Politifact: Democrats never mentioned terrorism on Day One of DNC

[Draco-Onis]

Some funny stats, BTW.

http://www.lifeinsurancequotes.org/a...ly-statistics/

"The odds of being the victim of a shark attack are 1 in 11.5 million worldwide. Although there are 65 annual shark attacks each year, only a handful are fatal."
"The chances of being killed in a terrorist attack are about 1 in 20 million. A person is as likely to be killed by his or her own furniture, and more likely to die in a car accident, drown in a bathtub, or in a building fire than from a terrorist attack."
"The chances a person will be killed by an asteroid are 1 in 200,000, which is much higher than the odds of being killed by hail, which is 1 in 734,400,000."

Democrats have missed such important threats as shark attacks and asteroids! Shame on them!!!

I am 100% for an anti asteroid / shark platform.

[fengosa]

How many times did the GOP talk about gun control during their convention? A lot more lives would be saved by preventing mass shootings than terrorism (which in America usually takes the form of mass shootings)

[Orlong]

Yes, shame on him for following the agreement Dubya signed. Question, what do you call an army in a country that doesn't want them there?

Dont really care. When the safety of the world is at stake, they will just have to deal with it, or try to remove us and they wouldnt dare even try

[Lord Havik]

To be fair, there are more important issues than terrorism.

None of which will be covered in either of the conventions.

[SL1200]

The Boogeyman never felt so real before, just ask all the French people~

-

Also, on the topic of "Islamophobia"..
How many terror attacks gotta be done, in the spawn of a month, by extremist Muslims (but Muslims nonetheless), for the expression "Islamophobia" - the irrational fear of Islam - to be gone and it being actually justifiable?

-

And, lastly, on the thread's topic:
I reckon it's due to America, generally speaking, having forgotten the imminent danger that it is to be targeted at their own country soil. Should what is happening in Europe start happening in America - and at the rate it's happening* - things would certainly be different than they are and Terrorism would, more likely than not, be mentioned.
For now though, I feel it's a matter of "Not my problem"-kinda thing.

/yawn

I'm not scared.

[ezgeze]

How many times did the GOP talk about gun control during their convention? A lot more lives would be saved by preventing mass shootings than terrorism (which in America usually takes the form of mass shootings)

Interesting how the vast majority of shootings happen to occur in democratic strongholds, mainly inner cities that have been under control of democrats for decades. Also, by and large criminals going around shooting at others vote democrat.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ja...rticle/2541412

The study looked at three states which are reminding convicts that they can vote after leaving jail: New York, New Mexico and North Carolina.

They provided the following Democrat-to-Republican breakdown in felon party registration patterns:

– New York: 61.5 percent register Democratic, 9 percent register Republican

– New Mexico: 51.9 percent Democratic, 10.2 percent Republican

– North Carolina: 54.6 percent Democratic, 10.2 percent Republican

[May90]

That was the case in France too, a while ago
I got a feeling that Terrorism is a topic that will most likely be touched on similar conferences there, in the future though.

Let us hope that America retains their current special status and doesn't have to worry about Terrorists in the future!

It is the case in France today, too.

Look, I can predict that in the next year there will be around 50 shark attacks on humans. They will happen, and to those people it happens, it doesn't matter that the probability was extremely low - they got extremely unlucky. However, for a random person to worry about it happening to them would be silly. Because, well, you have a higher chance to hit a wall with your head accidentally and die, than this.

No matter where you are, even if you are in a terrorism-ridden country like Afghanistan or Syria, the probability of a terrorist attack affecting you is so negligibly tiny, you can safely ignore it. Common criminals in those countries will kill you with 100 times higher probability.

This is functionally wrong. The time to be scared or concerned is long before anything happens, and using that as the impetus to take appropriate precautions to protect and be able to respond to a problem. You need to see problems from a long ways off and be able to already have a set and somewhat practiced response to them. When you see actual terrorists or even a more regular conflict whether physical or otherwise it is time to react and respond to ensure your safety and the safety of others especially your immediate family and friends.

The people who are overcome with fear at the moment of a crisis or confrontation end up as the easy targets, the proverbial fish in a barrel. Your advice and attitude are very poor for self preservation.

There are always millions of problems that need to be addressed and prepared for in advance. Sorry, but terrorism is somewhere on the bottom of that list. Heck, in the US you are dozens times more likely to die to a random shooting than to an act of terrorism, and yet what has the government done to prevent that? "2nd amendment, sorry guys, but the guns will persist". In this reality, it is very silly to complain about terrorists, when you have hundreds much more pressing issues that keep getting delayed forever.

No, "war on terrorism" is just a usual tactic used by governments to distract the population from internal problems and to justify restriction of freedoms.

[oplawlz]

It's not their platform. In fact, a great deal of their platform is undermined by the existence of the real threat of radical Islam. It would be like the Republicans bringing up healthcare in any format other than complaining about Obamacare.

[Paranoid Android]

Interesting how the vast majority of shootings happen to occur in democratic strongholds, mainly inner cities that have been under control of democrats for decades. Also, by and large criminals going around shooting at others vote democrat.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ja...rticle/2541412

Cruz said, "Here’s the simple and undeniable fact: The overwhelming majority of violent criminals are Democrats."

Research cited by the Cruz campaign supports the claim that, in at least three states, felons released from prison go on to register as Democrats at a disproportionately high rate following their release.

However, there are important caveats. The study in question looked at both violent and nonviolent felons without separating out those two groups. It’s not clear whether the patterns holds in the other 47 states. Also, the study didn’t look at active "criminals" but rather those who had already served their time. Finally, it’s hard to draw a line between cause and effect, particularly given the disproportionately high population of African-Americans -- a traditionally Democratic group -- in the criminal justice system.

We rate his statement Mostly False.

Wrong! False!

Edit: I love when I can copy/paste my own post to prove 2 people wrong on their bullshit.

[Damajin]

It is the case in France today, too.

Look, I can predict that in the next year there will be around 50 shark attacks on humans. They will happen, and to those people it happens, it doesn't matter that the probability was extremely low - they got extremely unlucky. However, for a random person to worry about it happening to them would be silly. Because, well, you have a higher chance to hit a wall with your head accidentally and die, than this.

No matter where you are, even if you are in a terrorism-ridden country like Afghanistan or Syria, the probability of a terrorist attack affecting you is so negligibly tiny, you can safely ignore it. Common criminals in those countries will kill you with 100 times higher probability.


There are always millions of problems that need to be addressed and prepared for in advance. Sorry, but terrorism is somewhere on the bottom of that list. Heck, in the US you are dozens times more likely to die to a random shooting than to an act of terrorism, and yet what has the government done to prevent that? "2nd amendment, sorry guys, but the guns will persist". In this reality, it is very silly to complain about terrorists, when you have hundreds much more pressing issues that keep getting delayed forever.

No, "war on terrorism" is just a usual tactic used by governments to distract the population from internal problems and to justify restriction of freedoms.

I agree with the notion that the 'war on terrorism' is a government distraction tactic, but the reality is that regardless of how unlikely a terrorist attack is it is important to be as prepared for it as you would be for any other type of personal attack, such as a home invasion or assault on the streets. To do otherwise is to live as a sitting duck, and such is not the way to actively contribute to your own survival nor of those people, ideas and values you hold dear.

To pretend that the other issues aren't important isn't what this is about, since life is about making preparations and about holding and acting on values I can assure you that there are many who aren't taking all the other important issues for granted. Those who don't take and aren't willing to take the precautions to help elevate their chances of surviving any kind of attack are doing the rest of those issues a great disservice.

Just as we can't solve everything with an all muscle approach, we can't solve everything with an all mind approach either. Takes both working in harmony to attempt such.

[May90]

I agree with the notion that the 'war on terrorism' is a government distraction tactic, but the reality is that regardless of how unlikely a terrorist attack is it is important to be as prepared for it as you would be for any other type of personal attack, such as a home invasion or assault on the streets. To do otherwise is to live as a sitting duck, and such is not the way to actively contribute to your own survival nor of those people, ideas and values you hold dear.

To pretend that the other issues aren't important isn't what this is about, since life is about making preparations and about holding and acting on values I can assure you that there are many who aren't taking all the other important issues for granted. Those who don't take and aren't willing to take the precautions to help elevate their chances of surviving any kind of attack are doing the rest of those issues a great disservice.

Just as we can't solve everything with an all muscle approach, we can't solve everything with an all mind approach either. Takes both working in harmony to attempt such.

We can't prepare for everything; if we tried, it would take all of our time to think of what can happen to us and how we can prevent it. It is impossible, even for such a huge structure as government, so we need to pick the most pressing issues first, then less pressing issues, and so on. The thing is, terrorism in this list is so far to the bottom that we will never get to it: it is completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Some minor actions could be taken to protect citizens from it, but investing hundreds billions into "war on terrorism", fortifying security at the expense of freedoms (as what was happening shortly after 9/11), etc. - this is very inefficient and is only done either out of poor understanding of reality, or with the purpose to justify expanding the governmental influence.

It makes sense to fight ISIS in Syria. It doesn't make sense to introduce things like Patriot act because of one terrorist attack, even if large.

[Berengil]

Republicans’ claim that Democrats did not mention terrorism or ISIL on the first night of the Democratic National Convention is correct, Politifact said Tuesday morning.

Following Monday night’s speeches, Republicans blasted the Democrats for a lack of focus on terrorism from the 61 speakers.
Story Continued Below

“Based on our searches of C-SPAN closed-captioning text, Congressional Quarterly transcripts and other video archiving services, we couldn’t find any speaker who mentioned "ISIS," "Islamic" "terror," "terrorist," or "terrorism" during the first day of the convention,” Politifact wrote.

The fact-checking website did add the caveat that the Democrats still have three days to discuss terrorism at the convention and the first day of the convention was not meant to focus on foreign policy. Additionally, Hillary Clinton on Monday called for action against ISIL at a rally in Charlotte, North Carolina.

“We need to lead other countries in stopping ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other radical jihadist groups,” she said. "We shouldn’t leave that to the rest of the world to figure out on their own. That won’t keep us safe."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...vention-226202

So what?

No, really. So what? Why does it matter?

[Fahrenheit]

OP, if you want to rub one out to fear and anguish you should just watch the GOP convention again. Particularly Rudy G.

[Damajin]

We can't prepare for everything; if we tried, it would take all of our time to think of what can happen to us and how we can prevent it. It is impossible, even for such a huge structure as government, so we need to pick the most pressing issues first, then less pressing issues, and so on. The thing is, terrorism in this list is so far to the bottom that we will never get to it: it is completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Some minor actions could be taken to protect citizens from it, but investing hundreds billions into "war on terrorism", fortifying security at the expense of freedoms (as what was happening shortly after 9/11), etc. - this is very inefficient and is only done either out of poor understanding of reality, or with the purpose to justify expanding the governmental influence.

It makes sense to fight ISIS in Syria. It doesn't make sense to introduce things like Patriot act because of one terrorist attack, even if large.

I'm talking about private citizens making personal preparations mostly, for what it's worth. I don't expect this interventionist government fueled by military grade lobbyists and money to do the appropriate things to protect the citizenry from terrorism.

Moreover, if the government switched from it's interventionist path it could certainly prepare for almost anything. There's already a small army of people whose job it is to literally think up the stuff that could happen and develop scenario oriented response plans for it.

I disagree that terrorism is completely irrelevant, and frankly I think anyone who thinks like that is fooling themselves, so congratulations on that.

Nothing I have said entails fortifying security at the expense of freedoms, btw. That's the actions of neocons and the authoritarian left since 2001.

[May90]

I'm talking about private citizens making personal preparations mostly, for what it's worth. I don't expect this interventionist government fueled by military grade lobbyists and money to do the appropriate things to protect the citizenry from terrorism.

Moreover, if the government switched from it's interventionist path it could certainly prepare for almost anything. There's already a small army of people whose job it is to literally think up the stuff that could happen and develop scenario oriented response plans for it.

I disagree that terrorism is completely irrelevant, and frankly I think anyone who thinks like that is fooling themselves, so congratulations on that.

Nothing I have said entails fortifying security at the expense of freedoms, btw. That's the actions of neocons and the authoritarian left since 2001.

How can a private citizen prepare to someone suddenly blowing a belt of explosives near them, or running over them in a truck, or shooting their brains out?

[Celista]

I can't believe this is an actual topic, lol.

- - - Updated - - -

OP, if you want to rub one out to fear and anguish you should just watch the GOP convention again. Particularly Rudy G.

Or that pastor praying for God to favor Republicans this election season, that was pretty over the top even for RNC standards.

[May90]

Or that pastor praying for God to favor Republicans this election season, that was pretty over the top even for RNC standards.

I think, if the God saw the current elections, he would say, "Okay, failed experiment. Scratch that. Let's start all over again!"

[Damajin]

How can a private citizen prepare to someone suddenly blowing a belt of explosives near them, or running over them in a truck, or shooting their brains out?

Some terrorist acts will be extremely difficult, if not almost impossible to prepare for like that belt of explosives but most can be prepared for through standard self defense classes and courses, involving firearms and tactical response techniques. The major thing to realize about military and police personnel is the thing that sets them apart from citizens is the amount of tactical training they go through, to have honed responses and instincts so that when something happens they're not the sitting ducks quivering in fear that many in the civilian world are. Fortunately there are tactical courses and training seminars held every week of the year, all over the country so finding them is never hard.

Of course this also assumes a certain level of fitness and agility that the general populace doesn't possess, these fat pigs we see walking around everywhere are prime targets for slaughter and don't help themselves out in the least. This goes hand in hand with what I said earlier in that you need both the body and the brain acting in harmony and trained to survive in order to actually have a legit chance of it. Proactive and practiced measures are everything, and really are the difference between no chance at surviving an attack and surviving one, either by the skin of your teeth or by a long shot.

[ezgeze]

Wrong! False!

Edit: I love when I can copy/paste my own post to prove 2 people wrong on their bullshit.

Ok so in your own quote you admit that African Americans account for a huge portion of the prison population but refuse to admit they vote democrat because??? I didn't even mention race btw, just crime. Anyways, that looks bad for the party and yourself. Its something you refuse to acknowledge, just like how I mentioned the problems democrats have in the inner cities, the crime rates, homicides, gun crimes, there, etc. Guess what, those people as a whole vote democrat more so than republicans or else they would be governed by republican mayors. Go ahead and insert non relevant youtube sounds into the conversation since you cannot come up with anything else.

The fact is democrats have a real problem, themselves. They have by and large been running large cities into the ground and letting the communities that populate them run wild. Sad that the left can continuously run the field in inner cities and expect change when their voting patten keeps putting those same people into office time and time again. Its almost as if the left intends to create that environment all along.........for votes/power. That, is the modern version of slavery brought to you by the democrat party. Just like the days of old except their methods have changed.

[truckboattruck]

Chances that you are killed by mass shooting or car accident is astronomically higher than being caught up in a terror attack. this is where paranoia is wrongly placed.

accidents =/= violent invasive ideology
and only a liberal wouldnt consider a mass shooting by muslims to be a mass shooting lol