[DEBATE] Presidential Election - 2016 (closing Nov 22)

I'd like to say the UK, but I can't - our current government is pretty much just like a Trump US would be. I'd say Canada, since I prefer Justin Tredeau over David 'Piggy' Cameron.

That's just achieving their aims. To truly fight terrorism, you should show no major reaction to it. Yes, people are killed in terrorist attacks - it's okay to be angry or sad about that, but you shouldn't be scared of them, because that's exactly what they want. It's a viewpoint I can't explain properly without fear of offending someone, so I'd prefer to stray away from it. An example I'd use for it is the recent Paris attacks, though: I've heard people say they refuse to visit Paris in fear of terrorist attacks (and British and French people clash often ), but that is the exact reason the terrorists did what they did: to stop tourism, to stop people wanting to live there, to terrorise them. Just like what happened to airline companies after 9/11: they know what they're doing and they know how crippling it will be for economies and other such things.

Yea, I understand what you're saying, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take precautions against it. Trying to prevent attacks that would be inevitable if we did nothing to stop them isn't fear, it's just keeping our country safe.

I understand that, but going about it the way Trump seems to want to is the wrong way. It's a weird subject that I don't have any particular strong views on, I just think that we shouldn't be stopping people from entering a country based on their race and/or religion.

He is proposing that we send goods to the European nations housing the refugees, if you didn't understand what he meant. If you did, your response was pretty childish... The odds of food being sent to refugees in Europe being stolen are extremely low, especially if overseen at all.

We're doing fine without American intervention though?

Which they won't. The combined armed forces of the European Union (and Europe as a whole) are just as good, if not better, than the United States'. America has never won a war without outside intervention - if I recall correctly, at least one European nation has been involved in your wars at a time - I'm fairly sure we can hold our own against a terrorist organisation.

I wish that at least once in our life time United States focused on our home here, our 50 states and our needs and requirements and forgot about the outside for a while, made sure its people were fine, made sure its well being was fine before meddling in affairs across the ocean. In fact I'm very sure the middle east would be fine if we didn't stick our noses in their affairs in the first place, I mean why don't we just let them be and allow them to deal with their problems if one of them want help they can call and we will respond if we can. But I know we are a military driven country, we all get hard when we hear the word war, military, guns and meddling in affairs that don't concern us. And about letting refugees into the US, the chances of an attack is very slim, I mean last year most of the terrible instances of massacre was made by our own people, our own bread and butter, I don't think this "ISIS" is an issue, its only an issue because we are trying to control what happens like dictators over a country that is not ours that we have no rights over.

I was actually just trying to clarify what Lance meant, because I believe Chocolate misunderstood it. But, on a separate note, I think that, whilst it's not like the shit has hit the fan, the EU will be wounded economically wounded by the flood of immigrants. Germany is the only country that, in my eyes, has the land and the money to support the immigrants (& not all of them), although they won't be much longer with Merkel in office... But that's off topic. Sorry

How do you think we'll be economically wounded by the influx of immigrants? From what I can remember, its only a 1% increase in the population of Muslims already present in Europe and they will actually increase the GDP of the countries they're spread out over, which would increase the EU's standing as the best economy in the world above China. Also Germany won't have to support them all: France, the UK, Sweden, Norway, and Germany etc. can all handle the refugees economically and its not like they'll be sent to any one specific nation. Plus, the refugees aren't staying here forever. Once the Syrian Civil War ends they will be sent back to their home country - some are already leaving the countries they've been sent to due to the culture shock they've experienced.

lel, whoever voted Trump

niceme.me

http://nicememe.website/

Many immigrants are being fed by governments that are already facing economic crises. Though they may (I'm not sure, but I'll take your word for it) increase the GDP, the per-capita income comes down when you have either immigrants who do not work, or immigrants who take low paying jobs that unemployed Europeans could have taken. It'll cause economic problems as illegal immigration has in the US, but on a larger scale. France has had such an overflow of immigrants they had to build a large camp at Dunkirk, which has the British Navy patrolling the Channel Tunnel... That's evidence enough that France and the UK are struggling with the immigrants. Sweden and Norway simply cannot afford to provide the accommodations for the numerous refugees. And, even if Syria manages to work out it's problems (I believe it will turn into another Libya, a failed state occupied by extremists) there will be no sensible way to round up all of the immigrants and send them back to Syria.

This is a really good response to my statement. Thanks for keeping this mature .

I just realized that I missed this post, sorry.

Well, no one is accepted automatically. There are still background checks performed on everyone applying for a visa. There is a lack of background information on the Middle Eastern citizens applying for the visas. If you have an undocumented Yemeni applying for citizenship and a well documented citizen of the United Kingdom, would it not make sense to wait until you had background information on the Yemeni? But if you were to do so, it's unreasonable that the UK citizen has to wait because someone else isn't able to get their visa because they aren't presently qualified to receive it. I mean, this has been a problem for a while. Radicalists have found loopholes in the American Visa system and avoided background checks and made their way into the country undetected. The San Bernardino shooter entered the states with a K-1 visa. 19 of the 9/11 hijackers came into the USA on F-1 and M-1 visas. It's been a problem for a long time, and was clearly not properly combatted by the Bush Administration, but we didn't really know until San Bernardino.

Well, sadly, I agree that the American candidates are pretty far right compared to the rest of the world's leaders, although Hillary is far from a defender of the constitution.

America was founded on free enterprise. America's economy became the strongest in the world because of free enterprise. America was founded on Say's Law, not John Keynes' ideas.

Now, onto abortion. Just skip this if you don't want to hear what I have to say about it. I believe abortion is murder. Abortion is the murder of an infant that has yet to be born, but is nonetheless alive. To me, there's no difference between abortion and murder other than that one is legal and one isn't. Outlawing abortion isn't socially overbearing. It's defending the millions of infants that are killed in abortions every year. It's an American citizen's constitutional right to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness whether they are born or unborn.

I honestly have no opinion on gay marriage. I don't support it, but I see no reason for it to be illegal, so... Yeah.

If someone is truly religious, their religion is part of who they are. If you have a religious president, they will support views that correspond with their religion. I believe it's a violation of their freedom of religion to say that because their ideals go along with the person they are, they cannot speak of or propose what they believe is best.

If you get the idea that the "uneducated" vote Republican from the 2008 polls, consider the two candidates in that election. I think if we see Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton on the ballet, you will get a different outcome

To be honest I hope I wont get banned for this but www.loser.com

If its too rude Ill like it to be removed

Hey. I totally agree with you on abortion. I just feel that abortion is a lost war in this case, and therefore we need to divert our attention to the more relevant concerns like equality and education.

One reason why I believe it is a bad idea to vote for a president based on their associated religion is that I feel like sometimes they are going to act out of ignorance and do what their religion says is best but very well may not be best. Even in christianity, some beliefs and interpretations are polar opposites. I've grown up in a world where a great deal of the truly religious people are horribly hypocritical. They say they follow god's teachings and yet they support violence in the form of unnecessary wars, they believe in torture for the benefit of our country, they support putting people to death for a worldly crime. It makes no sense to me, and I despise people who are like that. Being both a member of the LGBT movement as well as a devoted catholic, it is easy to recognize the amount of religious people who actually truly hate gays with a passion 'because of their religion' and it truly makes no sense.

The only reason you may have interpreted what I said in the way you did was because I cited a very sturdy and specific correlation between education level and political opinion. There indeed may and probably some third factors that are put into play here, but the more formal education you have, the more likely you are to make a liberal vote. This is true worldwide, not only in America. Of course, it may have something to do with student loans and the related, but you get the idea. It's just something to consider.

I would like to ask your opinion on global warming, seeing how much you support senator Cruz.

US history class?