Which was the more devastating attack on the United States?

Which was the more devastating attack on the United States?

Other urls found in this thread:

bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country
tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade
google.es/amp/s/www.researchgate.net/publication/236698953_Does_Diversity_Hurt_Democracy/amp
archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/
npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12802663
data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/publications/es/07/ES0707.pdf
blog.heartland.org/2013/08/labor-productivity-vs-compensation/
youtube.com/watch?v=zopCDSK69gs
cnn.com/2013/04/18/us/u-s-terrorist-attacks-fast-facts/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

None, they were both false flags orchestrated by the CIA.

9/11

Peral Harbor made the US a better place to live 10 years later

America gets worse and worse every year post 9/11 because of the shit that it dragged along with it

>2000
>US on top of the world, great economy, booming tech sector, no giant trade deficit, still mostly ethnically stable, not a lot of crime
>present day
>

9/11 yes
Pearl Harbor was just their complete indifference, and they just let it happen for obvious reasons.

> great economy,

The average person is richer today than they were 15 years ago.

> booming tech sector, no giant trade deficit,

We still have a booming tech sector and there's literally nothing wrong with a trade deficit (which was the case in 2000 as well). Take an Economics class.

> still mostly ethnically stable,

"I'm racist" isn't an argument.

> not a lot of crime

Outright lie, the homicide rate in 2000 was 5.5 per 100k people, today it's 3.9 per 100k people.

bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country

>Great Economy
Was built on unsustainable foundations that noone wanted to fix.
> booming tech sector
Tech sector is still booming
>no giant trade deficit
Not sure about that one friendo
tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade
>still mostly ethnically stable
what does this even mean? but no major shift in ethnic makeup, just continuing decline of white population
>not a lot of crime
Crime rates have fallen since the 2000s

BUT MUH FEELS

That's where you're wrong, kiddo.

Forgot picture

This

Inflation tends to be overstated due to substitution and quality adjustment bias

>average
Not median real though. It's roughly similar, although in 2016 it beat the 2000 record.

>we still
Okay?

>nothing wrong with a huge trade deficit
See you are wrong about this because you fundamentally don't understand the real causes of deficits and surpluses, and just rely on basic econ 101.

>I'm racist isn't an argument
In no way is the USA more socially stable today, with a far more "diverse" nation, than it was in 2000.
Sorry but the more diverse your nation, the more socially instable it will be.

>homicide rate
One statistic?
5.5 and 3.9 are roughly similar.

Nonetheless, you are ignoring a thousand other factors that show that 2000 was better than now.

But America has a tiny rate of inflation.

It's just that incomes have flatlined for a majority of people.

Pearl Harbor was more devastating in terms of actual destruction but 9/11 had a vastly more damaging effect on the American psyche. Many Americans knew it was only a matter of time before WW2 spilled onto their shores, 9/11 on the other hand seemingly came out of the blue.

>5.5 and 3.9 are roughly similar.
Literally a 30 percent difference. Five thousand less people killed per year based off of back of the envelope calculations.

9/11. It made the U.S. less free by turning it into a surveillance state, dragged it into two meaningless conflicts the cost of which exceeds several trillion dollars and which have significantly damaged America's reputation. And all of this costed bin Laden only half a million dollars. Osama was a pretty smart guy, the U.S. reacted exactly as he wanted it to.

You see the way went to the trouble of providing sources so we know he isn't talking out his arse. Maybe you should do that too

I have seen this argument made both ways actually.

For example, CPI today is still based upon the 1990 basket of goods

In absolute terms it's roughly similar actually.

And I don't see why you are obsessing over 1 indicator.

Provide sources for what? My claims already got backed up hereAnd my other claims are public information on google.

Unemployment rate and wage growth is one. Not to mention household debt levels.

Cont*

google.es/amp/s/www.researchgate.net/publication/236698953_Does_Diversity_Hurt_Democracy/amp
archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/

Cont*

npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12802663

Also, have I mentioned the US' plummeting birthrate?
From 2.17 (replacement) in 2007, to 1.81 in 2016. Native birthrates are 1.5-1.6 while immigrant births are 2.3

Did I mention the fact the opiod use and drug overdose rate is at 1980's highs?

9/11 has had a more lasting negative effect that we see to this day while pearl Harbour led to many good things

>In no way is the USA more socially stable today, with a far more "diverse" nation, than it was in 2000.

It's safe to say American society is edging ever closer to the worse social breakdown since the 1960s. Might actually be worse since both sides seem very eager for a fight.

I wouldn't be surprised if President Trump has to use the Army to quell armed insurrection/an openly defiant governor before the end of his first term.

>Unemployment rate and wage growth is one

data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

Unemployment Rate (April) 2001: 4.4%

Unemployment Rate (April) 2017: 4.4%

Wages excludes non-wage compensation. Real compensation has drastically risen since 2001.

files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/publications/es/07/ES0707.pdf

Compensation per employee in the USA annually. See the linked charts.

See was that so hard. Your just misconflating two
things. IN the 2000s America and the world was undergoing an unsustainable economic boom. Now the world is just coming out of the worst recession since the thirtees, we would expect real wage growth to be lower and unemployment to be higher then it was in the naughties. This is only tangentially linked to the other things you are talking about.
As for the diversity argument I am sorry but I've done this too many times before and its really not worth it. Oh and you should pretty much always talk in relative terms when discussing economic or societal indicators such as GDP, Wages Crime rate etc.

>In no way is the USA more socially stable today

There were literal race wars and ethnic cleansing going on in the 90s, I don't see any of that shit today, do you?

You can also compare general statistics of "stability" like rape rate and murder rate. Both are at all-time lows.

Seeing as how he literally just admitted to firing Comey to silence the Russia investigation, he probably won't last a whole term.

>2001 is 2000

Really I have never seen the argument that CPI underestimates inflation, I don't see how it could either. 1) Substitution bias: People buy other things when something gets more expensive, CPI doesn't take this into account so it overestimates it. 2) Quality adjustment bias: CPI fails to take into account products improving over time, so if you spent $50 on a phone on 2015, and $60 in 2016 it would think that was an increase, regardless of the phones quality, again overstating inflation.
Am I missing something here?

You haven't proven anything to me.

This "total compensation" chartHas nothing to do with 2009-present. It also doesn't include the huge issue of mismeasured productivity. Many economists believe productivity has been underreported for the last decade. Therefore, this "compensation = productivity" argument is still completely unproven.

Maybe the fact it doesn't include housing costs, and severely underweights spending on healthcare and education?

Have you seriously not seen this argument before? It's really common.

The GOP is never going to have the balls to cooperate with an impeachment.

Trump might eventually get so sick of the job that he resigns though.

>Has nothing to do with 2009-present. It also doesn't include the huge issue of mismeasured productivity.

blog.heartland.org/2013/08/labor-productivity-vs-compensation/

Wrong again. Also, that chart goes to 2012.

What was i supposed to prove? I'm confused

The GOP actually lost seats in 2016 and has been building a lot of bad publicity since then. Midterms will probably be fairly devastating.

>wrong again

Being correct is overrated.

It has no connection to recent years when unemployment has fallen to 4.4%, and yet wage growth is only 2.4%. Even total compensation is only 3% with inflation around 2.5%.

That is why this chartstill exists.

That the USA is better today than in 2000, the original point of my post.

Maybe you are too autistic to get that though.

>In absolute terms it's roughly similar actually.

30% is a significant decrease. No idea where you went to school.

>And I don't see why you are obsessing over 1 indicator.

Violent crime in general is down, homicide is just the most important indicator. This is important because it was claimed that crime was lower in 2000, which is an outright lie.

I wouldn't be surprised if gerrymandering, voter suppression, and FOX news kept the GOP in control of both houses of Congress through 2018.

2020 is a foregone conclusion unless the Democrats do something mind-bogglingly stupid, which is always a possibility.

Relative terms is not always as meaningful as absolute terms.

5,000 murders in 2000 and 6,000 in 2016 is still really bad even if it has decreased as a percent of the population. To the mindset of the nation, the crime in the nation hasn't improved even if it has in relative terms.

What matters is what people think. Not what is factual.

Don't act like a fucking normie, we're trying to have an adult conversation here.

>because it was claimed that crime was lower in 2000
Where exactly?

Oh in Ireland, where I'm from it does include housing costs, we also have free public education and healthcare. I'm not sure if they include insurance costs in their measurements though.

Kek nah America's CPI indicator is bullshit. The Fed doesn't even follow it

For example, housing prices went up 200% 2001-2006, but CPI's housing index increased 10%.

youtube.com/watch?v=zopCDSK69gs

>What matters is what people think. Not what is factual.

Please at least try to pretend like you're not a retard.

Why won't I ever have a gf if I can rob a bank or kill a person? It appears that my abilities are unbalanced.

>le you're retarded! Hehehe

What people think is, affects what is.

Impeachment ain't happening.

Democrats may be blithering idiots but surely even they must realize that impeachment will one of two things.

1. Put Mike Pence or Paul Ryan (assuming Pence is removed along with Trump) in office. Both of whom are even more extreme than Trump on a lot of issues.

2. At absolute minimum, will give Trump's most militant supporters the excuse they've been waiting for to lash out violently and shit like the "Battle of Berkeley" becomes a regular occurrence in every major city, but on a larger scale and deaths actually start occurring. At worst, it causes a constitutional crisis or a Civil War.

9/11 also made our country substantially more secure

I mean if Trump was gotten rid of for Pence or Ryan sure they might be more extreme but atleast they are somewhat competent and not massive liabilities. Also I think you may be overestimating the reaction if you think there is any chance of a civil war. some crazy rednecks locking themselves in some government facility like they did a year? or so ago, sure, but there is 0 chance an actual war come about. If America can survive desegregation without one they sure as shit will survive Trump being impeached without one, especially since that requires the consent of many in the republican party.

They don't have the votes to make it happen.

You need two thirds of the senate to actually convict, and unlike in 1974, today's senators place party loyalty way above the constitution.

With the Reps projected losses in the midterm elections it would greatly behoove them to vote with the findings of the independent investigators in the FBI to show how they place the priorities of the country over party lines. It's honestly a win-win for them.

If I were a gambling man, I'd bet on Senate GOP voting to acquit no matter what happens.

>more terrorist attacks on US soil between 2001-2017 than 1941-2001
Really gets those synapses potentiating

>At worst, it causes a constitutional crisis or a Civil War.

Do Trumpcucks actually believe this?

I don't think thats true, do you have a source?

Why though? Using the AHCA as an example the Senate voted to push back voting on the bill until 2018 at the earliest and are in talks to push voting back to the House, meaning that they aren't influenced by Trump's desire to get Obamacare repealed ASAP under any means. The Senate is a much more bipartisan body than the House due to the nature of their length of term and power to dictate legislation and their support of Rosenstein says to me they will support the results of the investigation even if his decision is to impeach.

The source may or may not have been my ass. Google really didn't give enough info
cnn.com/2013/04/18/us/u-s-terrorist-attacks-fast-facts/

Domestic terrorism was pretty rampant in the Civil Rights Era, it just wasn't the spectacular acts of destruction we've seen since OKC so the media didn't harp on it to the same extreme.

Considering his most fanatical supporters firmly believe that the Russia allegations are nothing more than a pack of lies and they have expressed a desire to not just fight, but kill and die for him, yes.

For the same reason they did jack shit when Trump fired Comey, or shit all over federal courts for ruling against him, or met with the Russian ambassador, or purged the state department, or put his campaign manager on the principles committee of the National Security Council, or any other behavior that contravenes the norms of a democratic society.

Because they're desperate. They know demographics are not on their side. The GOP has won the popular vote in exactly one election since 1988, and it was by .4%. The number of Hispanics in the US is projected to double from 16% to 32% over the next 30 years, and the number of Asians is projected to double from 5% to 10%.

Neither one of these groups likes the GOP.

They're absolutely desperate to hold onto the Oval Office, and willing to excuse any sin as long as it gets them votes the way Trump got them votes.

That doesn't follow. If the independent prosecutor finds that Trump knowingly colluded with Russia and his decision was to put to a vote to impeach the president and the Reps did not follow this lead, there is no conceivable way their constituents would have faith in their elected body and the Dems would sweep the next elections.

>there is no conceivable way their constituents would have faith in their elected body

Maybe I'm just a cynic, but I'm not sure the US electorate punishes illegal behavior at the voting booth any more.

They certainly didn't when it was Iran-Contra or Guantanamo Bay.

Few of the people who normally vote for the GOP will believe the charges, and the ones that do will believe that the Democrats have been doing even worse.

>Few of the people who normally vote for the GOP will believe the charges, and the ones that do will believe that the Democrats have been doing even worse.

Exactly

If anything impeaching Trump would result in Republicans who opposed him being booted out in the next election and being replaced by those aligned closer to Richard Spencer ideologically speaking.