i agree with that statement, but the 'evidence' presented, saying that it was staged is so incredibly nonsensical, that there is no doubt in my mind that it was real.

So then...wait...seriously? I thought the whole point of any rally was to get people to start supporting you. What the **** is the point in spending a ******* of money to make a giant hugbox for your already supporters?

Well it's like a klan meeting.
People who are already into the whole thing show up and bring friends who are potential supporters, then the huge crowd attracts more people because everyone likes doing the hip new thing, and they all work together to brainwash one another into believing what they're told to believe and tricked into thinking it's because they believe in it.

This is why many things like Feminism have exploded over the last decade.

I wasn't comparing trump's rally to KKK meetings.

I was comparing all political rallies to KKK meetings, thank you very much.

So you're saying I would be doing the exact same thing as I'm currently doing for the individual who disrupted Trump's rally? I would be treating each candidate/political figure with fairness beyond any personal biases towards or against any of them?

...thank you?

Except I wouldn't? You do realize that the more presumptions you need to make about a person, the more the point falls apart, right? How am I meant to defend against that in a way that would convince you? Say "nuh uh!" over and over? You're not even arguing here, you're finding any artificial justification to protect yourself from "the big bad guy who dun think different from me!"

I'm still of the philosophy that neither should be removed. Should be rather easy to verbally fend off hecklers if you're stable in your point.

Yep, and the rest of the nation gets their freedom to judge you however they want on what you do. Doesn't stop people from bitching that their campaign strategies still aren't working.

That's not what it is at all, I don't give a **** what the race of the person they throw out is, what I care about is the fact that you ought to be confident enough in your ideals to be able to debate them, regardless of when it comes up. To avoid a debate all because "this isn't a debate, this is a hugbox!" is a little suspicious.

to brag about the epic turnout on twitter.
which trump does on a regular basis.
a candidate with already a lot of supporters is more appealing to the masses

Not when there's a controversy related to throwing someone out on the basis of religion.

Both sides blatently lie. Your point?

Because "racist" hasn't been a liberal buzzword before this incident anyway.

So...liberals are bad...because the don't like racism?

......oh no?

Let's...let's not work towards that?

Not everyone who has a contrary opinion to yours is an idiot, guy. Once you realize that, maybe you can get someone elected into office.

Because it's a witch hunt, it's like the Red Scare of modern day. They see racism in everyone and everything, especially where it doesn't exist.

I have found it especially humorous when they call Islamophobia racist

These people aren't working against racism as much as they're making it an issue so they can pretend that their opposition fits their fantasies as Ku Klux Klan supporting Nazis.

Oh a thug robbed a store and attacked a cop and the thug was killed because of this? Ok story ended. WAIT! He was black, and the cop was white? This wasn't just another incident of a criminal being stopped, IT WAS RACISM.

Another someone was kicked out of a Trump rally which often happens? Ok story ended. WAIT! The person that was thrown out this time happened to be Muslim? This wasn't just another person that was kicked out like the rest of people that have, THIS IS CLEAR PREJUDICE AGAINST MUSLIMS.

Liberals are "bad" because they act like a flash mob. People aren't anymore racist, then there are witches in our country.

The same Justice Department that refused to prosecute Black panthers holding weapons outside of a voting booth?

Yeah, very credible.

Do you have a specific refutation, or are you just going to 100% disregard the most in-depth investigation into the Ferguson situation that currently exists because of that ******** excuse?

I'm challenging the credibility of a department that has taken a very partisan view of race relations in this country. I imagine if Karl Rove was the leader of the DOJ at the time instead of Eric Holder and said that there was no racism involved at all you'd have the same opinion as me.

Spare me the fake indignation.

Attacks on credibility are just lazy, dude. That's a weak-ass, ******** refutation and you know it. Why don't you address the substance? I thought conservatives were all about "the cold hard truth!"

"African Americans are more than twice as likely as white drivers to be searched during vehicle stops even after controlling for non-race based variables such as the reason the vehicle stop was initiated, but are found in possession of contraband 26% less often than white drivers, suggesting officers are impermissibly considering race as a factor when determining whether to search."

"Nearly 90% of documented force used by FPD officers was used against African Americans. In every canine bite incident for which racial information is available, the person bitten was African American."
_
"Our investigation indicates that this disproportionate burden on African Americans
cannot be explained by any difference in the rate at which people of different races violate the law. Rather, our investigation has revealed that these disparities occur, at least in part, because of unlawful bias against and stereotypes about African Americans. "_

I understand that a liberal might be offended by attacks on credibility considering their noticeable lack of it, but when citing a source thats sort of important. You know, having a credible source. Thats a thing.

I refuse to take the DOJ's methodologies at face value. I'm sure you've also been skeptical of reports released by at least some government agencies.

Something tells me you're not a fan of Bush's reasoning for the Iraq war.

"I understand that a liberal might be offended by attacks on credibility considering their noticeable lack of it"
That's rich. Coming from the man with no sources, and whose refutation to my overwhelming evidence is INCREDULITY. 10/10 credibility mate!

"I refuse to take the DOJ's methodologies at face value."
Taking it at face value isn't necessary, seeing as they describe their methodology in the report (not that you'd know, because you're too afraid to read it and face the COLD HARD TRUTH).
"reviewed over 35,000 pages of police records as well as thousands of emails and other electronic materials provided by the police department. Enlisting the assistance of statistical experts, we analyzed FPD’s data on stops, searches, citations, and arrests, as well as data collected by the municipal court."
It's just numbers, baby! It's just the straight up mathematical facts of the matter!

Your incredulity is just a flimsy attempt to justify hiding from the truth.

So, hypothetically speaking, if I were to provide a source that disagree with you, would that make me right, you wrong, or would we be even? I could spam multiple statistics about how blacks are dangerous and stupid, but something tells me you're not gonna accept "DA COLD HARD TRUTH" this joke is funny, isn't it guys? so easily.

Perhaps you're not intelligent enough to know how easily numbers can be eschewed or manipulated for a specific purpose. Perhaps you're just another partisan hack. Maybe both.

Regardless, I did notice you didn't address my point about Bush. Do you take that report at face value? Hopefully I'll get an answer next time. Lets hope you don't miss it by accident again.

"I could spam multiple statistics about how blacks are dangerous and stupid"
Go ahead if you want. It wouldn't change the facts of documented racial bias in the police.

"Perhaps you're not intelligent enough to know how easily numbers can be eschewed or manipulated for a specific purpose."
I'm a graduated biologist, we're all about stats. If you can point me out a flaw in the methodology then I'll humour you, but right now all you have is conspiracy and speculation.

"Perhaps you're just another partisan hack. Maybe both. "
Of course. I'm so politically biased I can't see the facts right in front of me, but YOU are so wise and impartial! YOU see the cold hard truth!

"Regardless, I did notice you didn't address my point about Bush."
I assumed it was a throwaway remark, but if you insist.
"Something tells me you're not a fan of Bush's reasoning for the Iraq war."
Yes, because we know now after-the-fact that the evidence was fabricated and the justifications were flimsy. (Do you know who was against the Iraq War from the very start though? #FeeltheBern) We have the advantage of hindsight for the Iraq War. I was like 8 when that **** kicked off, so I had no opinion of the reports at the time. What's your point? 'Reports can be wrong!!!' Yeah, no **** .

"Do you take that report at face value?"
No I do not. I read it and assessed its methodology for myself. I looked into what data it was analysing. I considered the report in light of other evidence (i.e. the recent cop whistleblower from the Baltimore police dept).

"Go ahead if you want. It wouldn't change the facts of documented racial bias in the police. "
But would it prove that blacks are dangerous and stupid? If the answer is no, I have to point out your inconsistency on the whole "sources are always right" implication. If the answer is yes, well, maybe police have a reason to be racist, eh?

"I'm a graduated biologist, we're all about stats"
I'm the King of Austria, I'm all about spiking peasants.

"but right now all you have is conspiracy and speculation. "
Nah, just casual skepticism. I'm sorry that offends you so much.

"Of course. I'm so politically biased"
I'm lead to that conclusion based on the whole "unless you believe this department with a known partisan perspective on race relations, you're a dumb conservative" things.

"YOU see the cold hard truth! "
Really, a third time? Even after I mocked you? I guess biology majors don't require any wit.

"Yes, because we know now after-the-fact that the evidence was fabricated and the justifications were flimsy."

Oh wow, so the evidence was fake after the fact? Huh. Crazy how that happens.

"#FeeltheBern"
Excuse me while I simultaneously laugh and vomit. I'd just like to point out though that me and Cuckie Panders have something in common, and thats not a bad thing for once. Using your "logic" he'd be a loon in denial because he was skeptical of the evidence presented at the time, and where it was coming from. Someone should of told him questioning credibility is soooo weak, though I don't imagine that would phase Bern all that much, it's what hes known for. Besides being an idiot who appeals to idiots. Eh hem.

" I was like 8 when that **** kicked off, so I had no opinion of the reports at the time"
But if you were you'd believe them without a doubt, right? Damn conservative sheep.

"What's your point? 'Reports can be wrong!!!' Yeah, no **** . "
You say that, but you seem to be flabbergasted that I could be skeptical of a partisan DOJ. It's funny how bias works, huh?

"he recent cop whistleblower from the Baltimore police dept"
Oh golly, whosteblowers are known for their accuracy, and that really reflects poorly on american policing as a whole and especially Ferguson. A lot of great evidence to compare it to there, chief.

When you have time I'd suggest googling confirmation bias. And also another candidate. Preferably one thats not a meme.

"But would it prove that blacks are dangerous and stupid?"
Statistically more so than whites, yes. There's a whole discussion as to WHY, which I know you racists hate, but the statistics are what they are.

"If the answer is yes, well, maybe police have a reason to be racist, eh? "
Which brings us to the discussion of WHY!
One of my original quotes...
"African Americans are more than twice as likely as white drivers to be searched during vehicle stops even after controlling for non-race based variables such as the reason the vehicle stop was initiated, but are found in possession of contraband 26% less often than white drivers, suggesting officers are impermissibly considering race as a factor when determining whether to search."
See, perfect example of racial bias proving INEFFECTIVE. Racial profiling has been assessed, and it doesn't have a strong case!
"because profiling can increase crime while harming communities, it has a “high risk” of contravening the core police objectives of controlling crime and promoting public safety" Jack Glaser, Suspect Race: Causes and Consequence of Racial Profiling 96-126

"Nah, just casual skepticism."
skepticism = any questioning attitude towards unempirical knowledge or opinions/beliefs stated as facts, or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted. You're not being skeptical, because the data I'm providing you IS empirical. You're just being close minded.

"I'm lead to that conclusion based on the whole "unless you believe this department with a known partisan perspective on race relations, you're a dumb conservative" things."
You've yet to show any evidence of 'partisan perspective on race relations' in the Ferguson report. Again, pure speculation!

"Someone should of told him questioning credibility is soooo weak"
Yeah, that's why he had substantial justifiable reasons to be opposed to the Iraq War. You, on the other hand, have 0 substance to your rejection of the Ferguson report. PROVE ME WRONG.

"Oh wow, so the evidence was fake after the fact? Huh. Crazy how that happens."
Yeah, and the evidence was suspect from the very start (hence Bernie Sanders rejecting the idea with arguments to back it up). You've provided 0 substance to your rejection of the Ferguson report. Face the STONE COLD TRUTH or prove me wrong.

"you seem to be flabbergasted that I could be skeptical of a partisan DOJ."
I'm not flabbergasted at all - I knew you were an idiot from the start!
The thing is, you're not skeptical. You're just rejecting it without justification. "I SAY THEY'RE NON-PARTISAN, THEREFORE ANY FINDINGS THEY HAVE CAN BE REJECTED WITHOUT ANY FURTHER JUSTIFICATION!!!"
No dude, no. You're an idiot.

Here's how the debate stands. I provided empirical data that the Ferguson Police Dept is racially biased in an unjust manner. I went through the evidence, described and assessed the methodology, and pointed out some damning evidence.
You said 'NUH UH, THEY'RE BIASED! NOT ME, THEY ARE! THIS REPORT HERE WAS BAD, THEREFORE ALL REPORTS ARE BAD!"
You're losing this debate, hard.

and I'm going to bed. Catch you in the morning faggot.

OK, so then Donald Trump DOESNT want to set up an immigration check to turn people away on the grounds of religion? Because I'm pretty sure that's what the concern is, and if it were a witch hunt, like you said, it would mean that thing wouldn't be a point on Trump's "once I run **** " list.

So then...is it not?

I fail to understand the issue if he does though. It's within the presidents power to due such. previous presidents have done it, both rep's and dem's. Some legislation allows the president to "bar immigration to the country on the grounds the people in question adhere to an ideology that will inevitably lead to a violent rebellion or out bursts against the government." or something like that. You can't argue that modern islam isn't an ideology that wants to impose its form of government on the world. intelligence agencies across the globe typically number the amount of radicals in the religion to be around 25% of the total. That's around the population of the entire united states.

taking all of this, the extremely weak screening process for "refugees" or even "immigrants" at this point, said by both european countries and united states officials, it's justified to bar immigration from these places. An elected leader's duty is not to the world. an elected leader's duty is to the people that trusted them enough. If they do not take every chance to protect them without baring their freedoms, they are a failure as a leader.

like we're not already?

continuing that I'm vaguely sure the majority of that 25% are dirt poor, so they just say that **** , they can't do anything about it. there's a huge wealth gap in those countries.

but seriously, it doesn't matter what you -think- it matters what is. and according to pew research, typically on point and bipartisan, that's what it is.

Do you have sources for this, or were you just kinda hoping I'd accept it because you said its happened?

which bits? You gotta name the bits you want sources from.

"I don't see the issue with it, though, other presidents have done it."

Acting like you don't know what the **** I'm talking about. Go ahead, tell me you still have no idea what I mean. Play the stupid card.

no, I just threw a lot of information out there, some bits you might argue against, others not.

www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

(3) Security and related grounds

(iii) any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means,
is inadmissible.

www.pewglobal.org/2006/05/23/where-terrorism-finds-support-in-the-muslim-world/

25% of the islamic world openly supports radical terrorism according to Pew research. 7% of that is part of the population that does it, not just support it.

it is an ideology that promotes the overthrowing of secular or nonislamic governments for one that is. so yes, there are grounds for baring of immigration.

That makes it legal to occur, but the point you made was that other presidents have done so. There's also the issue that Trump wouldn't be doing it based on country of origin, but on a religion. If it were the former, I'd like to be told about it, because I'm seriously hoping he's not serious about that. Doing it based on religion is a) a little counterproductive and b) really unconstitutional.

i've heard that during the iranian hostage crisis (during the 90's or 80's? Not sure, was still a kid) all immigration was bared.

in terms of when the united states bared immigration based on nationality, note all of these were during times of war which the united states might technically be in.

Presidential Proclamations 2525, 2526, and 2527 or the Alien and Sedition Acts. Used in WW I and WW II. It was used to bar immigration from the countries america was at war with at the time. sadly it was used also to imprison, and deport citizens from these countries, deportation used after the war.

counterproductive I don't understand. in the modern world, it's an ideology that is toxic and anti- every moral the western world holds true to itself. the best way of stopping an ideology is stopping its spread completely.

unconstitutional would imply they're already citizens of the united states. a country should have no power or say over some one who isn't party of its citizenry.

He wants to put a moratorium on immigration from predominately muslim countries until we can work out the vetting process and "get a hold of things", which is presumably taking out a few major terrorist organizations.

So then the turn away will be based purely on nationality?

I'm not twisting anything. Should be a pretty easy question to say no to if that's the real answer you believe in.

Besideswhich...I'm not the one dictating his answers there chucklehut. I'm not the one who made him say "essentially, yes".

Effectively yes.

And you wonder why the concern is about racism...

Nationalities are rascist now? Do you think hes doing it because those nations are predominantly brown? He's going to turn down snow white if her passport shows shes from a no go zone.

Racism is discriminating someone on their nationality you ******* retard!

You guys have to be willfully doing this at this point...

What are you talking about? You can change your nationality,that's the entire point of immigration. A black man born in America is an american national. Nationality has nothing to do with race.

Nope, but thinking there's a religious holy war going on pretty much is...

I thought I was supposed to be the one seeing racism where there isn't racism. Now here you are seeing jihads where there aren't any. Now why don't you tell me why, and how justified you feel with your perception of what's going on, and why I shouldn't substitute every single phrase you say for an argument for what you seem to think I'm doing.

Why is it suddenly a holy war though? It wasn't back when Bush was going after the wrong group in the early 2000s. It wasn't when Obama was managing the war in the Middle East the last 8 years. Now that you need a hot button topic to support someone from your party, though?

"HOLY WAR! HOLY WAR! ITS A HOLY WAR! TRUMP NEEDTA FIGHT THE HOLY WAR! YOU SHOULD BE SCARED OF THE HOLY WAR! WHY AINT Y'ALL SCARED OF THIS HOLY WAR?!"

Totally not suspicious...

"Sick strawman"

You one of those retards to? Tell me, then, where I substituted what your argument was. What I did was propose a counterpoint, which you have no defense for, so you took the typical route and called it a straw man.

that's what people want .
he's appealing to those who already hate islam, this will only make him stronger.
to republican voters.
when the general election comes around, he doesn't stand a chance.

oh, i am fairly certain trump's campaign will last until the very end. he will annihilate all other republican candidates.

then he'll lose.

Because the Dems have such strong opposition to throw against him? A literal communist who got run off his own stage and awoman with so many skeletons even the lib media are starting to get spooked thinking about them being brought up by Trump.
It sounds like you're expecting Trump to win a cage match with Russian bears then fall to malnourished dogs.

"A literal communist"

He's a Nordic model social democrat that opposes open borders immigration. He gets slandered by the media as often as Trump does.

Sorry it took so long to respond. The response thing didn't pop for yours. Either that or I missed it mixed in with other ones.

But he doesn't get as much media as Trump, positive or negative. Source, Bernie himself
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrdl0pyw5xk

Trump is so controversial that he gets more attention than any other candidate, period. Most of Clinton's attention is over her dumb scandal ******** and the closest thing Sanders' campaign has to that is the side effect of a **** up by the DNC. When he does get attention, it's red-baiting.

Nice try guy. I got into this knowing the odds were stacked against him. If the game is rigged we've just gotta try harder to win it. MAGA!

the odds are definitely not in his favor: it's not even close.

www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner

Trump has no shot according to my gambling addiction. Case closed

25 different betting sites - their entire business is calculating odds - all consider Clinton about 3-4 times more likely to win that Trump. that's insignificant to you?

Considering I have a couple friends who are into these who have been groaning about how their sure candidates have crashed and burned despite looking good on all the sites, forgive me if I'm skeptical.

skeptical, sure.. but you seemed to be certain of the opposite, with no evidence to back that up

And you seem certain of the opposite, with nothing but gamblers wishes to back it up. I'd say we're in the same boat thus far.

It's nice to see two liberals hug each other for support.

Something tells me you're gonna need that on election day.