Who will better protect the US from terror attacks on US soil?

[calamity]

Of course. Look what she did with Libya. If Muslims give Bill enough money, Hillary will do as they say.

Libya worked out well. We only lost 4 people.

Compare that to Bush's 50,000 killed or wounded in Iraq...looking for weapons that did not exist.

 

[thenotorious]

To 'better protect' you have to have the capability to protect in the first place, which neither has shown able to do.

 

[Cardinal]

To 'better protect' you have to have the capability to protect in the first place, which neither has shown able to do.

If our government had shown itself completely unable to protect us from terrorism we'd probably be in a state of emergency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_terrorist_plots_in_the_United_States_post-9/11

On the flip side of that, we've had over 200,000 firearm-related murder victims since 1995, so then again perhaps not.

 

[Logicman]

Trump. Because Hillary is an incompetent, corrupt, lying sad sack. She has no respect for men of arms, cursing out her Secret Service agents who would be willing to take a bullet for her. Plus her State Dept. refused additional security for the Benghazi facility and she apparently slept through the crisis itself. No man I know respects the wench.

 

[German guy]

Nor does Hillary. She hasn't governed anything, ever. Hasn't ever even run a business. All she has is a failed legislative and a failed foreign service career all on the public's dime.

She's got a lot of experience in Washington, was Senator, First Lady and Secretary of State. She's an old fox.

Trump is just an empty bag full of foul air, with a big mouth, who doesn't even have the basic respect for others everybody is supposed to have after graduating from elementary school. Plus, he has run a couple of businesses into ruin. He's an entertainer, not a politician, and a very bad one at that.

 

[Patrickt]

Libya worked out well. We only lost 4 people.

Compare that to Bush's 50,000 killed or wounded in Iraq...looking for weapons that did not exist.

Who gassed the Kurds?

 

[Patrickt]

Trump. Because Hillary is an incompetent, corrupt, lying sad sack. She has no respect for men of arms, cursing out her Secret Service agents who would be willing to take a bullet for her. Plus her State Dept. refused additional security for the Benghazi facility and she apparently slept through the crisis itself. No man I know respects the wench.

But, wait. Trump is a liar, an incompetent businessman, and totally lacking in honor, honesty, or decency. Let's face it, Trump/Clinton leaves with no choice.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I'm not suggesting we stop the immigration of all Muslims. But in your scenario you have the result wrong. What stirs up the Muslim extremists is when we visit their country and set up shop, try to impress our values upon them. Not allowing Muslims into the US wouldn't make them hate us any more or any less. However, the liberal idiots and the ones that style themselves Muslim Americans (the Muslim coming first and with emphasis) would flip their ****.

If your claims above were true, then Trump's speeches wouldn't be in use now in recruiting videos for ISIS...but they are.

It's rather disingenuous to claim that Muslim extremists are only concerned about what we do over there, and pay no attention to what they see as injustices against Muslims here...and if you really believe that they don't use those perceived injustices in their efforts to recruit Muslims here in America, you're more naive than you imagine.

 

[calamity]

Who gassed the Kurds?

In 1990?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Yet he policy on stopping Muslim immigration, may cross party lines? Based on a one issue answer- yes or no.

The relative very, very, VERY few Dems who might agree with stopping Muslim immigration do not speak for the Dems as a whole...just as the relative very few Republicans who believe that access to abortion is a Constitutional right, do not speak for the GOP as a whole.

 

[Bootlace]

If your claims above were true, then Trump's speeches wouldn't be in use now in recruiting videos for ISIS...but they are.

It's rather disingenuous to claim that Muslim extremists are only concerned about what we do over there, and pay no attention to what they see as injustices against Muslims here...and if you really believe that they don't use those perceived injustices in their efforts to recruit Muslims here in America, you're more naive than you imagine.

I will never allow what islam might not like to have any influence on my vote. There are plenty of reasons I don't like trump but his propensity to irritate radical Islam isn't one of them. Screw those people.

 

[Risky Thicket]

I feel like I shouldnt have to, I mean shes been secretary of state? what would you consider a success?

Clearly she was given the job of SecState by Obama through some arrangement for services rendered to Obama via support or whatever by Clinton. Hillary's only goal has been to become president. She became a carpetbagging senator in New York to begin building her street creds - NOT because she wanted to represent the good people. Hillary then needed foreign policy experience with becoming president her only ambition. Hillary was less as effective as SecState as she was a senator. She was not interested in either job in terms of the greater good but rather saw the them as stepping stones to the White House.

It is now known that the SecState gig proved to be financially lucrative for the Clintons at a personal level. She may yet be indicted for because of that.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I will never allow what islam might not like to have any influence on my vote. There are plenty of reasons I don't like trump but his propensity to irritate radical Islam isn't one of them. Screw those people.

And if you were half as cognizant of Muslims as you seem to think you are, you'd realize that they are just. like. us. Whether you like it or not, people are people are people - we all have the same bell-curved set of wants and needs and desires, from family to religion to earning a good livelihood to living a peaceful life.

For instance, did you know that Muslims in America are nearly ten times more likely to become doctors than the rest of "normal" Americans? Reference from the American Medical Association if you want it.

YES, there are some differences due to culture and religion...but if you'll add up the sum total of Muslim terrorists who've made attacks inside America over the past thirty years, what would you get? MAYBE fifty individuals - and that's being generous. But what's happening is that you and the rest of the Right is throwing suspicion on the whole 3.3 MILLION Muslims who live in America, just for the actions of a few dozen individuals who claim to share the same religion.

So let me ask you, guy - is it right to cast suspicion on 3.3 million people because of the actions of maybe fifty of them over the course of three decades? Is it? You know the answer...but I doubt you'll allow yourself to post it, because you'd immediately lose all "conservative cred" the moment you did.

 

[_Sal]

Ironic considering Obama and those that use the race card for everything but their own mothers has done just as much, if not more due to time alone, than Trump regarding racial division.

Trump has no power at this point

give him a moment when you place that crown upon his head

 

[calm]

Anti-Terror laws are not about protecting the American People.

When you hear "If you see something say something". That is just a ruse. If everybody took that advice seriously, the system would be swamped. Actually, they really don't want you to call because they don't have the manpower to respond.

It is the Ruling Class who are terrified because they know the anger on the streets.

The Ruling Class itself is terrified of being strung up on lamp posts in a sinister dark alley or out behind an abandoned service station.

Just like what happened in Europe as the Great Depression arrived.

Each court case is all about setting precedents and settled law. Getting all the ducks in order (all the appeal court decisions) so that when mass arrests of protesters begin to take place, they can easily be shuffled through the justice system.

The further decline of economic activity, the more anti-terror laws are introduced.

It was Bill Clinton who first introduced the Patriot Act and appointed a “domestic military czar”. Clinton and his furturists recognized the decline of the American empire.

Google:
Presidential Decision Directive 62, Protection Against Unconventional Threats to the Homeland and Overseas, dated May 1998, and Presidential Decision Directive 39.

Calm

 

[Bootlace]

And if you were half as cognizant of Muslims as you seem to think you are, you'd realize that they are just. like. us. Whether you like it or not, people are people are people - we all have the same bell-curved set of wants and needs and desires, from family to religion to earning a good livelihood to living a peaceful life.

For instance, did you know that Muslims in America are nearly ten times more likely to become doctors than the rest of "normal" Americans? Reference from the American Medical Association if you want it.

YES, there are some differences due to culture and religion...but if you'll add up the sum total of Muslim terrorists who've made attacks inside America over the past thirty years, what would you get? MAYBE fifty individuals - and that's being generous. But what's happening is that you and the rest of the Right is throwing suspicion on the whole 3.3 MILLION Muslims who live in America, just for the actions of a few dozen individuals who claim to share the same religion.

So let me ask you, guy - is it right to cast suspicion on 3.3 million people because of the actions of maybe fifty of them over the course of three decades? Is it? You know the answer...but I doubt you'll allow yourself to post it, because you'd immediately lose all "conservative cred" the moment you did.

Did you not see in my post where I said Radical Islam?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Did you not see in my post where I said Radical Islam?

Then I must give you a apology. I went off on you because I *assumed* you were posting with the same willful ignorance that so many other conservatives have on DP, and if my assumption was wrong, then please accept my sincere apology - I really do need to learn to be more careful. What I should have done is focused on the words "radical Islam" and asked you to further define to whom you are referring...but again, the assumption was mine, and so the fault was mine. You didn't deserve the pretty-doggone-arrogant scorn I sent your way. Again, I'm sorry, and thanks for your rebuke.

I would make one recommendation, though - in the future, to help people like me who tend to read so quickly that we sometimes miss important distinctions like the one you just pointed out, I would recommend that you include a line like, "radical Islam - as opposed to *normal* Islam - " or some such phrase emphasizing the difference so people like me won't go off half-cocked. Again, thanks.

 

[Bootlace]

Then I must give you a apology. I went off on you because I *assumed* you were posting with the same willful ignorance that so many other conservatives have on DP, and if my assumption was wrong, then please accept my sincere apology - I really do need to learn to be more careful. What I should have done is focused on the words "radical Islam" and asked you to further define to whom you are referring...but again, the assumption was mine, and so the fault was mine. You didn't deserve the pretty-doggone-arrogant scorn I sent your way. Again, I'm sorry, and thanks for your rebuke.



I would make one recommendation, though - in the future, to help people like me who tend to read so quickly that we sometimes miss important distinctions like the one you just pointed out, I would recommend that you include a line like, "radical Islam - as opposed to *normal* Islam - " or some such phrase emphasizing the difference so people like me won't go off half-cocked. Again, thanks.

That's more than fair. Accepted, and thank you too.

 

[thenotorious]

If our government had shown itself completely unable to protect us from terrorism we'd probably be in a state of emergency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_terrorist_plots_in_the_United_States_post-9/11

On the flip side of that, we've had over 200,000 firearm-related murder victims since 1995, so then again perhaps not.

I mean I'm sure I could stop a terror attack myself if I had a million opportunities. I was being sarcastic and exaggerating to prove the point that neither are very competent.

 

[Grim17]

Trump will... He seems to take the threat far more seriously that hillary, or any other democrats. He's also isn't constrained by the laws of political correctness.

 

[d0gbreath]

Hmm, let me see....:ind::smash::rwbdonkey

 

[Logicman]

But, wait. Trump is a liar, an incompetent businessman, and totally lacking in honor, honesty, or decency. Let's face it, Trump/Clinton leaves with no choice.

An incompetent businessman? Worth some $10 billion, has numerous successful commercial properties and is incompetent? Nice try.

But we know that Hillary is a lying, vicious snake.

 

[Tigerace117]

Anti-Terror laws are not about protecting the American People.

When you hear "If you see something say something". That is just a ruse. If everybody took that advice seriously, the system would be swamped. Actually, they really don't want you to call because they don't have the manpower to respond.

It is the Ruling Class who are terrified because they know the anger on the streets.

The Ruling Class itself is terrified of being strung up on lamp posts in a sinister dark alley or out behind an abandoned service station.

Just like what happened in Europe as the Great Depression arrived.

Each court case is all about setting precedents and settled law. Getting all the ducks in order (all the appeal court decisions) so that when mass arrests of protesters begin to take place, they can easily be shuffled through the justice system.

The further decline of economic activity, the more anti-terror laws are introduced.

It was Bill Clinton who first introduced the Patriot Act and appointed a “domestic military czar”. Clinton and his furturists recognized the decline of the American empire.

Google:
Presidential Decision Directive 62, Protection Against Unconventional Threats to the Homeland and Overseas, dated May 1998, and Presidential Decision Directive 39.

Calm

:roll:

This ain't Tzarist Russia circa 1916 kid. Hell, this isn't even Tzarist Russia circa 1905.

And frankly if you know history you'd be terrified of the idea of anything even remotely similar to what happened in Europe in the1930s happening again as well.

 

[PoS]

Who will better protect the US from terror attacks on US soil?

Trump -Why
Clinton -Why

Neither. Only a fundamental change in US foreign policy such as withdrawing from the ME will have an effect. The sooner we're out of there the better, no more American blood for Saudi oil.

 

[dimensionallava]

Clearly she was given the job of SecState by Obama through some arrangement for services rendered to Obama via support or whatever by Clinton. Hillary's only goal has been to become president. She became a carpetbagging senator in New York to begin building her street creds - NOT because she wanted to represent the good people. Hillary then needed foreign policy experience with becoming president her only ambition. Hillary was less as effective as SecState as she was a senator. She was not interested in either job in terms of the greater good but rather saw the them as stepping stones to the White House.

It is now known that the SecState gig proved to be financially lucrative for the Clintons at a personal level. She may yet be indicted for because of that.

sure i guess you can call her a careerist or maybe an opportunist but too say she has no foreign policy successes is ridiculous, you would have hard time finding someone with more foreign policy experience than clinton, and you would have to declare that everything the USA has done for the past 20 or so years has been a failure, before you claim she has had no successes.......

she killed bin laden, she was senator of new york during 9/11, she was involved in iraq and afghanistan, the arab spring, the ukraine, South Sudan, Cuba, Korea, Iran, etc etc etc you can basically just google hillary clinton and a country's name and youll find something about her involvement there, not including her work outside the government ... even as first lady she was championing womens rights in Afghanistan (before 9/11) and even in China

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_Rights_Are_Human_Rights