• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Effect of Syrian immigration on the 2016 election

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Newell Steamer said:
Another effect.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ted-cruz-syrian-refugees_564d279ae4b031745cefd25f

Ted Cruz was totes OK with Syrian refugees last year.
Click to expand...

It's showing us who the conservatives really and how they are motivated solely by fear.

Listen to their rhetoric, it's all fear of blacks (Anti voting rights), fear of LGBT (Support for Kim Davis), fear of an actual living wage (everyone), fear of foreigners (everyone), fear of government (Tea Party), fear of Mexicans (Trump), fear of muslims (Carson), fear of affordable healthcare.

Did I miss something?
 
Last edited:
Indus said:
It's showing us who the conservatives really and how they are motivated solely by fear.

Listen to their rhetoric, it's all fear of blacks (Anti voting rights), fear of LGBT (Support for Kim Davis), fear of an actual living wage (everyone), fear of foreigners (everyone), fear of government (Tea Party), fear of Mexicans (Trump), fear of muslims (Carson), fear of affordable healthcare.

Did I miss something?
Click to expand...

Gee, letting in a bunch of refugees from a country in which we DIRECTLY had a hand in destroying? What could go wrong. I'm sure NONE of them would hold any grudges against the country that ignited the madness. We all know that the Middle East never produces suicidal jihadists. What the hell, let them all in, what could possibly go wrong.
 
bshole said:
Gee, letting in a bunch of refugees from a country in which we DIRECTLY had a hand in destroying? What could go wrong. I'm sure NONE of them would hold any grudges against the country that ignited the madness. We all know that the Middle East never produces suicidal jihadists. What the hell, let them all in, what could possibly go wrong.
Click to expand...

How do you find the courage to get out of bed each day.
 
yllus said:
It really saddens me to see America and Americans acting this way.
Click to expand...

To be 100% honest, I'm more scared of the ones with tourist visas (paid by terrorists), since that is much easier to get if you just have money to spend than an immigrant visa where they want to vet carefully.

But to conservatives their fear is just inane.. OMG I am scared I'll spill my coffee on my pants.. we need to outlaw coffee!
 
Well the vote on the pause today had all but 3 Repubs as well as about 45 Dems. Honestly, I think we could be close to an override majority.

The Dems may stand on the moral high ground, but they may well lose out big time in 2016.

As much as I fear a right wing takeover of this country I fear just as much the possibility bordering on certainty that other nations in Europe may swing to the right and possibly far right. Even in the liberal strongholds of Scandinavia the right is gaining strength and has been for years. Anders Breivik may be the vanguard and if so the planet is fucked. And if the empire of the blonde turns far right and that's a bad thing how should we feel about Germany being taken over by the far right?

History, both distant and recent, make it clear that the right will never let events like this go unexploited. The left would be wise to remember that.


Brian
 
So righties going apoplectic determined to close the border to Syrian refugees over an attack in France.

9/11 happens in the US where 15 of 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. At no time did I hear any suggestion to closing the border to Saudis.
 
Last edited:
I think democrats need to be careful over this one.
This issue could decide the election.
Fear has always been a real source of voter turnout.

Then you have Hillary acting very hawk-ish talking about troops and more involvement in the meddle east, which just might turn off "her" base and I doubt would attract any republican Hillary supporters.

Hillary could be on her way of screwing things up for herself.
And denying refuges access into states and the country as a whole is probably more aligned with how the majority of Americans feel.

The only unknown is if anyone will remember Paris to the point of influencing their vote come 12 months from now.
Or if the threat of terrorist attacking the homeland will even be an issue.
Who knows...
Maybe by this time next year, horrific storms and floods will be number one on everyone's minds, and climate change the deciding factor?

But as it stands now, terrorism at home and anti-immigrant is the name of the game, and the winning strategy for republicans.
If democrats become all huggie kumbaya over immigrants, then as it looks now they will lose.
 
These charts put the US response to Syrian refugees in context: it's pitifully small

Syrian-Resettlement1.0.jpg


Syrian-Resettlement2.0.jpg


http://www.vox.com/2015/11/18/9756656/syrian-refugee-response-chart
 
sportage said:
I think democrats need to be careful over this one.
This issue could decide the election.
Fear has always been a real source of voter turnout.

Then you have Hillary acting very hawk-ish talking about troops and more involvement in the meddle east, which just might turn off "her" base and I doubt would attract any republican Hillary supporters.

Hillary could be on her way of screwing things up for herself.
And denying refuges access into states and the country as a whole is probably more aligned with how the majority of Americans feel.

The only unknown is if anyone will remember Paris to the point of influencing their vote come 12 months from now.
Or if the threat of terrorist attacking the homeland will even be an issue.
Who knows...
Maybe by this time next year, horrific storms and floods will be number one on everyone's minds, and climate change the deciding factor?

But as it stands now, terrorism at home and anti-immigrant is the name of the game, and the winning strategy for republicans.
If democrats become all huggie kumbaya over immigrants, then as it looks now they will lose.
Click to expand...


Sadly, yes!


Brian
 
HomerJS said:
So righties going apoplectic determined to close the border to Syrian refugees over an attack in France.

9/11 happens in the US where 15 of 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. At no time did I hear any suggestion to closing the border to Saudis.
Click to expand...

The weirdest part of it all is that the Paris attackers were home grown militants & not shown to be Syrians at all.

Republicans are dying to find issues that aren't about the economy & failure of their trickle down ideology but about exploitation of fear. It's what they do best.

The threat level from Syrians granted asylum in this country after waiting over 3 years to get in is lower than whale shit. The threat from our own fringe elements is much greater.
 
HomerJS said:
So righties going apoplectic determined to close the border to Syrian refugees over an attack in France.

9/11 happens in the US where 15 of 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. At no time did I hear any suggestion to closing the border to Saudis.
Click to expand...
Exactly when were 10,000 displaced Saudis planning on relocating here?
 
HomerJS said:
So righties going apoplectic determined to close the border to Syrian refugees over an attack in France.

9/11 happens in the US where 15 of 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. At no time did I hear any suggestion to closing the border to Saudis.
Click to expand...

Saudi Arabia would be the FIRST country I would ban immigrants from. They are the fountainhead of radical Islam and jihad. Thankfully they are so awash in money they don't have much interest in moving here. Regrettably their mountain of money is used widely to fund terrorists.

40% of British muslims fully support Sharia law. That means they do no support free speech, they do not support women's rights, they support the death penalty for gays, etc....

Only a suicidal or functionally retarded western country would want immigrants who support the destruction of western secularism.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ls-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html
 
We can only hope Isis plans to send in agents as refugees to the U.S. Because this strategy would be so ineffective as to engender hope that defeating the enemy of humanity will actually be a piece of cake.

From Isil perspective, the math is easy. There are somewhere between 4 and 6 million refugees or potential refugees. Even if the U.S were to admit 40,000 of them - that means that the odds of any refugee (fake or not) making it to the U.S. is around 2%. And to enter this 2% lottery, the Daeshbag needs to spend about a year and a half in a refugee camp, surrounded by people very motivated to do very bad things to him if they suspect his true identity, while going through a pretty thorough vetting by the U.S. And then, even f he were to succeed, he's part of a group of people who no doubt gets more scrutiny than just about any other group of immigrants.

Since Isis has money, this contrasts with other strategies available to them, like flying to Mexico City for 1300 bucks (4k if they want to go in style) and paying a coyote another 1200 buck to help them get into the U.S., or, for that matter, just straight flying into the U.S. as a Turkish tourist.

In October, Donald Trump earned Four Pinocchios for repeatedly making the outlandish claim that President Obama was planning to admit 200,000 refugees from war-torn Syria.

Rather than drop the figure, Trump has boosted it to 250,000. And other candidates have followed his lead with exaggerated figures, just not quite as high. Ben Carson claimed 200,000 from the Middle East “region” and 100,000 from Syria; Fiorina said 100,000 from Syria.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ting-100000-200000-or-250000-syrian-refugees/

And why are the citizens responding so positively to these lies? Aren't the lies really pandering to their constituencies? After all, refugees are no more dangerous today than they were two weeks ago, but after the Paris attacks suddenly we need to "pause" and have a "moratorium" (which are code words for "stop completely forever" and "complete and total ban"). We just need better vetting, say people who have no idea what level of vetting they are already subject to.

It's up to our government to keep us safe. If only there were a way to be safe from small-minded self-satisfied political pandering xenophobia.
 
Last edited:
There's only one way it's going to have an effect on the election: if the Democrats let the refugees in, and the Republicans state they wanted them out - AND, there's a terrorist attack directly attributed to those refugees.

If there isn't a terrorist attack prior to the election, then the Democrats can easily paint the Republicans as a bunch of Redneck bigoted fear-mongers. In doing so, they only lose the votes of the people they didn't have a chance of getting the votes from in the first place.

This, logically, implies that ISIS could have a huge effect on our politics - if they wanted the Democrats in the US to be in power, it would be advantageous for them not to do any attacks during the next one year. I'm not sure this is the case though - I'm under the impression that they *want* the U.S. to be anti-Muslim. That seems counter-productive, since it means more bombs falling on them, but at the same time, they could gain adherents faster than we blow them up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top