@nevolo I completely understand your frustration with the Left complaining over tiny slivers of smug while evil is allowed full and actual reign. It is infuriating. That said, Hillary Clinton's biggest critique on the left is that she's a hawk; meaning, of course, that she is able and willing to fight evil abroad, even if that's problematic.
I don't trust Trump to do anything but talk. I believe Secretary Clinton has been restrained by President, and is willing and capable to handle ISIS and more. I understand your demographic frustration, but that's my analysis of the candidates. As a centrist (who's been forced Left by the freak-s[/i]how of the Republican primaries) Romney's critique of Trump struck me as influential. It's worth a watch.
Trump is a dangerous disgrace, an insincere and unprepared candidate more interested in amassing power and appealing to anger than in solving problems. While Hillary Clinton is an unlikeable, perhaps vaguely corrupt, old-time politician with tons of experience in international and domestic affairs. I go with Clinton ten times out of ten, but I understand the resentment and frustration with "politics as usual."
I get the frustration. But I'll take politics as usual over Trump.
I'm happy to discuss him here, however inclined, because people on this forum seem smart, educated, invested and sincere. I don't talk to many Trump supporters in real life who can give an argument beyond "telling it like it is" (but he lies, you know that right?) or "hating Hillary" (I get it, but this isn't your guy.) Trump is, in my opinion, a performer with no substance and a dangerous disgrace who's *insincerely* appealing to the anger in our country without providing solutions beyond-- what a coincidence!-- giving a completely unqualified and unstable angry man the nuclear codes.
Radical Islam is a real and serious threat, of course, but I trust our Secretary of State to deal with it more than I trust a reality show star, to be honest. When you remove the names, it becomes pretty silly IMO.
Neither Donald Trump nor Ted Cruz will become president. They are both loathed inside their parties and have high unfavorability ratings across the country.
Bernie Sanders seems cool, has all the right ideas, but I'm not sure he's serious. Hillary isn't fun but is a safe bet, more or less.
These are the opinions of me, some guy on the internet.
My understanding is that this is complicated. But something being complicated doesn't excuse us from attempting to pursue it further, especially with so much at stake.
My understanding, again, is that the Syrian refugees are those that are fleeing violence and ISIS in particular. This makes them the enemies of ISIS and the allies of the world at large; they are furthermore humans. We should aim to help people unless proven otherwise, you know?
As an American, my country has pledged to take 10,000 refugees. That is a very, very low number. I'd be comfortable with 15,000 or 20,000 without even blinking an eye. You could argue easily that 50,000 is better number, or even 100,000.
Now, the political and economic ramifications for taking 50,000 refugees is different than taking 10,000. The U.S. can take 10,000 without blinking and, from a strategic perspective, I think it helps the U.S. abroad to do so. I also think we're morally compelled to help others, and, if we're being real, we have the money. We can trim a couple billion dollars very easily from the military and re-distribute it to social causes around the country and the world for a better effect. This is a strategic and moral imperative.
And, frankly, if we have to pay to check these refugees more thoroughly-- if we give in to understandable paranoia to be safe-- yeah, fine, let's do it. I'm sure the refugees would be okay with that. It beats the alternative.
I don't trust Trump to do anything but talk. I believe Secretary Clinton has been restrained by President, and is willing and capable to handle ISIS and more. I understand your demographic frustration, but that's my analysis of the candidates. As a centrist (who's been forced Left by the freak-s[/i]how of the Republican primaries) Romney's critique of Trump struck me as influential. It's worth a watch.
Trump is a dangerous disgrace, an insincere and unprepared candidate more interested in amassing power and appealing to anger than in solving problems. While Hillary Clinton is an unlikeable, perhaps vaguely corrupt, old-time politician with tons of experience in international and domestic affairs. I go with Clinton ten times out of ten, but I understand the resentment and frustration with "politics as usual."
I get the frustration. But I'll take politics as usual over Trump.
I'm happy to discuss him here, however inclined, because people on this forum seem smart, educated, invested and sincere. I don't talk to many Trump supporters in real life who can give an argument beyond "telling it like it is" (but he lies, you know that right?) or "hating Hillary" (I get it, but this isn't your guy.) Trump is, in my opinion, a performer with no substance and a dangerous disgrace who's *insincerely* appealing to the anger in our country without providing solutions beyond-- what a coincidence!-- giving a completely unqualified and unstable angry man the nuclear codes.
Radical Islam is a real and serious threat, of course, but I trust our Secretary of State to deal with it more than I trust a reality show star, to be honest. When you remove the names, it becomes pretty silly IMO.
Neither Donald Trump nor Ted Cruz will become president. They are both loathed inside their parties and have high unfavorability ratings across the country.
Bernie Sanders seems cool, has all the right ideas, but I'm not sure he's serious. Hillary isn't fun but is a safe bet, more or less.
These are the opinions of me, some guy on the internet.
My understanding is that this is complicated. But something being complicated doesn't excuse us from attempting to pursue it further, especially with so much at stake.
My understanding, again, is that the Syrian refugees are those that are fleeing violence and ISIS in particular. This makes them the enemies of ISIS and the allies of the world at large; they are furthermore humans. We should aim to help people unless proven otherwise, you know?
As an American, my country has pledged to take 10,000 refugees. That is a very, very low number. I'd be comfortable with 15,000 or 20,000 without even blinking an eye. You could argue easily that 50,000 is better number, or even 100,000.
Now, the political and economic ramifications for taking 50,000 refugees is different than taking 10,000. The U.S. can take 10,000 without blinking and, from a strategic perspective, I think it helps the U.S. abroad to do so. I also think we're morally compelled to help others, and, if we're being real, we have the money. We can trim a couple billion dollars very easily from the military and re-distribute it to social causes around the country and the world for a better effect. This is a strategic and moral imperative.
And, frankly, if we have to pay to check these refugees more thoroughly-- if we give in to understandable paranoia to be safe-- yeah, fine, let's do it. I'm sure the refugees would be okay with that. It beats the alternative.