{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
12/16/2015 4:00:44 AM
1
You'd take an unconstitutional nominee other than someone with at least some sense?
English
-
Ted Cruz has no sense
-
How exactly?
-
It was tongue in cheek. I wouldn't say he has no sense in fact he is very smart but I personally don't like the guy. I don't like most of his ideas and I don't think he can beat Clinton in a general election. I like Marco Rubio
-
Rubio who wants to unconstitutionally spy on everyone, arrest people without due process, create a no fly zone where people are already flying and continue a war which will cause only more violence? Not to mention adding [b]another 3 trillion[/b] to the national debt.
-
[quote]Rubio who wants to unconstitutionally spy on everyone, arrest people without due process, create a no fly zone where people are already flying and continue a war which will cause only more violence? Not to mention adding [b]another 3 trillion[/b] to the national debt.[/quote] We are already being kept tabs on and you can blame Marco but I can tell you the reason that is is only because of 9/11 and the attacks that followed including attacks overseas like the one in Paris. War is violent it's the way it's been and will be that way forever and I'd like to tell you we can ignore terrorists org like ISIL and they will go away but they are here and they are thriving. Idk if you agree or not but I truly believe we have to go to Libya, Syria, etc and end ISIL before they do more damage to us. You'll have to explain the due process thing to me
-
Paris has a spying programs a hundredfold more intrusive than ours and that didn't help in the slightest with the terror attacks on Paris. Our spying didn't help again San Bernadino or the Boston Bombing. In fact, the FBI says we've not countered any terrorist plot with this spying program. The only way there will be a permanent solution is if it's Arab boots on the ground (yes I'm aware this is now Rubios stance, Stolen from Rand) so us going in there and bombing helps nobody. Rubio hasn't called a stop to arming the allies of Daesh like Rand has. Due process = trial, evidence, etc. the bill he supports will enable citizens to be imprisoned without due process, that violates the constitution also. He also wants to add 3 trillion to the national debt for military alone, and he's bought by his sponsors, this is evident when he voted against new small businesses that were competing with his sponsors, he only likes capitalism when it benefits him
-
Wars cost money and if we want to destroy ISIS then it isn't going to be free but he has also talked about cutting back in other areas
-
French intelligence is not as good as ours and yes they did attack at San Bernardino but also look at the attacks we have stopped since 9/11. You can't really claim the this kind of intelligence gathering doesn't work. I still don't know what bill you are talking about in regards to due process but if it is about homegrown terrorists than imo they waive their rights when they become allied to our enemies that want to destroy us.
-
Editado por Nverted-Angel: 12/17/2015 3:48:08 AMWe haven't stopped any attacks since 9/11, what are you talking about. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/fbi-confirms-no-major-terrorism-cases-cracked-via-unconstitutional-patriot-act-phone-spying.html Trading your Liberty for false security never ever works and it's been proven time and time again. It's the fact that if you're even suspected of being a terrorist they can just jail you, that's unconstitutional, they don't even have to prove you are one. ISIS isn't our job, he says he's going to let Arab troops do it, yet he's still gonna add 3 trillion dollars. The debt is the biggest threat to our national security and he'll drive the country into the ground.
-
Editado por Negative Space: 12/17/2015 3:58:57 AMIt's not the only tool in fighting terrorism but I'm sure it has helped. How exactly do you think they go about finding and thwarting the attacks in the past couple years like underwear or shoe would be bomber. I'm don't agree with jailing innocent civilians so I wouldn't lump those 2 but until we can defeat this threat then we have to be vigilant. When they came out with the number of over 200 ISIS sympathizers ( I might be a little off on that number) in the US today wouldn't you feel better knowing someone was keeping an eye on those people. I get the security vs Liberty argument but I think that there should be a balance. If it's all Liberty then let's disband the police departments all across the country. If it's all security then let's just declare Marshall law now. I think we should find the balance that keeps us free and safe
-
We need targeted spying with a warrant and probable cause. Blanket spying of all people is unconstitutional, targeted surveillance works the best. I bet it'd feel better if you knew surveillance was focused on those 200 rather than them splitting focus across the entire country.
-
I can see that. But you know those people have to be discovered somehow. Do I want them to keep track of everything we do online? No. Can you tell me how to them otherwise though? I understand everything you are saying but if we go by what you are saying then we can't be in an uproar if we do get attacked because then we can't blame the CIA or any other agency. The best way to fix all this to go over there eliminate ISIS and this conversation should be over then because after that they have no reason to surveil anyone without warrants
-
Yet they haven't ever been discovered and we've been using it for 14 years, we gave up our liberty for nothing.
-
You need to be supporting Rand Paul and not Ted Cruz then. Cruz was trying to author the "Freedom" act that would limit collect data over your phone but increase it over the web. Paul aligns better with what you are saying but he also believes we can sit back and hope ISIS disappears one day by themselves
-
I do support Paul. Paul is for not arming ISIS anymore (or as he puts it, "the allies of ISIS".) and letting the Muslims fight their war because that's the only way we'll get a permanent solution.
-
What if that permanent solution is USIS taking full control of Syria and Libya? Do we let continue to expand there influence across the Middle East, then Europe, and eventually here?
-
Our Influence caused ISIS, if we do what you just suggested all of the Middle East will become radicalized
-
I agree we did help cause it in conjunction with oppressive regimes but let's talk about now. How do we fix it today? Do we sit back pray and hope that ISIS doesn't win this civil war?
-
We pull out and let the counterterrorism forces already there do what they're doing. Iraq even said if we'd leave they could expunge them within weeks.
-
I don't think they can defeat them.
-
Russia and Syria is doing just fine and Iraq said they could defeat them easily if the US would back out
-
Russia and Syria are only interested in going after the rebels to protect Assad. After the Russian airliner went down then things finally started to change. The ones really interested in going after ISIS are us, Turkey, Egypt, UAE, France, and England. What do you think would happen at the first conflict or accident with Russia and one of these countries? I'm sorry but we need to be there.
-
Russia has done more than everyone else combined with fighting ISIS, they even exposed Turkey helping them. NATO and the US are trying to bait Russia and Russia isn't biting.
-
For the better part of this conflict they have been attacking the rebels and not ISIS. We'll have agree to disagree then
-
Rebels that sympathize with ISIS, which most do. Real evidence proves "moderate rebels" are mostly a myth.
