?

 

Cardboard

 

This is a common misleading argument from the right about those of us who believe in gun control.

 

Not once did I say I'm opposed to going after the ideology or terrorism. I'm FULLY in support of going after these people, and I don't think anyone is not. Now, if this means banning 1.6 billion Muslims, or special policing of Muslim neighborhoods - that's ridiculous and I'm not for it.

 

Yes, Boston and Brussels happened. Bombings occur, and they'll continue to occur - but our goal is to minimize them.

[cwericb]

There is a happy medium here but both sides seem to be ruled by extremists - and politicians seem to becoming the same way. Whatever happened to compromise for the greater good?

 

Military weapons such as automatic weapons have no place in the hands of the general public in a modern society. Period.

 

However, there are legitimate reasons for some types of guns. People who live in areas where they hunt for food or sport or deal with potentially dangerous wildlife should certainly be able to purchase and carry guns. 

 

When I hear “all guns must be banned” I think, here is someone who lives in a large city and simply does not understand that there are areas where wildlife still poses a real danger to people and domesticated animals.

[Mephistopheles]

 

When I hear “all guns must be banned” I think, here is someone who lives in a large city and simply does not understand that there are areas where wildlife still poses a real danger to people and domesticated animals.

 

Fair enough. As Cardboard said, even in Europe there are exceptions, and I and others shouldn't go as far as to say ban all guns.

[Jurgis]

"Dangerous wildlife" reason is likely less than 1% of current gun ownership (~100M gun owners, <1M "dangerous wildlifers").

 

IMO sports hunting should be banned, but that's a somewhat separate issue.

[Cardboard]

"Military weapons such as automatic weapons have no place in the hands of the general public in a modern society. Period."

 

Ok, maybe that we are making progress.

 

So if Congress accept that, are Democrats going to be accepting another rational proposal or that we should deny the entrance to anyone who is not capable to demonstrate that they will be good visitors or citizens, accepting and obeying all laws currently in place? ISIS and terrorists supporters should be automatically refused.

 

If there is any doubt they should not enter. Period.

 

Calling yourself a refugee or entering illegally does not give you a free pass. All visitors currently except these are asked some of these questions and their passeport and answers are tracked. Why is it any different for them?

 

Cardboard

 

[cwericb]

"Dangerous wildlife" reason is likely less than 1% of current gun ownership (~100M gun owners, <1M "dangerous wildlifers").”

 

Perhaps, but I am simply making the point that there are legitimate reasons for owning guns. But there needs to be a reasonable control on what types of guns individuals can own. Mac-10's, AR 15's, etc are simply unacceptable in private hands

“...we should deny the entrance to anyone who is not capable to demonstrate that they will be good visitors or citizens, accepting and obeying all laws currently in place? ISIS and terrorists supporters should be automatically refused.”

Well how does one demonstrate they will be a good potential citizen? Certainly ISIS and terrorists should be automatically refused - but it’s unlikely they will declare that on their immigration forms.  Now I do believe that immigration is a privilege and any immigrant who shows a consistent disrespect for the laws of the land or who commits a serious felony within a certain time period of their immigration date should be given a free one-way ticket to their home country.

 

But to bring the conversation back to the original subject of the presidential race, how does anyone justify this remark?

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on,"

That would appear to be another demonstration of how his mouth has no connection to his brain.

 

Did he forget that would mean American Muslims couldn't leave the country and Muslims in the American military couldn't return home? 

 

So by this logic, when the IRA was bombing London, Britain have banned all Roman Catholics from entering the UK. Really?  Should Middle East countries ban all all Christians from entering their countries? Should Canada ban Americans over fear of mass shootings?

 

 

[Mephistopheles]

"Dangerous wildlife" reason is likely less than 1% of current gun ownership (~100M gun owners, <1M "dangerous wildlifers").”

 

Perhaps, but I am simply making the point that there are legitimate reasons for owning guns. But there needs to be a reasonable control on what types of guns individuals can own. Mac-10's, AR 15's, etc are simply unacceptable in private hands

“...we should deny the entrance to anyone who is not capable to demonstrate that they will be good visitors or citizens, accepting and obeying all laws currently in place? ISIS and terrorists supporters should be automatically refused.”

Well how does one demonstrate they will be a good potential citizen? Certainly ISIS and terrorists should be automatically refused - but it’s unlikely they will declare that on their immigration forms.  Now I do believe that immigration is a privilege and any immigrant who shows a consistent disrespect for the laws of the land or who commits a serious felony within a certain time period of their immigration date should be given a free one-way ticket to their home country.

 

But to bring the conversation back to the original subject of the presidential race, how does anyone justify this remark?

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on,"

That would appear to be another demonstration of how his mouth has no connection to his brain.

 

Did he forget that would mean American Muslims couldn't leave the country and Muslims in the American military couldn't return home? 

 

So by this logic, when the IRA was bombing London, Britain have banned all Roman Catholics from entering the UK. Really?  Should Middle East countries ban all all Christians from entering their countries? Should Canada ban Americans over fear of mass shootings?

 

 

 

+1

 

Additionally, how do we screen people for affiliation with terrorism? Who the hell is going to admit that they are with ISIS?

 

Rather, the opposite happens. The 9/11 hijackers kept shaved beards, short hair, and partied at strip clubs in order to blend in.

 

Finally, none of this does anything to stop homegrown terrorists. The Orlando guy was born in Queens to Afghan parents who immigrated 30 years ago!

[rkbabang]

"Dangerous wildlife" reason is likely less than 1% of current gun ownership (~100M gun owners, <1M "dangerous wildlifers").”

 

Perhaps, but I am simply making the point that there are legitimate reasons for owning guns. But there needs to be a reasonable control on what types of guns individuals can own. Mac-10's, AR 15's, etc are simply unacceptable in private hands

“...we should deny the entrance to anyone who is not capable to demonstrate that they will be good visitors or citizens, accepting and obeying all laws currently in place? ISIS and terrorists supporters should be automatically refused.”

Well how does one demonstrate they will be a good potential citizen? Certainly ISIS and terrorists should be automatically refused - but it’s unlikely they will declare that on their immigration forms.  Now I do believe that immigration is a privilege and any immigrant who shows a consistent disrespect for the laws of the land or who commits a serious felony within a certain time period of their immigration date should be given a free one-way ticket to their home country.

 

But to bring the conversation back to the original subject of the presidential race, how does anyone justify this remark?

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on,"

That would appear to be another demonstration of how his mouth has no connection to his brain.

 

Did he forget that would mean American Muslims couldn't leave the country and Muslims in the American military couldn't return home? 

 

So by this logic, when the IRA was bombing London, Britain have banned all Roman Catholics from entering the UK. Really?  Should Middle East countries ban all all Christians from entering their countries? Should Canada ban Americans over fear of mass shootings?

 

 

 

+1

 

Additionally, how do we screen people for affiliation with terrorism? Who the hell is going to admit that they are with ISIS?

 

Rather, the opposite happens. The 9/11 hijackers kept shaved beards, short hair, and partied at strip clubs in order to blend in.

 

Finally, none of this does anything to stop homegrown terrorists. The Orlando guy was born in Queens to Afghan parents who immigrated 30 years ago!

 

Call me crazy, but you could stop lobbing bombs all over the world ... for a start.

[Mephistopheles]

 

Call me crazy, but you could stop lobbing bombs all over the world ... for a start.

 

Idk if you read my previous response to this, but I am in 1,000% agreement with you.

 

This is one thing I do like about Trump - common sense foreign policy (and what I hate about Clinton) - stay the hell out of other people's affairs.

[TwoCitiesCapital]

"Dangerous wildlife" reason is likely less than 1% of current gun ownership (~100M gun owners, <1M "dangerous wildlifers").”

 

Perhaps, but I am simply making the point that there are legitimate reasons for owning guns. But there needs to be a reasonable control on what types of guns individuals can own. Mac-10's, AR 15's, etc are simply unacceptable in private hands

“...we should deny the entrance to anyone who is not capable to demonstrate that they will be good visitors or citizens, accepting and obeying all laws currently in place? ISIS and terrorists supporters should be automatically refused.”

Well how does one demonstrate they will be a good potential citizen? Certainly ISIS and terrorists should be automatically refused - but it’s unlikely they will declare that on their immigration forms.  Now I do believe that immigration is a privilege and any immigrant who shows a consistent disrespect for the laws of the land or who commits a serious felony within a certain time period of their immigration date should be given a free one-way ticket to their home country.

 

But to bring the conversation back to the original subject of the presidential race, how does anyone justify this remark?

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on,"

That would appear to be another demonstration of how his mouth has no connection to his brain.

 

Did he forget that would mean American Muslims couldn't leave the country and Muslims in the American military couldn't return home? 

 

So by this logic, when the IRA was bombing London, Britain have banned all Roman Catholics from entering the UK. Really?  Should Middle East countries ban all all Christians from entering their countries? Should Canada ban Americans over fear of mass shootings?

 

 

 

+1

 

Additionally, how do we screen people for affiliation with terrorism? Who the hell is going to admit that they are with ISIS?

 

Rather, the opposite happens. The 9/11 hijackers kept shaved beards, short hair, and partied at strip clubs in order to blend in.

 

Finally, none of this does anything to stop homegrown terrorists. The Orlando guy was born in Queens to Afghan parents who immigrated 30 years ago!

 

Call me crazy, but you could stop lobbing bombs all over the world ... for a start.

 

+1

 

Our foreign policy has created an entire generation that hates America - not because we have freedom, but because we viewed as acceptable to kill tens of thousands of innocent people as collateral damage for our true goals in the area.

 

They hate us because we can bomb a Doctors Without Borders facility and kill innocent patients and doctors to get at a single suspected target.

They hate us because we pretend they're sovereign nations until they do something we don't like and then we strip them of their sovereignty.

They hate us because economic development in that part of the globe has moved backwards for the past two or three decades because we've chosen a state of constant war as part of our foreign policy.

They hate us because we arm and train rebels to fight U.S. funded/placed/supported dictators and then they turn those weapons on the people in the name of ISIS.

 

Yea - I'd hate us too.

[Cardboard]

Trump is extremely maladroit when he talks. I am not sure if it is intentional or not or to attract people who otherwise would not vote but, he sure must know that such statements would attract backlash. He is a smart guy after all who has written books, dealt with various people in his business life and must know that you need to be polite, behave and avoid politically charged comments.

 

In his defense, I would also say that the very left leaning media is excellent at taking things out of context to destroy any candidate from the right. 

 

While I certainly do not agree with all his ideas, I would say that some are good. Immigration for example is mismanaged and needs to be straightened up for all Western countries.

 

When our intelligence leaders are saying that ISIS will try to infiltrate via the refugee flow we should pay more attention than what current leaders are. When it is also mentioned that it is easy for them to enter via the South border we should also pay attention.

 

This laissez faire attitude is the equivalent of suicide. Trump is right to mention that this is like a Trojan horse.

 

Regarding Muslims, they have an internal problem with their religion and they need to fix it before it is too late. They need to figure out a way to eliminate this radical doctrine, denounce it, isolate it. They can keep on saying that this is not the teachings of Islam but, it will not be enough to protect them forever. Some are trying as the president of Egypt but, more needs to be done.

 

Moreover, if some prefer Sharia Law then they should be told to stay in their home country or to move to a country where this is being practiced since it is incompatible with our laws and culture.

 

Cardboard

[Cardboard]

"Call me crazy, but you could stop lobbing bombs all over the world ... for a start."

 

Well, I agree but, ask yourself also this question:

 

How many people have died in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia under American bombs? How many regimes have been established, then removed in Latin America? How many Chinese and North Koreans have died during the Korean war?

 

Now, how many from these nations are killing, detonating themselves in revenge?

 

Finally to my knowledge, the guy who did the rampage in Orlando did not do it based on some foreign policy. He hated gays because of his beliefs and that was the motive.

 

Cardboard

[rkbabang]

"Dangerous wildlife" reason is likely less than 1% of current gun ownership (~100M gun owners, <1M "dangerous wildlifers").”

 

Perhaps, but I am simply making the point that there are legitimate reasons for owning guns. But there needs to be a reasonable control on what types of guns individuals can own. Mac-10's, AR 15's, etc are simply unacceptable in private hands

“...we should deny the entrance to anyone who is not capable to demonstrate that they will be good visitors or citizens, accepting and obeying all laws currently in place? ISIS and terrorists supporters should be automatically refused.”

Well how does one demonstrate they will be a good potential citizen? Certainly ISIS and terrorists should be automatically refused - but it’s unlikely they will declare that on their immigration forms.  Now I do believe that immigration is a privilege and any immigrant who shows a consistent disrespect for the laws of the land or who commits a serious felony within a certain time period of their immigration date should be given a free one-way ticket to their home country.

 

But to bring the conversation back to the original subject of the presidential race, how does anyone justify this remark?

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on,"

That would appear to be another demonstration of how his mouth has no connection to his brain.

 

Did he forget that would mean American Muslims couldn't leave the country and Muslims in the American military couldn't return home? 

 

So by this logic, when the IRA was bombing London, Britain have banned all Roman Catholics from entering the UK. Really?  Should Middle East countries ban all all Christians from entering their countries? Should Canada ban Americans over fear of mass shootings?

 

 

 

+1

 

Additionally, how do we screen people for affiliation with terrorism? Who the hell is going to admit that they are with ISIS?

 

Rather, the opposite happens. The 9/11 hijackers kept shaved beards, short hair, and partied at strip clubs in order to blend in.

 

Finally, none of this does anything to stop homegrown terrorists. The Orlando guy was born in Queens to Afghan parents who immigrated 30 years ago!

 

Call me crazy, but you could stop lobbing bombs all over the world ... for a start.

 

+1

 

Our foreign policy has created an entire generation that hates America - not because we have freedom, but because we viewed as acceptable to kill tens of thousands of innocent people as collateral damage for our true goals in the area.

 

They hate us because we can bomb a Doctors Without Borders facility and kill innocent patients and doctors to get at a single suspected target.

They hate us because we pretend they're sovereign nations until they do something we don't like and then we strip them of their sovereignty.

They hate us because economic development in that part of the globe has moved backwards for the past two or three decades because we've chosen a state of constant war as part of our foreign policy.

They hate us because we arm and train rebels to fight U.S. funded/placed/supported dictators and then they turn those weapons on the people in the name of ISIS.

 

Yea - I'd hate us too.

 

I agree.  When discussing protection from acts of violence, it is much easier to protect against violence when there aren't a lot of people who want to kill you.  Once you have a lot of people who want you dead, the whole problem of what to do about stopping violence gets a few orders of magnitude more difficult.

There aren't a whole lot of people in Switzerland or Iceland worried about these things right now.

 

[Mephistopheles]

Regarding Muslims, they have an internal problem with their religion and they need to fix it before it is too late. They need to figure out a way to eliminate this radical doctrine, denounce it, isolate it. They can keep on saying that this is not the teachings of Islam but, it will not be enough to protect them forever. Some are trying as the president of Egypt but, more needs to be done.

 

 

Of course everyone should denounce the extremism, Muslim or not. Most Muslims do denounce ISIS. Hell, even al-Qaeda hates them!

 

But I think we should be looking at ourselves in the mirror before trying to shift the problem to everyone who happens to be of that religion. What this means, as others have already stated, is we need to rethink our foreign policy. It's not a coincidence that the religion that is used in the name of violence against us today is the same religion that the people of the countries we've bombed for decades identify themselves with.

 

ISIS is a direct result of our foreign policy. If Saddam Hussein was still dictator of Iraq, there would have never been an ISIS.

 

We've seen violence in the name of religion throughout history, involving all different religions - so I don't think violence is an internal problem of any one of them specifically. More so, there have been wars in the name of factors other than religion. Human beings have a tribal behavior and that manifests itself in many forms: religion, ethnicity, country.

 

Pointing to Muslims to eliminate this radical doctrine is like pointing to American civilians to eliminate our imperialistic foreign policy. Or pointing to the Israeli people to stop bombing the Palestinians or blaming ordinary North Koreans for the actions of their maniac dictator. 

[Cardboard]

If the Americans and the Fifth Fleet leaves the Persian Gulf tomorrow, how long before Iran tries to invade Saudi Arabia and other Gulf allies? How many deaths and refugees is that going to mean?

 

Obama has tried appeasement with Iran, leaving town (Iraq) and not getting "too" involved in the region. Look at Syria as an example of where we did not get fully involved or Libya. Is that progress, success or the right direction long term for U.S. foreign policy?

 

Then if you meet a Muslim originating from the Middle East, tell them the name Israel instead of Palestine and see the reaction.

 

The problem is a lot more complex than people make it to be. You can stop all the bombing and involvement that you want from the U.S. or the West and death, war will still be raging.

 

By the way, is the U.S. involvement responsible for terrorism in the Kashmir, Philippines, Nigeria?

 

So yes, the West certainly has a share of responsibility for the hate that it is receiving but, that is not 100% of the story.

 

Cardboard

[rb]

If the Americans and the Fifth Fleet leaves the Persian Gulf tomorrow, how long before Iran tries to invade Saudi Arabia and other Gulf allies? How many deaths and refugees is that going to mean?

 

Obama has tried appeasement with Iran, leaving town (Iraq) and not getting "too" involved in the region. Look at Syria as an example of where we did not get fully involved or Libya. Is that progress, success or the right direction long term for U.S. foreign policy?

 

Then if you meet a Muslim originating from the Middle East, tell them the name Israel instead of Palestine and see the reaction.

 

The problem is a lot more complex than people make it to be. You can stop all the bombing and involvement that you want from the U.S. or the West and death, war will still be raging.

 

By the way, is the U.S. involvement responsible for terrorism in the Kashmir, Philippines, Nigeria?

 

So yes, the West certainly has a share of responsibility for the hate that it is receiving but, that is not 100% of the story.

 

Cardboard

Of course the problem is more complicated that what people are making it out to be. It's the Middle East. Is anything simple there?

 

However I'm not so sure that it's only the 5th fleet that keeps Iran from invading other countries. For example, Saudi Arabia with almost half a million active duty armed forces personnel and another 250,000 in reserve and a huge arsenal should be able to defend itself and its allies quite well.

 

In regards to Libya, would it have been better if the West didn't bomb the shit out of it? Btw, I don't know if the US should own that cause it was France that started the bombing and Obama looked seriously pissed when that happened. Also we don't know if western powers were supporting or helping the rebels. But without foreign intervention wouldn't Qaddafi have been able to put out the revolt? It probably would have been ugly but probably better than the mess that's there now. I guess we'll never know.

 

But we really shouldn't be surprised that people don't really like us after we bombed their homes and their cities.

[Palantir]

Why is there no choice for "no one"?  :o

 

A candidate has no name.

[Palantir]

If the Americans and the Fifth Fleet leaves the Persian Gulf tomorrow, how long before Iran tries to invade Saudi Arabia and other Gulf allies? How many deaths and refugees is that going to mean?

 

Obama has tried appeasement with Iran, leaving town (Iraq) and not getting "too" involved in the region. Look at Syria as an example of where we did not get fully involved or Libya. Is that progress, success or the right direction long term for U.S. foreign policy?

 

Then if you meet a Muslim originating from the Middle East, tell them the name Israel instead of Palestine and see the reaction.

 

The problem is a lot more complex than people make it to be. You can stop all the bombing and involvement that you want from the U.S. or the West and death, war will still be raging.

 

By the way, is the U.S. involvement responsible for terrorism in the Kashmir, Philippines, Nigeria?

 

So yes, the West certainly has a share of responsibility for the hate that it is receiving but, that is not 100% of the story.

 

Cardboard

 

Yes, the US is partly responsible for the terrorism in Kashmir and to a lesser extent the other two. Both by supporting and arming Pakistan along with the Mujahideen against the Soviets, some of whom later moved on to jihad in Kashmir. There is no denying the fact that the US has played a role in formenting Islamic extremism. Mainly by backing Saudi Arabia (whom you refer to as an ally) which has been funding radical movements all over the world, from Philippines to Bosnia.

 

Actually, if you consider Saudi Arabia to be an ally and worthy of support, you're also party to this radical ideology.

[Cardboard]

"(whom you refer to as an ally)"

 

Not my ally by any means and not a real Western ally either. Like I mentioned before, they are the true largest state sponsor of terror.

 

However, it is a great ally of your candidate Hillary Clinton who has received close to $25 million from them. How does that make her capable to make decisions that will be in the best interest of the United States?

 

Corruption, lies, a traitor next?

 

This is a lot worst than a guy who says controversial stuff but, at least brings to the conversation the real things that need to be addressed.

 

Also interesting that he was discussing yesterday with the NRA about fixing issues related to the so called list. It would be refreshing to have a president who could break the back of stubborn ideologists in both parties which creates this gridlock. This means give and take. Obama has never been capable to do any.

 

Cardboard