World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[Ack]

I'm looking over Hilary's plan. Some of it I like, some of it I don't, some of it seems like common sense to me. Since I like Foreign Relations and Defense the most, I'll focus on that.

Clinton now opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership. She said it should go further to produce new jobs, raise wages, and protect national security. She supported the TPP while Secretary of State. She remains a NAFTA supporter, and does not oppose the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

Well, that's straight-forward enough I suppose. This is a general "yes/no" approach, though I'm curious what she'll want in place of the TPP.

Clinton would combat terrorism with improved intelligence instead of troops. For example, agencies would use social media posts to identify terrorists. Visa applications would require full screenings for those who had traveled to terrorist countries. Operations officers and linguists would be added to U.S. intelligence agencies

...don't we already do this? If not, how have we gone this long without it? What is meant by "intelligence agencies"? Does this mean an expansion of operational and linguistics roles for DHS and FBI, or more like additional manpower for CIA, NSA, NGA, or NRO? Also, what is meant by "terrorist countries"? States that sponsor terrorism or states where terrorist organizations are active, such as Ireland? If state sponsored, what do we do about nations such as Iran?

Also, by "improved intelligence instead of troops," does she mean specifically military or any kind of human presence? Will she be deemphasizing the role of military intelligence organizations in favor of civilian ones?

[MrPopo]

Also, by "improved intelligence instead of troops," does she mean specifically military or any kind of human presence? Will she be deemphasizing the role of military intelligence organizations in favor of civilian ones?

Wasn't Skyfall about precisely this question?

[J T]

Clinton would combat terrorism with improved intelligence instead of troops. For example, agencies would use social media posts to identify terrorists. Visa applications would require full screenings for those who had traveled to terrorist countries. Operations officers and linguists would be added to U.S. intelligence agencies

...don't we already do this? If not, how have we gone this long without it? What is meant by "intelligence agencies"? Does this mean an expansion of operational and linguistics roles for DHS and FBI, or more like additional manpower for CIA, NSA, NGA, or NRO? Also, what is meant by "terrorist countries"? States that sponsor terrorism or states where terrorist organizations are active, such as Ireland? If state sponsored, what do we do about nations such as Iran?

Also, by "improved intelligence instead of troops," does she mean specifically military or any kind of human presence? Will she be deemphasizing the role of military intelligence organizations in favor of civilian ones?

These are all good questions for which I want to know the answers too. I imagine that this "improved intelligence" would likely mean more online surveillance. I hope it doesn't mean bringing back bulk collection of telephone metadata (which was supposed to stop with the USA Freedom Act), or some even more wide-ranging dragnet strategy of surveillance of non-suspects, like the liberal use of Stingray technologies, or voice-to-text data collection of phone calls for enhanced searchability of what should be private communications. Even if she does want these things though, this issue wouldn't change my vote as we already know that Donald is in favor of spying on Americans. I simply want to know what Hillary's plans are because I am an advocate of privacy rights and am opposed to governments collecting massive amounts of unconsented private information on its people to be used for some unforeseen future reason. Whoever gets into office, I'll be pushing for them to listen to groups that advocate for digital privacy like the EFF.

[J T]

There are a few other points I want to make because I have been watching speeches from the RNC and DNC conventions these past few weeks. The Republicans, and of course Donald, said a lot about lawlessness and illegal immigration, and tried to state that Donald would be the one person that would make our country safe again. I'm really bothered by this because it is based on misrepresentation of data and is clearly designed to make people feel afraid.

I just want to highlight that nationwide, crime is down and has been on the decline since the early 90s, and is now proportionately about half of what it was then. Here are the statistics so you can see for yourself. Also, here is the FBI's report. Remember that as the population increases, so do the number of crimes, so you have to look at the data for "crimes per 100,000" people. Yes, there are more total crimes, but proportion is far lower. Keep this in mind because the republicans are amping up fear by focusing on the totals and by pointing to just the cities where crime rates actually are on the rise. When confronted on this, Newt Gingrich outright said that it is more important how voters feel than what the numbers actually are. Unbelievable!

In Newt's defense though, there are definitely major cities throughout the country where crime has risen, but given the overall drop, this becomes more of a local issue than a federal issue.

The RNC are using similar cherry-picked data tactics to create fear about unauthorized immigration, when the full picture of the data doesn't actually demonstrate that this is a worsening problem. This is a complicated issue though that does require some pouring over facts and figures to get a handle on because you have to distinguish between legal and unauthorized immigrants, and it can be difficult to get an accurate estimate of unauthorized immigrants because they may be under the radar and undocumented. Nevertheless, you have to go with the best available data you have, and immigration problems are not getting worse. Here are the actual numbers.

Let me be clear, I am not saying that crime or unauthorized immigration are not problems; they are. They are just not as bad as the RNC is trying to make them sound, they are improving on the whole, and Donald is not the only solution (he just wants you to believe he is). Plenty of democrats care about this too. Given the steady improvement seen over the past 15 years, we should continue on the same path we have been on because it appears to be working. This, of course, is not true in some cities with higher crime rates, which likely need a locally different approach (something true "state's rights" republicans would normally endorse if they weren't so busy trying to get Donald elected).

[TEKTORO]

Thanks JT for the info!

Let me clarify I don't hate trump or anyone for that matter. I actually like the Apprentice show but not feeling him under any other aspect. Also I'm not identifying with Hilary due to trust as I'm independent because that's what I've been fighting for my whole life regardless of who was president. Never been into politics before but let's be honest this time around is a circus so how can I not follow the damned if you do damned if you don't candidates.

I know there's good corps out there but not nearly enough. When the day comes I can do business with these people without signing my death certificate maybe I'll believe till then I'm not.

In fact I urge everyone to not sign anything ever unless it's clear and simple. Everything people deserve and need has been turned into a trap. Homes, Food, Medical, Financial and all in all fair equality. Obviously we're dealing with highly intelligent cons running the country For some time now. Creepily methodical.

[MrPopo]

In fact I urge everyone to not sign anything ever unless it's clear and simple. Everything people deserve and need has been turned into a trap. Homes, Food, Medical, Financial and all in all fair equality. Obviously we're dealing with highly intelligent cons running the country For some time now. Creepily methodical.

I feel like I'd get an amazing response if I asked you about who shot JFK or 9/11.

[TEKTORO]

In fact I urge everyone to not sign anything ever unless it's clear and simple. Everything people deserve and need has been turned into a trap. Homes, Food, Medical, Financial and all in all fair equality. Obviously we're dealing with highly intelligent cons running the country For some time now. Creepily methodical.

I feel like I'd get an amazing response if I asked you about who shot JFK or 9/11.

JFK was a little before my times but there's no technology in the world that can debunk that conspiracy so therefore I believe it was fixed due to the power and ability to do so.

9/11 now that's something I believe was let done and I'll title 9/11 as a blood money job.

[J T]

Never been into politics before but let's be honest this time around is a circus so how can I not follow the damned if you do damned if you don't candidates.

I know there's good corps out there but not nearly enough.

Well, welcome to politics. I've been into them for many years now. My advice is that you have to learn how to read through the rhetoric to find the truth. Look to data and policy choices rather than speeches if you want to get a sense for what a politician is really about. Here is a helpful list of all of the cognitive mistakes we all can easily make in decision making (the most notable of which are the confirmation bias, the base rate fallacy, and the availability heuristic) and logical fallacies that often arise in debate. Know that politicians play to these biases in their voters and constituents all the time, and they frequently make the logical fallacies in debate. The same is true of the media. Demand evidence and think critically.

Yes, there are good corporations out there. The best political decisions will include corporate concerns because this is good for the economy, jobs, and tax revenue. It's just that it is also necessary to make sure they don't do things that will harm workers, harm consumers, dodge taxes, or break the economy. I get so tired of the excuse that everyone always makes that "businesses only exist to make money" which someone says almost any time a business does something morally reprehensible. While it is obvious that any business wants a profit, this doesn't mean that the business is exempt from social responsibility. Businesses also exist to provide a quality service to their customers and to give back to the larger communities of which they are a part of (not just the community of their share holders).

[MrPopo]

In fact I urge everyone to not sign anything ever unless it's clear and simple. Everything people deserve and need has been turned into a trap. Homes, Food, Medical, Financial and all in all fair equality. Obviously we're dealing with highly intelligent cons running the country For some time now. Creepily methodical.

I feel like I'd get an amazing response if I asked you about who shot JFK or 9/11.

JFK was a little before my times but there's no technology in the world that can debunk that conspiracy so therefore I believe it was fixed due to the power and ability to do so.

9/11 now that's something I believe was let done and I'll title 9/11 as a blood money job.

<snip the rest>

You did not disappoint. Thank you.

[TEKTORO]

Your welcome, of course conspiracy can not be proven and my thoughts are pure speculation. I never thought I would post in this thread due to wanting to stay quite on sensitive subjects but hey I've learnt something here and I appreciate the shared knowledge on today's happenings.