Wow, Trump is absolutely killing it tonight. I don't care to read the last 47 pages thoroughly, but from what I glanced the conversation has been MOSTLY civil. A big change from what I'm used to on Reddit. I'll pay more attention to this thread as I've been looking for a place where I won't be slandered and called every name by leftists in the book since I became public with my supporting Trump.
Why do you support Trump?
I am not sure if they ever said they were supporting trump?
since I became public with my supporting Trump
?
The first is illegal immigration and how it ties in with jobs. While not the only factor for lower wage growth it is certainly part of it. We are very developed economy so most of the job growth is in the upper middle class and above. So that leaves everyone without the right college degree or just a high school education with depressed wages. People become commodities because you have a line around the block looking for a job. If you get rid of the illegals wages will go up. The reason is there is less competition for the jobs so the companies need to be more generous. While there will be less buyers most companies are orientated at selling to the middle class and above or corporations with global products. illegal immigrants don't buy homes new cars the fanciest tech gadgets starbucks etc. This helps out the lower middle class and above. The socialist answer is higher minimum wages but that artificial inflation destroys jobs. Also we have fiat money so prices will just rise to meet the wage increase, if they but in price control people will not be able to keep the doors open on low margins unless they are massive businesses. The capitalist answer is more free trade makes the economy stronger and we grow more. We do grow more but the trickle down effect stops at the upper middle class. Once you leave the upper middle class most people fall of into the working poor. Globalization and free trade are the root cause of this disparity of growth. While every income class is more wealthy in real income terms than they were over the last few decades more people fall into lower income brackets(to be fair more people are also upper middle class and their growth in both percentage and real terns out strips the working class and below). So while the poor in the USA are objectively much better off than they were, too many are now the poor vs middle class and are now not better off.
So why Trump? He's not the only one hard on immigration. Why does Trump specifically work for you? Which is to say really, why is a plan like 'ban all Muslims' a good idea to you? To me, it seems an unnecessarily discriminatory way of doing the same old ineffective filtering. It's not like Muslims can be diagnosed by a blood test or something, it's quite easy to simply lie about being or not being part of any religious group. It also does nothing to address the problem itself, it only stops from it being a problem for you.
How do you tell a muslim that is an extremist from one that isn't...you can't. More specifically while he says ban on muslims he means bans on anyone that comes from certain countries or has been to them for more than just a connecting flight. Also, the reason trump would be more likely to work for voters is because that is his only reason to run. He is extremely connected and very wealthy. He only loses connections and wealth running for president. He is doing it because he has a vision for USA. You don't go through the battering he is taking for narcissism none of them do, unlike most other candidates he doesn't need to hold his hat out to people to maintain his power. While people may or may not agree with that vision he is a lot like Cruz and Sanders. They want to fix something that if not broken is not as good as it could be. As for Trump over Cruz the simple matter us cruz can't get along with people. You need to be combative to be a successful leader but you also need to know how to make nice afterwords. Trumps criticism of Cruz as too strident is very accurate. Missed that last line too much caffeine.
Wow, Trump is absolutely killing it tonight. I don't care to read the last 47 pages thoroughly, but from what I glanced the conversation has been MOSTLY civil. A big change from what I'm used to on Reddit. I'll pay more attention to this thread as I've been looking for a place where I won't be slandered and called every name by leftists in the book since I became public with my supporting Trump.
Why do you support Trump?
I am not sure if they ever said they were supporting trump?
since I became public with my supporting Trump
?
The first is illegal immigration and how it ties in with jobs. While not the only factor for lower wage growth it is certainly part of it. We are very developed economy so most of the job growth is in the upper middle class and above. So that leaves everyone without the right college degree or just a high school education with depressed wages. People become commodities because you have a line around the block looking for a job. If you get rid of the illegals wages will go up. The reason is there is less competition for the jobs so the companies need to be more generous. While there will be less buyers most companies are orientated at selling to the middle class and above or corporations with global products. illegal immigrants don't buy homes new cars the fanciest tech gadgets starbucks etc. This helps out the lower middle class and above. The socialist answer is higher minimum wages but that artificial inflation destroys jobs. Also we have fiat money so prices will just rise to meet the wage increase, if they but in price control people will not be able to keep the doors open on low margins unless they are massive businesses. The capitalist answer is more free trade makes the economy stronger and we grow more. We do grow more but the trickle down effect stops at the upper middle class. Once you leave the upper middle class most people fall of into the working poor. Globalization and free trade are the root cause of this disparity of growth. While every income class is more wealthy in real income terms than they were over the last few decades more people fall into lower income brackets(to be fair more people are also upper middle class and their growth in both percentage and real terns out strips the working class and below). So while the poor in the USA are objectively much better off than they were, too many are now the poor vs middle class and are now not better off.
So why Trump? He's not the only one hard on immigration. Why does Trump specifically work for you? Which is to say really, why is a plan like 'ban all Muslims' a good idea to you? To me, it seems an unnecessarily discriminatory way of doing the same old ineffective filtering. It's not like Muslims can be diagnosed by a blood test or something, it's quite easy to simply lie about being or not being part of any religious group. It also does nothing to address the problem itself, it only stops from it being a problem for you.
How do you tell a muslim that is an extremist from one that isn't...you can't. More specifically while he says ban on muslims he means bans on anyone that comes from certain countries or has been to them for more than just a connecting flight.
I am not sure if they ever said they were supporting trump?
since I became public with my supporting Trump
?
The first is illegal immigration and how it ties in with jobs. While not the only factor for lower wage growth it is certainly part of it. We are very developed economy so most of the job growth is in the upper middle class and above. So that leaves everyone without the right college degree or just a high school education with depressed wages. People become commodities because you have a line around the block looking for a job. If you get rid of the illegals wages will go up. The reason is there is less competition for the jobs so the companies need to be more generous. While there will be less buyers most companies are orientated at selling to the middle class and above or corporations with global products. illegal immigrants don't buy homes new cars the fanciest tech gadgets starbucks etc. This helps out the lower middle class and above. The socialist answer is higher minimum wages but that artificial inflation destroys jobs. Also we have fiat money so prices will just rise to meet the wage increase, if they but in price control people will not be able to keep the doors open on low margins unless they are massive businesses. The capitalist answer is more free trade makes the economy stronger and we grow more. We do grow more but the trickle down effect stops at the upper middle class. Once you leave the upper middle class most people fall of into the working poor. Globalization and free trade are the root cause of this disparity of growth. While every income class is more wealthy in real income terms than they were over the last few decades more people fall into lower income brackets(to be fair more people are also upper middle class and their growth in both percentage and real terns out strips the working class and below). So while the poor in the USA are objectively much better off than they were, too many are now the poor vs middle class and are now not better off.
So why Trump? He's not the only one hard on immigration. Why does Trump specifically work for you? Which is to say really, why is a plan like 'ban all Muslims' a good idea to you? To me, it seems an unnecessarily discriminatory way of doing the same old ineffective filtering. It's not like Muslims can be diagnosed by a blood test or something, it's quite easy to simply lie about being or not being part of any religious group. It also does nothing to address the problem itself, it only stops from it being a problem for you.
How do you tell a muslim that is an extremist from one that isn't...you can't. More specifically while he says ban on muslims he means bans on anyone that comes from certain countries or has been to them for more than just a connecting flight.
Source?
Because it is the way we do it now. You can't practically ban all muslims nor should you. But I can certainly get an immigration ban on immigration from a large swath of muslim countries. I can't name a country like Burkina Faso and expect even the average college educated voter to know what the heck I am talking about. So you say ban muslims it gets the point across in two words.
Because it is the way we do it now. You can't practically ban all muslims nor should you. But I can certainly get an immigration ban on immigration from a large swath of muslim countries. I can't name a country like Burkina Faso and expect even the average college educated voter to know what the heck I am talking about. So you say ban muslims it gets the point across in two words.
This kind of sounds like you're ignoring the things Trump has said, and substituting in your own, different plan.
Because it is the way we do it now. You can't practically ban all muslims nor should you. But I can certainly get an immigration ban on immigration from a large swath of muslim countries. I can't name a country like Burkina Faso and expect even the average college educated voter to know what the heck I am talking about. So you say ban muslims it gets the point across in two words.
This kind of sounds like you're ignoring the things Trump has said, and substituting in your own, different plan.
What trump said he was going to ban all muslims then he walked it back to not including us citizens and military personnel. We know he can't do that for legal reasons most likely the fourteenth amendment. That being said you can limit people from certain countries with a law or possibly an executive order(likely you would need a law). People really expect him to talk like a political science major, that is never going to happen. Quite frankly I like the idea of a muslim ban, is it possible to enforce, no not really.
Trump wins MS MI HI and Cruz takes ID. I keep wondering why Kaisch and Rubio are still in this. Kaisch has absolutely no hope and neither does Rubio at this point.
Why? Let's say you did have a Magic Muslim Detector, why do you think it would be a good idea to prevent all Muslims from entering the country?
Well ideally if I was using magic I would have terrorist detector and just arrest them. While terrorism was not invented with Islam nor are they the only people that do it, Islamists from Asia, Middles East, Africa are very likely to be a terrorists. That is millions of peoples in those regions that want to kill me. Then they spread that ideology to other Muslims. So quite frankly muslims are more likely to commit terrorism than religions in every region they have a substantial population. Is it fair to most other muslims, no not really but I care more about my community and my family than some muslim over their.
This was late in coming. Up to my neck in schoolwork, treading water to make it into the next semester. It's a timeline of our involvement in Syria.
We have a stronger military than the afghanis. We can give as good as we get, and that's not something Russia would want to risk.
I honestly have no respect for the fools that would try to attack us (whatever their reasons, be it anger, dyed in the wool fanaticism, be it a misplaced sense of revenge for rather vacuous reasons), hence me denigrating them as ****** ***********. At its basest, G v E is trite; they're labels that are mostly subjective (there is objectivity to them, but not in this instance). But, if someone attacks my country or threatens my values, I'll immediately look at them as evil if they're overly violent about it.
Your perspective is exactly why humanity is destined to destroy itself. Ironically, it is a perspective that you share with those who you declare yourself to be against.
While you seem to be under the impression good and evil are subjective, it is patently clear where you think your nation resides on such a spectrum. Also incoherent is that despite acknowledging the nebulousness of evil, you use it as though it describes something real...is it arbitrary or is it not? Is evil maybe a convenient cop-out, since it presupposes the results of any debates regarding its ascription to someone/thing?
Perhaps the concept of evil is just a result of peoples' aversion to working through ambiguities and those who use it despite acknowledging its arbitrarity are striking a pose, rather than following an argument to its conclusion.
This was late in coming. Up to my neck in schoolwork, treading water to make it into the next semester. It's a timeline of our involvement in Syria.
We have a stronger military than the afghanis. We can give as good as we get, and that's not something Russia would want to risk.
I honestly have no respect for the fools that would try to attack us (whatever their reasons, be it anger, dyed in the wool fanaticism, be it a misplaced sense of revenge for rather vacuous reasons), hence me denigrating them as ****** ***********. At its basest, G v E is trite; they're labels that are mostly subjective (there is objectivity to them, but not in this instance). But, if someone attacks my country or threatens my values, I'll immediately look at them as evil if they're overly violent about it.
Your perspective is exactly why humanity is destined to destroy itself. Ironically, it is a perspective that you share with those who you declare yourself to be against.
While you seem to be under the impression good and evil are subjective, it is patently clear where you think your nation resides on such a spectrum. Also incoherent is that despite acknowledging the nebulousness of evil, you use it as though it describes something real...is it arbitrary or is it not? Is evil maybe a convenient cop-out, since it presupposes the results of any debates regarding its ascription to someone/thing?
Perhaps the concept of evil is just a result of peoples' aversion to working through ambiguities and those who use it despite acknowledging its arbitrarity are striking a pose, rather than following an argument to its conclusion.
Your going a little deep on if violence is the right answer. If we are talking ambiguities his answer is just as valid as any other answer, because there are not correct answers. Also morality can be subjective and still exist. Even if no "true" morality exists it is not wrong to consider something evil. If those that I feel are profane think they are righteous so be it, war is the answer in my book.
Wow, Trump is absolutely killing it tonight. I don't care to read the last 47 pages thoroughly, but from what I glanced the conversation has been MOSTLY civil. A big change from what I'm used to on Reddit. I'll pay more attention to this thread as I've been looking for a place where I won't be slandered and called every name by leftists in the book since I became public with my supporting Trump.
Why do you support Trump?
I am not sure if they ever said they were supporting trump? I will give a reason or two I support Trump. The first is illegal immigration and how it ties in with jobs. While not the only factor for lower wage growth it is certainly part of it. We are very developed economy so most of the job growth is in the upper middle class and above. So that leaves everyone without the right college degree or just a high school education with depressed wages. People become commodities because you have a line around the block looking for a job. If you get rid of the illegals wages will go up. The reason is there is less competition for the jobs so the companies need to be more generous. While there will be less buyers most companies are orientated at selling to the middle class and above or corporations with global products. illegal immigrants don't buy homes new cars the fanciest tech gadgets starbucks etc. This helps out the lower middle class and above. The socialist answer is higher minimum wages but that artificial inflation destroys jobs. Also we have fiat money so prices will just rise to meet the wage increase, if they but in price control people will not be able to keep the doors open on low margins unless they are massive businesses. The capitalist answer is more free trade makes the economy stronger and we grow more. We do grow more but the trickle down effect stops at the upper middle class. Once you leave the upper middle class most people fall of into the working poor. Globalization and free trade are the root cause of this disparity of growth. While every income class is more wealthy in real income terms than they were over the last few decades more people fall into lower income brackets(to be fair more people are also upper middle class and their growth in both percentage and real terns out strips the working class and below). So while the poor in the USA are objectively much better off than they were, too many are now the poor vs middle class and are now not better off.
What makes you think removing illegal migrants will improve wages or create jobs? Other than the fact that literally every study done says the exact opposite will happen, I mean.
Wow, Trump is absolutely killing it tonight. I don't care to read the last 47 pages thoroughly, but from what I glanced the conversation has been MOSTLY civil. A big change from what I'm used to on Reddit. I'll pay more attention to this thread as I've been looking for a place where I won't be slandered and called every name by leftists in the book since I became public with my supporting Trump.
Why do you support Trump?
I am not sure if they ever said they were supporting trump?
since I became public with my supporting Trump
?
The first is illegal immigration and how it ties in with jobs. While not the only factor for lower wage growth it is certainly part of it. We are very developed economy so most of the job growth is in the upper middle class and above. So that leaves everyone without the right college degree or just a high school education with depressed wages. People become commodities because you have a line around the block looking for a job. If you get rid of the illegals wages will go up. The reason is there is less competition for the jobs so the companies need to be more generous. While there will be less buyers most companies are orientated at selling to the middle class and above or corporations with global products. illegal immigrants don't buy homes new cars the fanciest tech gadgets starbucks etc. This helps out the lower middle class and above. The socialist answer is higher minimum wages but that artificial inflation destroys jobs. Also we have fiat money so prices will just rise to meet the wage increase, if they but in price control people will not be able to keep the doors open on low margins unless they are massive businesses. The capitalist answer is more free trade makes the economy stronger and we grow more. We do grow more but the trickle down effect stops at the upper middle class. Once you leave the upper middle class most people fall of into the working poor. Globalization and free trade are the root cause of this disparity of growth. While every income class is more wealthy in real income terms than they were over the last few decades more people fall into lower income brackets(to be fair more people are also upper middle class and their growth in both percentage and real terns out strips the working class and below). So while the poor in the USA are objectively much better off than they were, too many are now the poor vs middle class and are now not better off.
So why Trump? He's not the only one hard on immigration. Why does Trump specifically work for you? Which is to say really, why is a plan like 'ban all Muslims' a good idea to you? To me, it seems an unnecessarily discriminatory way of doing the same old ineffective filtering. It's not like Muslims can be diagnosed by a blood test or something, it's quite easy to simply lie about being or not being part of any religious group. It also does nothing to address the problem itself, it only stops from it being a problem for you.
How do you tell a muslim that is an extremist from one that isn't...you can't. More specifically while he says ban on muslims he means bans on anyone that comes from certain countries or has been to them for more than just a connecting flight. Also, the reason trump would be more likely to work for voters is because that is his only reason to run. He is extremely connected and very wealthy
He only loses connections and wealth running for president. He is doing it because he has a vision for USA. You don't go through the battering he is taking for narcissism none of them do, unlike most other candidates he doesn't need to hold his hat out to people to maintain his power. While people may or may not agree with that vision he is a lot like Cruz and Sanders. They want to fix something that if not broken is not as good as it could be. As for Trump over Cruz the simple matter us cruz can't get along with people. You need to be combative to be a successful leader but you also need to know how to make nice afterwords. Trumps criticism of Cruz as too strident is very accurate. Missed that last line too much caffeine.
So you want to ban the people from the country who are most likely to commit terrorist acts.
Are you sure? I mean...really?
because, spoiler, that would be white christian males. I mean, do islamists commit acts of terror? Sometimes, but while 'islamist' is more or less a subset of 'muslim', the opposite isn't true, and it's a tiny fraction of a percent. And mostly, islamists commit acts of terror against *other muslims* (and, ok, israel). But mostly they commit them in the middle east.
I mean, would you have been in favour of banning anyone of celtic descent in the 80s? Because what you are proposing makes about that much sense.
Wow, Trump is absolutely killing it tonight. I don't care to read the last 47 pages thoroughly, but from what I glanced the conversation has been MOSTLY civil. A big change from what I'm used to on Reddit. I'll pay more attention to this thread as I've been looking for a place where I won't be slandered and called every name by leftists in the book since I became public with my supporting Trump.
Why do you support Trump?
I am not sure if they ever said they were supporting trump? I will give a reason or two I support Trump. The first is illegal immigration and how it ties in with jobs. While not the only factor for lower wage growth it is certainly part of it. We are very developed economy so most of the job growth is in the upper middle class and above. So that leaves everyone without the right college degree or just a high school education with depressed wages. People become commodities because you have a line around the block looking for a job. If you get rid of the illegals wages will go up. The reason is there is less competition for the jobs so the companies need to be more generous. While there will be less buyers most companies are orientated at selling to the middle class and above or corporations with global products. illegal immigrants don't buy homes new cars the fanciest tech gadgets starbucks etc. This helps out the lower middle class and above. The socialist answer is higher minimum wages but that artificial inflation destroys jobs. Also we have fiat money so prices will just rise to meet the wage increase, if they but in price control people will not be able to keep the doors open on low margins unless they are massive businesses. The capitalist answer is more free trade makes the economy stronger and we grow more. We do grow more but the trickle down effect stops at the upper middle class. Once you leave the upper middle class most people fall of into the working poor. Globalization and free trade are the root cause of this disparity of growth. While every income class is more wealthy in real income terms than they were over the last few decades more people fall into lower income brackets(to be fair more people are also upper middle class and their growth in both percentage and real terns out strips the working class and below). So while the poor in the USA are objectively much better off than they were, too many are now the poor vs middle class and are now not better off.
What makes you think removing illegal migrants will improve wages or create jobs? Other than the fact that literally every study done says the exact opposite will happen, I mean.
I am not sure if they ever said they were supporting trump?
since I became public with my supporting Trump
?
The first is illegal immigration and how it ties in with jobs. While not the only factor for lower wage growth it is certainly part of it. We are very developed economy so most of the job growth is in the upper middle class and above. So that leaves everyone without the right college degree or just a high school education with depressed wages. People become commodities because you have a line around the block looking for a job. If you get rid of the illegals wages will go up. The reason is there is less competition for the jobs so the companies need to be more generous. While there will be less buyers most companies are orientated at selling to the middle class and above or corporations with global products. illegal immigrants don't buy homes new cars the fanciest tech gadgets starbucks etc. This helps out the lower middle class and above. The socialist answer is higher minimum wages but that artificial inflation destroys jobs. Also we have fiat money so prices will just rise to meet the wage increase, if they but in price control people will not be able to keep the doors open on low margins unless they are massive businesses. The capitalist answer is more free trade makes the economy stronger and we grow more. We do grow more but the trickle down effect stops at the upper middle class. Once you leave the upper middle class most people fall of into the working poor. Globalization and free trade are the root cause of this disparity of growth. While every income class is more wealthy in real income terms than they were over the last few decades more people fall into lower income brackets(to be fair more people are also upper middle class and their growth in both percentage and real terns out strips the working class and below). So while the poor in the USA are objectively much better off than they were, too many are now the poor vs middle class and are now not better off.
So why Trump? He's not the only one hard on immigration. Why does Trump specifically work for you? Which is to say really, why is a plan like 'ban all Muslims' a good idea to you? To me, it seems an unnecessarily discriminatory way of doing the same old ineffective filtering. It's not like Muslims can be diagnosed by a blood test or something, it's quite easy to simply lie about being or not being part of any religious group. It also does nothing to address the problem itself, it only stops from it being a problem for you.
How do you tell a muslim that is an extremist from one that isn't...you can't. More specifically while he says ban on muslims he means bans on anyone that comes from certain countries or has been to them for more than just a connecting flight. Also, the reason trump would be more likely to work for voters is because that is his only reason to run. He is extremely connected and very wealthy
He only loses connections and wealth running for president. He is doing it because he has a vision for USA. You don't go through the battering he is taking for narcissism none of them do, unlike most other candidates he doesn't need to hold his hat out to people to maintain his power. While people may or may not agree with that vision he is a lot like Cruz and Sanders. They want to fix something that if not broken is not as good as it could be. As for Trump over Cruz the simple matter us cruz can't get along with people. You need to be combative to be a successful leader but you also need to know how to make nice afterwords. Trumps criticism of Cruz as too strident is very accurate. Missed that last line too much caffeine.
So you want to ban the people from the country who are most likely to commit terrorist acts.
Are you sure? I mean...really?
because, spoiler, that would be white christian males. I mean, do islamists commit acts of terror? Sometimes, but while 'islamist' is more or less a subset of 'muslim', the opposite isn't true, and it's a tiny fraction of a percent. And mostly, islamists commit acts of terror against *other muslims* (and, ok, israel). But mostly they commit them in the middle east.
I mean, would you have been in favour of banning anyone of celtic descent in the 80s? Because what you are proposing makes about that much sense.
You are misleading people. The percentage of the christian population that commits terrorism and genocide is almost non existent. Also, why would I not be favoring an Irish ban? That country was a cluster back then. That being said the risk of someone not involved with Ireland extensively causing trouble is low even if they share a religion. More over the idea that these Irish people were planning to bomb the USA is misleading as well. Also ,no one said removing illegals would create jobs. I said it would improve wages not create jobs those two always oppose each other. The price for general labor would go up. We don't have a job creation problem we have an income disparity problem. If 5 percent of muslims support radical Islam that is 78.5 million terrorists. If everyone in Ireland was terrorist that is 6.38 million terrorists. Kind of a big difference. Also migrants are not immigrants. That is only a subset of illegals that are in the country.
Well ideally if I was using magic I would have terrorist detector and just arrest them. While terrorism was not invented with Islam nor are they the only people that do it, Islamists from Asia, Middles East, Africa are very likely to be a terrorists. That is millions of peoples in those regions that want to kill me. Then they spread that ideology to other Muslims. So quite frankly muslims are more likely to commit terrorism than religions in every region they have a substantial population. Is it fair to most other muslims, no not really but I care more about my community and my family than some muslim over their.
This is one of the most xenophobic and ignorant statements I have heard about the issue. The proportion of radical terrorists to actual Muslims is very, very small. You know millions of non-Muslims visit and live in those regions and manage not to get killed. It's as though someone from the middle east saw a KKK demonstration on TV and came to the conclusion that nearly all Christians are racist extremest.
Well ideally if I was using magic I would have terrorist detector and just arrest them. While terrorism was not invented with Islam nor are they the only people that do it, Islamists from Asia, Middles East, Africa are very likely to be a terrorists. That is millions of peoples in those regions that want to kill me. Then they spread that ideology to other Muslims. So quite frankly muslims are more likely to commit terrorism than religions in every region they have a substantial population. Is it fair to most other muslims, no not really but I care more about my community and my family than some muslim over their.
This is one of the most xenophobic and ignorant statements I have heard about the issue. The proportion of radical terrorists to actual Muslims is very, very small. You know millions of non-Muslims visit and live in those regions and manage not to get killed. It's as though someone from the middle east saw a KKK demonstration on TV and came to the conclusion that nearly all Christians are racist extremest.
Except the percentage and real numbers of violent extremist christians is much smaller. The truth is the 5 percent guesstimate is probably conservative.
Except the percentage and real numbers of violent extremist christians is much smaller. The truth is the 5 percent guesstimate is probably conservative.
I don't see how you read that article and came to the conclusion you did earlier. It continuously supports the assertion that a vast majority of Muslims oppose ISIS and radical Islam.
Except the percentage and real numbers of violent extremist christians is much smaller. The truth is the 5 percent guesstimate is probably conservative.
I don't see how you read that article and came to the conclusion you did earlier. It continuously supports the assertion that a vast majority of Muslims oppose ISIS and radical Islam.
The level of risk you are willing to take is higher than me. The part where they say"Among Nigerian Muslims, 20% say they see ISIS favorably". That means 8 percent of the population supports radical Islam. You consider 1 in 10 people that came from Nigeria are terrorists and we should let them in as an acceptable risk. Huh?
The level of risk you are willing to take is higher than me. The part where they say"Among Nigerian Muslims, 20% say they see ISIS favorably". That means 8 percent of the population supports radical Islam. You consider 1 in 10 people that came from Nigeria are terrorists and we should let them in as an acceptable risk. Huh?
"See ISIS favorably" is not the same as "a member of ISIS" and in America we should be more willing to help people fleeing extremism rather than assume everyone is an extremest. I don't feel that it is an appropriate level of risk assessment to block all people of a certain religion rather than say screen immigrants as we do currently.
The level of risk you are willing to take is higher than me. The part where they say"Among Nigerian Muslims, 20% say they see ISIS favorably". That means 8 percent of the population supports radical Islam. You consider 1 in 10 people that came from Nigeria are terrorists and we should let them in as an acceptable risk. Huh?
"See ISIS favorably" is not the same as "a member of ISIS" and in America we should be more willing to help people fleeing extremism rather than assume everyone is an extremest. I don't feel that it is an appropriate level of risk assessment to block all people of a certain religion rather than say screen immigrants as we do currently.
Which is a value judgement. Which means we are both right, because value judgments are emotional in nature. Also it takes more than just boots on a ground to run a military if you support you are part of the economic engine.
The level of risk you are willing to take is higher than me. The part where they say"Among Nigerian Muslims, 20% say they see ISIS favorably". That means 8 percent of the population supports radical Islam. You consider 1 in 10 people that came from Nigeria are terrorists and we should let them in as an acceptable risk. Huh?
Just want to point out that someone who might "see ISIS favorably" is not the same thing as an actual terrorist.
They also say 7% of Nigerian Christians "see ISIS favorably".
Which is a value judgement. Which means we are both right, because value judgments are emotional in nature. Also it takes more than just boots on a ground to run a military if you support you are part of the economic engine.
My judgement is logical your is based on fear I don't see how you could say that both of us are acting emotionally. It does not seem like too much to ask that people who oppose extremest being given shelter from said extremests.
You are misleading people. The percentage of the christian population that commits terrorism and genocide is almost non existent. Also, why would I not be favoring an Irish ban? That country was a cluster back then. That being said the risk of someone not involved with Ireland extensively causing trouble is low even if they share a religion.
The level of risk you are willing to take is higher than me. The part where they say"Among Nigerian Muslims, 20% say they see ISIS favorably". That means 8 percent of the population supports radical Islam. You consider 1 in 10 people that came from Nigeria are terrorists and we should let them in as an acceptable risk. Huh?
Just want to point out that someone who might "see ISIS favorably" is not the same thing as an actual terrorist.
They also say 7% of Nigerian Christians "see ISIS favorably".
Which still means the christian from Nigeria is less likely to be a violent extremist.
Which is a value judgement. Which means we are both right, because value judgments are emotional in nature. Also it takes more than just boots on a ground to run a military if you support you are part of the economic engine.
My judgement is logical your is based on fear I don't see how you could say that both of us are acting emotionally. It does not seem like too much to ask that people who oppose extremest being given shelter from said extremests.
look at the first definition if you be so kind. Also the issue is that I can't desperate the good from the bad muslims. Your level of acceptable risk is different than mine.
You are misleading people. The percentage of the christian population that commits terrorism and genocide is almost non existent. Also, why would I not be favoring an Irish ban? That country was a cluster back then. That being said the risk of someone not involved with Ireland extensively causing trouble is low even if they share a religion.
In supporting a former Irish ban would that not ban christians? Also the difference is the total amount of violent christians and the density of them. A lot of these cases are correlation not causation. The KKK is an example of where religion is used as an excuse and is not the cause. you are looking at a different level of threat an estimated 550-850 members for the NLFT I wouldn't call that a massive support.
If you want to make a point then make a point don't link a definition that is irrelevant to the argument and act like what I said means something other than what I said. The fact of the matter is that your position (and Trump's for that matter) is based on fear. A fear that is pretty poorly founded when you look into it. I personally do not think that a government should run on fear mongering and that is exactly what we can expect from Trump.
A lot of these cases are correlation not causation. The KKK is an example of where religion is used as an excuse and is not the cause. you are looking at a different level of threat an estimated 550-850 members for the NLFT I wouldn't call that a massive support.
You don't think that is possible that this exact same thought applies to Islam. That most of its practitioners are peaceful and it is a vocal minority that causes all the damage?
If you want to make a point then make a point don't link a definition that is irrelevant to the argument and act like what I said means something other than what I said. The fact of the matter is that your position (and Trump's for that matter) is based on fear. A fear that is pretty poorly founded when you look into it. I personally do not think that a government should run on fear mongering and that is exactly what we can expect from Trump.
Judgments are opinions. The fear in your opinion is poorly founded, but in my judgment it is not. It is completely rational in my judgement. Calling it fear mongering shows your bias. Also what exactly is wrong in listening to your fears?
Judgments are opinions. The fear in your opinion is poorly founded, but in my judgment it is not. It is completely rational in my judgement.
So you aren't afraid of radical Islam, because that seems like a huge backtrack compared to what you have been posting. And tell me what is the fear in my opinion that you seem to think is there?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
How do you tell a muslim that is an extremist from one that isn't...you can't. More specifically while he says ban on muslims he means bans on anyone that comes from certain countries or has been to them for more than just a connecting flight. Also, the reason trump would be more likely to work for voters is because that is his only reason to run. He is extremely connected and very wealthy. He only loses connections and wealth running for president. He is doing it because he has a vision for USA. You don't go through the battering he is taking for narcissism none of them do, unlike most other candidates he doesn't need to hold his hat out to people to maintain his power. While people may or may not agree with that vision he is a lot like Cruz and Sanders. They want to fix something that if not broken is not as good as it could be. As for Trump over Cruz the simple matter us cruz can't get along with people. You need to be combative to be a successful leader but you also need to know how to make nice afterwords. Trumps criticism of Cruz as too strident is very accurate. Missed that last line too much caffeine.
Source?
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Because it is the way we do it now. You can't practically ban all muslims nor should you. But I can certainly get an immigration ban on immigration from a large swath of muslim countries. I can't name a country like Burkina Faso and expect even the average college educated voter to know what the heck I am talking about. So you say ban muslims it gets the point across in two words.
This kind of sounds like you're ignoring the things Trump has said, and substituting in your own, different plan.
What trump said he was going to ban all muslims then he walked it back to not including us citizens and military personnel. We know he can't do that for legal reasons most likely the fourteenth amendment. That being said you can limit people from certain countries with a law or possibly an executive order(likely you would need a law). People really expect him to talk like a political science major, that is never going to happen. Quite frankly I like the idea of a muslim ban, is it possible to enforce, no not really.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
Well ideally if I was using magic I would have terrorist detector and just arrest them. While terrorism was not invented with Islam nor are they the only people that do it, Islamists from Asia, Middles East, Africa are very likely to be a terrorists. That is millions of peoples in those regions that want to kill me. Then they spread that ideology to other Muslims. So quite frankly muslims are more likely to commit terrorism than religions in every region they have a substantial population. Is it fair to most other muslims, no not really but I care more about my community and my family than some muslim over their.
Your perspective is exactly why humanity is destined to destroy itself. Ironically, it is a perspective that you share with those who you declare yourself to be against.
While you seem to be under the impression good and evil are subjective, it is patently clear where you think your nation resides on such a spectrum. Also incoherent is that despite acknowledging the nebulousness of evil, you use it as though it describes something real...is it arbitrary or is it not? Is evil maybe a convenient cop-out, since it presupposes the results of any debates regarding its ascription to someone/thing?
Perhaps the concept of evil is just a result of peoples' aversion to working through ambiguities and those who use it despite acknowledging its arbitrarity are striking a pose, rather than following an argument to its conclusion.
Your going a little deep on if violence is the right answer. If we are talking ambiguities his answer is just as valid as any other answer, because there are not correct answers. Also morality can be subjective and still exist. Even if no "true" morality exists it is not wrong to consider something evil. If those that I feel are profane think they are righteous so be it, war is the answer in my book.
What makes you think removing illegal migrants will improve wages or create jobs? Other than the fact that literally every study done says the exact opposite will happen, I mean.
So you want to ban the people from the country who are most likely to commit terrorist acts.
Are you sure? I mean...really?
because, spoiler, that would be white christian males. I mean, do islamists commit acts of terror? Sometimes, but while 'islamist' is more or less a subset of 'muslim', the opposite isn't true, and it's a tiny fraction of a percent. And mostly, islamists commit acts of terror against *other muslims* (and, ok, israel). But mostly they commit them in the middle east.
I mean, would you have been in favour of banning anyone of celtic descent in the 80s? Because what you are proposing makes about that much sense.
You are misleading people. The percentage of the christian population that commits terrorism and genocide is almost non existent. Also, why would I not be favoring an Irish ban? That country was a cluster back then. That being said the risk of someone not involved with Ireland extensively causing trouble is low even if they share a religion. More over the idea that these Irish people were planning to bomb the USA is misleading as well. Also ,no one said removing illegals would create jobs. I said it would improve wages not create jobs those two always oppose each other. The price for general labor would go up. We don't have a job creation problem we have an income disparity problem. If 5 percent of muslims support radical Islam that is 78.5 million terrorists. If everyone in Ireland was terrorist that is 6.38 million terrorists. Kind of a big difference. Also migrants are not immigrants. That is only a subset of illegals that are in the country.
Except the percentage and real numbers of violent extremist christians is much smaller. The truth is the 5 percent guesstimate is probably conservative.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/07/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/
Pew is a nonpartisan think tank.
The level of risk you are willing to take is higher than me. The part where they say"Among Nigerian Muslims, 20% say they see ISIS favorably". That means 8 percent of the population supports radical Islam. You consider 1 in 10 people that came from Nigeria are terrorists and we should let them in as an acceptable risk. Huh?
"See ISIS favorably" is not the same as "a member of ISIS" and in America we should be more willing to help people fleeing extremism rather than assume everyone is an extremest. I don't feel that it is an appropriate level of risk assessment to block all people of a certain religion rather than say screen immigrants as we do currently.
Which is a value judgement. Which means we are both right, because value judgments are emotional in nature. Also it takes more than just boots on a ground to run a military if you support you are part of the economic engine.
Just want to point out that someone who might "see ISIS favorably" is not the same thing as an actual terrorist.
They also say 7% of Nigerian Christians "see ISIS favorably".
My judgement is logical your is based on fear I don't see how you could say that both of us are acting emotionally. It does not seem like too much to ask that people who oppose extremest being given shelter from said extremests.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Which still means the christian from Nigeria is less likely to be a violent extremist.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judgment
look at the first definition if you be so kind. Also the issue is that I can't desperate the good from the bad muslims. Your level of acceptable risk is different than mine.
In supporting a former Irish ban would that not ban christians? Also the difference is the total amount of violent christians and the density of them. A lot of these cases are correlation not causation. The KKK is an example of where religion is used as an excuse and is not the cause. you are looking at a different level of threat an estimated 550-850 members for the NLFT I wouldn't call that a massive support.
You don't think that is possible that this exact same thought applies to Islam. That most of its practitioners are peaceful and it is a vocal minority that causes all the damage?
Judgments are opinions. The fear in your opinion is poorly founded, but in my judgment it is not. It is completely rational in my judgement. Calling it fear mongering shows your bias. Also what exactly is wrong in listening to your fears?