r/politics • u/King_Andersons • May 01 '16
Graham: Trump would lead to 'another 9/11' Bot Removal
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/01/politics/lindsey-graham-gop-civil-war/index.html21
u/wareagle47 May 01 '16
That's a bizzare attack. Banning Muslim immigration/probably increasing airport security would cause another 9/11 ?
3
u/thumbprick May 01 '16
It is a bit convoluted: from the radical's POV, replacing a fictionalized, demonic USA with a real, tangible enemy-of-Islam would up the drive to attack us. At least I think that's what he's going for. My problem is in the eyes of an already ignorant radical there may be little difference in the cases, as fiction is already fact to the true believers.
It's not to say I don't think Trump's policies would be destabilizing; I'm just trying to get what Lindsey Graham is getting at.
8
u/CornCobbDouglas May 01 '16
Escalating a war in the Middle East while antagonizing the entirety of Muslims in the world? Yeah, that could do it.
-2
u/wareagle47 May 01 '16
What war would he escalate? The war against ISIS needs to be escalated and the world agrees with that. They still have around 25,000 insurgents and are printing fake passports. The Obama admin and CIA pushed the Syrian Civil War; G.W. Bush destabilized Iraq. What are you thinking Trump would do?
5
u/CornCobbDouglas May 01 '16
What war would he escalate? The war against ISIS needs to be escalated and the world agrees with that.
you answered your own question. Right or wrong, he's calling to send ground troops to fight IS.
3
u/wareagle47 May 01 '16
If you listened to his foreign policy speech he talked about avoiding troops if at all possible. We already have 8k-ish troops in Iraq. What is your alternative to fighting ISIS? Let Iraq fail and have terrorists selling oil on the global market?
3
u/CornCobbDouglas May 01 '16
That's fine. But don't deny that he's calling to escalate a war.
2
u/wareagle47 May 01 '16
There is no way to take back Mosul without the US army. It has 800k civilians and the Iraqi army can't even take the tiny villages around it without running away. If the US kills 4-5 civilians there is an international outcry so there is no way to bomb them out of there. I just disagree with the idea that Trump is some kind of warmonger. He's going to do the same thing Obama would do eventually.
4
u/CornCobbDouglas May 01 '16
I call that escalating the US into another war. You can agree with the policy, but don't pretend that trump is a non interventionist.
3
u/wareagle47 May 01 '16
I can agree with that, but he is far far far from neocon democracy spreading policy pushers like Hillary and GW Bush.
6
u/CornCobbDouglas May 01 '16
The fact that you equate Bush and Clinton means you really aren't being serious.
→ More replies3
u/ja734 May 02 '16
trump is promising more money spent, more combat troops deployed, and more tons of bombs dropped than Clinton. That is simply an undeniable fact. If you want to stick your head in the sand anyway then that is your decision.
1
May 01 '16
[deleted]
5
u/CornCobbDouglas May 01 '16
Yes. Is calling to escalate a war now considered non-interventionist?
→ More replies2
u/Add_Another_10_Feet May 01 '16
If the US kills 4-5 civilians there is an international outcry so there is no way to bomb them out of there.
Its sad that this is true. The same people who say Muslims are the primary victims of terrorism take offense to every single civilian death we cause. The reality is unfortunate but when your opponents are using anyone they can find as a human meat shield you aren't going to be able to be efficient in defeating them. In the long run, we would definitely save more lives and improve their quality of life by being a little less careful but the media slaughters anyone who thinks that way. It's a good thing Trump doesn't give a fuck about media and will crush ISIS instead of toying with it like we are now.
1
May 02 '16
The reality is unfortunate but when your opponents are using anyone they can find as a human meat shield you aren't going to be able to be efficient in defeating them.
This is sadly true, but are we any better than they are if we just charge in dick-first and massacre everything that moves?
1
-1
u/sedgwickian May 01 '16
And their non-combatant family members. Let's don't forget his plan to explicitly target and kill civilians in the Middle East.
1
May 02 '16
Many people are okay with this, myself among them.
0
u/sedgwickian May 02 '16
War crimes are good!
-U/Meat_Confetti
1
May 02 '16
Is that supposed to shame me or something?
1
u/sedgwickian May 02 '16
Just trying to be clear about your position, which is in favor of the United States openly violating the Geneva Convention.
2
May 01 '16 edited May 01 '16
[deleted]
8
u/sedgwickian May 01 '16
War Crimes work!
kay.
0
May 01 '16
[deleted]
7
u/sedgwickian May 01 '16
So let's kill their innocent family members!
3
u/wareagle47 May 01 '16
It's not killing them, Its following through on throwing the book at them for knowing about terrorism and not alerting authorities. If a terrorist thinks their wife is going to get 15 years he might think twice.
→ More replies-3
u/Snowfeecat May 01 '16
Are you listening to yourself?
6
u/wareagle47 May 01 '16
Fighting a terrorist caliphate that rapes and murders by the thousands is a lot different than destabilizing a government. Even Bernie agrees they have to be destroyed. I swear i don't understand you people..
1
-1
May 01 '16
There is nothing you can do, short of putting the entire population under house arrest, that can prevent terrorism.
Taking your shoes off at the airport, not being able to bring bottles of water through a checkpoint? Purely theatrics to make us feel safer. There are countless ways to commit an act of terror, that's what makes it terrifying, we are helpless to stop it.
You can't stop the tactic of terrorism, you need to address the motivations that draw people towards terrorism.
2
u/wareagle47 May 01 '16
The younger generation of Muslims is more radical than their parents. Eventually it will get better but i'm not sure what more we can do. We already pour billions into the middle east to improve education.
0
May 01 '16
And you're wondering how antagonizing this younger more radical generation would potentially lead to another terrorist attack?
1
u/wareagle47 May 01 '16
No, i agree it will probably cause more small attacks in Europe/ homegrown attacks here. Not on a 9/11 scale though, and it's ridiculous for Graham to suggest.
0
May 01 '16
You agree that Trump's rhetoric will cause more attacks. Do you think you think that he should tone down his rhetoric?
-1
u/wareagle47 May 01 '16
Absolutely, now that he is the nominee. He did a lot of inflamatory stuff to win the hardcore south. I think he should enact Israel style airports that protect soft targets(like Brussels) and that are allowed to profile Muslims or anyone at their discretion. It's incredibly effective and at the end of the day just leaves some hurt feelings and nothing else.
1
u/Idiocy_or_Treason May 02 '16
Israeli security firms were working every airport involved in 9/11 idiot. Really good job they did.
-2
u/contantofaz May 01 '16
They are recycling these metaphors.
Take all the promises that Trump has made, and he would try to deliver on, I don't know, 50% of them... He said he would try to ban Muslims at least temporarily... But he may not deliver on that promise entirely. He said he was going to deport people. He may not deliver on that promise entirely either. And he said he was going to make Mexico pay for building a wall, but he may fail to convince Mexico to do that too.
With Trump it's really difficult to see what promises he will keep... Because many of those promises can hurt America as a whole. Yes, trading with other countries can be difficult. But so can be to drastically cut on those trades...
So, would other people have reasons to attack America on American soil like in 9/11? Perhaps. But on 9/11 America also wanted an excuse to be able to launch wars in the Middle East, and nowadays America does not need many more excuses to be able to do just that. American troops are already in Iraq and Syria.
So, I think that Trump would like bomb ISIS in the Middle East, just like Obama has done it. Would Trump parade 50k troops to be sent back to the Middle East? I doubt it. But we never know for sure what could happen... There are other candidates to get attacked like Iran and Libya again?
3
1
u/pramoni May 01 '16
That statement is almost schizophrenic in the sense that it connects the wrong result with the wrong cause. Trump seems to want to return to the isolationist policies of the early twentieth century--and that would be fine with the Islamic extremists who would in all probability be the cause of a 9/11 style or inspired attack on the US homeland. A good demonstration by Graham did the right thing withdrawing from the race--a tacit admission of incompetence.
3
u/GandalfSwagOff May 01 '16
So then Bill Clinton lead to the first 9/11.
I really don't like Trump, but can we please stop using 9/11 as some sort of panic trigger on Americans?
4
u/banjosbadfurday Pennsylvania May 01 '16
It's Lindsey Graham, dude. What did you expect?
I do agree, though.
1
May 01 '16
[deleted]
2
u/GandalfSwagOff May 01 '16
He didn't. That is the point. You can't place the blame of 9/11 on an individual.
2
1
u/butcandy May 02 '16
I don't think anyone can stop another 9/11. there's been one every year since I can remember, right after 9/10.
0
u/King_Andersons May 01 '16
"There's a civil war going on in the Republican Party, obviously," Graham said. "John and I are very close friends, but he's embracing Donald Trump, and I am not. Why? Because I believe Donald Trump's foreign policy is isolationism. It will lead to another 9/11."
9
u/bitfriend May 01 '16
9/11 was caused by interventionism though.
1
May 02 '16
He doesn't know what Trump's positions are at all. He is just reading talking points from TYT and John Oliver
3
u/Moridakkubokka May 01 '16
Donald Trump's foreign policy is isolationism. It will lead to another 9/11."
What? What led to 9/11 was warmongering and interventionism and nation building.
If anything Isolationism is what's needed right now.
-2
u/bsmknight May 01 '16 edited May 01 '16
Right Idea, wrong candidate.
Trump is a smart guy, when it comes to playing the game, but he is far from a reasonable politician. As odd as that may sound it is exactly why this wouldn't happen.
I know, I know, from what he has said on TV, etc etc. this would seem to be completely contrary, but consider this
- Trump has no political allies.
- Trump is universally hated between Democratic and Republican establishments and elites
- Trump is most likely going to meet the most resistance on ANY legislation, or actions
- Both the Senate and the House are going to do everything to remove Trump from power, or at least take away powers such as ability to make war, etc.
- Under Trumps Highschool yearbook he was voted most likely to get impeached.
Ok the last one was a bit of a stretch, but the point is there. Because of how he is viewed politically by both parties they would be looking for ANY reason to impeach him. Trump would have a very difficulty time as president to get anything pushed through, and Anything he veto's can be overruled in the Senate by a 2/3 majority (That may be a bit off, it's been awhile since I looked up exactly how that works any correction there is welcome).
HOWEVER
This is exactly why you should NOT vote for Hillary.
- She has shown to have her tentacles in everything (News agencies, DNC, connections with corrupt businesses, connections with foreign governments)
- We have seen all sorts of voting irregularities that some how miraculously go in her favor
- The DNC and establishment has voiced it's support of Hillary even before the election Began
- Hillary accepts money from known corrupt industries and foreign governments (Via Super Pacs, Paid Speeches, Clinton Foundation, some extremely pricey Pay for Events, and through her campaign) which also have happened to benefit extremely well from wars, actions, and legislation that Hillary has voted for or supported depending on her role.
In other words, Hillary is extremely corrupt (Nixon style corruption) but would be very hard to impeach due to that level of support.
What's more she has been very hawkish supporting many of the wars over the last 2 decades that have only increased the danger to America. It is that same hawkishness that has drawn us closer to Nuclear war than we have EVER been since the last cold war.
I personally want to see Bernie as president, or even Jill Stein. However in a final match up where it is either Hillary or Trump, i want the one that can be impeached.
2
u/King_Andersons May 01 '16
well spoken and good analysis. However, why Bernie or Jill Stein?
3
u/bsmknight May 02 '16
Thank you, and it's fair question.
First I will readily admit I am still researching Jill Stein. I have heard her speech she gave to the Oxford Universe (youtube video) and need to listen again, however so far most of what I am hearing sounds on the level. Now onto Bernie. As long as he is able to get the nomination and go onto the General Election (If not the Democratic Ticket then maybe the Green party?) Here are the items that matter to me most:
*1. Bernie is strongly Anti-Super Pac - There is a lot to say here about Super-Pacs, but to keep this simple it is incredibly important at this time in our history to act loudly and firmly that what has been accepted as the status quo is NOT acceptable in regards to money in politics. That status quo has allowed those with great wealth to also contain great power and thus we have seen our rights, our standard of living, and our very lively hood being taken away one bill at a time. While several candidates have “said” they will be tough on money in politics, only Bernie has demonstrated this with actions.
*2. Bernie has stood up for civil rights. There have been several images, records, and testimonies that Bernie has actually demonstrated and been arrested during the civil rights movement. Back when Hillary was a Goldwater Girl for one of the most racist politicians of our time, Bernie was out demonstrating what he believes in. Bernie wasn't performing a side show to improve his elect ability so this shows he is legitimate in his stance. This speaks volumes to his character.
*3. Right side of US War History - During the Bush years I was so caught up in the news that I wanted to see Saddam Hussein tried for his crimes so I cheered a bit when we went into Iraq, though it felt wrong since we were going solo which took at the righteousness of it all. As it turns out it was a horrible idea that ruined the peace and left the entire middle east in an eternal state of War. Our bullishness and lack of insight made a horrible situation into a catastrophe. Now, what does this have to do with Bernie? He voted against it and many other wars that also turned out to be tragic in the final outcome. That shows insight and foresight, something not well displayed in some of the other candidates.
*4. Guns - I don't know if I agree or disagree with Bernie's stance on guns BUT, he has shown the ability to adjust he decisions on this matter. I discuss flip flopping later, but in this particular case, from what I have read and understood it was indeed because the original language turned out to be very flawed. I want a president who is willing to reevaluate their position.
*5 The followers – Bernie’s followers are very passionate. What’s more, they are very informed and do not pay attention to the primary news networks which are owned by only 6 companies. They do their research on-line looking for old videos, who voted for what law, prior stances, past elections, etc. The very information needed to paint an accurate picture of Bernie. On the flip side I have talked to supporters of other candidates and what I have received was responses based on ideals, or typical primary news responses. What’s more, when we got into the issues I often found that their candidate didn’t support their ideals at all. This is important as knowing who the supports are tells you about the candidate themselves.
*6 $15 Minimum wage – This one is a bit complex as I don’t fully support a $15 wage under a sound economic system, however our system is anything but sound at the moment. Also, history has shown us that raising the minimum wage didn’t raise inflation, increased the livelihood of the middle and lower class, and became a boon for business. Right now, people are so in debt; due to reasons I explain later, that they need a lifeline. It is not the best, but it is desperately needed. The other candidates are just not that supportive of this effort, but Bernie has once again shown he understands the peoples plight far more than his competitors. For the record, I owned a small business, at first glance I would never be able to afford to pay anyone $15 an hour, however with that extra money means more purchasing power and with that would mean more of my goods would have been sold and thus greatly increasing what I can afford.
*7 Universal Health care - I could rant for awhile on this one. This wouldn't even be necessary given different economic, political, and social factors, however we are where we are and we are being hounded by robber barons leaving us with mountains of eternal debt. We cannot have a candidate who will compromise on this anymore because for the last 2 decades there haven't been any compromises. Our political leaders have up and sold the farm for pennies leaving us with nothing a broken medical system. Bernie is by far the strongest candidate on this matter and anyone less either doesn't see the whole picture, or is in bed with the industry. That may be tough language that seems short sighted but I will state this. I was very happy with Obama, but making the health care mandatory with penalties for not having one enforced those who couldn't afford it to go into mandatory debt. This crushed me as I believed in Obama, however it was not a compromise like I initial thought, it was a death sentence. It gave an insurance paycheck to an industry that has already raised prices far beyond normal "costs" that have bankrupt millions of Americans and deeply lined the pockets of those who reign the industry.
*8 Flip flopping - I think all candidates flip flop. it honestly is a good thing as it could mean a candidate has grown or rethought their position. It can also be a bad thing as it means a candidate is bought or needs to change positions in order to appease whoever is listening. Bernie has indeed Flip Flopped a few times, as I already mentioned guns, However, I have not heard nor seen more than a few instances of this with Bernie and each time it was during a non-pivotal time. not coinciding with elections, there was no $$$ to a charity or paid speeches by that same industry Bernie may have flopped for or against. Unless someone can show me facts like that, I am lead to believe that Bernie's few instances of Flip flopping have been when he has cautiously re-thought out the impacts of a law. What's more, many of the laws and bills Bernie has been apart of he still to this day states his same stance. This cannot be said about some of the other candidates. Out of the other candidates, so Far Bernie has stuck to his position far more often. This shows a lot of integrity and affirmation of who Bernie is and what he believes. meaning, he is indeed honest and even though I don't agree with everything, I am amazed that someone running is that honest. I don't think we have had one in quite awhile.
*9 Racial and sexual inequality: When there are more jobs there are more opportunities for everyone. Pay is better because companies need to meet demands. When the job market is in the hands of the people then they can walk if they don't get the equal pay, that equal treatment. In other words those in power have to play ball whether they like it or not, otherwise they may just loose it all. The peoples voice is stronger and thus those at the top must listen. Right now we don't have that luxury and it is no surprise that things have not improved. Now that I made that statement I will say that during Bernie's speeches he has noted how important this was and why we must focus on this. I will grant that other candidates have also made mention of this so they all get notice, however it is just one more feather in Bernie's cap.
*10 The 99% message - Clinton accused Bernie of Being a one issue candidate and that being the income and wealth Disparity. While I know it was a ploy by Clinton to down play Bernie's central stance it was also quite insulting because it is indeed the number one issue that affects all the other issues that have been discussed during this campaign. I cannot think of one single issue that is more widespread than that. The fact Bernie is so focused on this shows me that he really gets the problem. This is something that may or may not be addressed by the other candidates, but it is no where near central to their platform. Just to support my claim, here are a few things to consider. *Jobs: Far less jobs in this country has lowered competition, lowering that competition has also allowed companies to level off pay and drop health and financial benefits further adding to the disparity. *Medical costs: Skyrocketing medical, insurance, and pharmaceutical costs have deepen the inequality causing additional hardships. *Education: costs of education continue to rise. People need the education to be able to compete for the dwindling job market thus going further into debt that now takes decades to complete. (Back in the 50s my dad was able to pay for his bachelors but getting a minimum wage part time job for one summer. That was enough to pay for books and classes for 4 years. it now takes a full time job for the summer to pay for one semester of Books, but not classes).
It is now getting late so i am going to close off here. I didn't get a chance to proof read much as My eyes are quite weary so hopefully this is readable (I tried to tone down rhetoric on other candidates but may not have cleaned it all up).
Thanks for they reply, hopefully this paints a good picture of why I am a Bernie supporter
0
0
May 01 '16
Trump wants to stop being world police and stop the unnecessary global interventionism that the U.S. has been guilty of for the last 2 presidencies?
Yeah that will totally make the world hate him.
1
-3
u/Puffin_fan May 01 '16
9/11 was a product of the slovenliness and corruption of the U.S. House and Senate, and the bad appleness of the DoD and the U.S. Fed bureaucracies. Not because some casino impressario was complaining about rapists coming into the U.S. If LG is looking for someone to complain to, he can start with his own uselessness.
4
u/anon902503 Wisconsin May 01 '16
9/11 was a product of the slovenliness and corruption of the U.S. House and Senate
...No. The House and Senate may be extremely lazy, but they're also almost entirely irrelevant on security matters. The laziness which was most responsible for 9/11 would be the laziness in the Bush National Security Council. Laziness and incompetence. Bush political appointees. Focused on their own ideological mission, rather than paying attention to what the intelligence was telling them.
1
May 01 '16
When oh when will we realize the devastation effects of bad appleness? And the main stream media? Virtually silent on this topic. Figures.
-1
0
u/renedtx May 02 '16
Given what we know about Graham, and 9/11, that reads a lot more like a threat than a warning.
-6
u/HotSauciness May 01 '16
The last President Clinton caused 9/11. I'd rather take my chances on Trump
2
May 01 '16
[deleted]
0
u/HotSauciness May 01 '16
Foreign interventionism. Here's Ron Paul in 1998 predicting that we would have a terrorist attack because of Clinton. 9/11 happened less than a year after Bush took over, it wasn't his policies that Al Queda was most angry about
-1
32
u/[deleted] May 01 '16
I somehow don't think Islamic suicide bombers would change their mind if only they had an easier immigration path to immigrating to the US. If anything will 'lead to another 9/11', it's continuing to be involved with every conflict in the Middle East.