But NATO is likely to disappear with the UN sometime...

So your claim is Trump isn't going to be a polarizing figure, and his correct rhetoric will support him in that role?

It allows him to compromise his "extremist" campaign policies and work with the opposition far more readily. Of course, how much he would actually follow his own tactics is clearly debatable. He is setting himself up to accomplish many things as a president, more so than most of his associates. Whether or not he does it is kind of the question with all prospective candidates.

Because a reasonable sample is responding to these polls at this stage of course. It's obviously not the most easily swayed. Especially considering Trump doesn't consistently come out on top out of two options.

www.quora.com/Is-Donald-Trump-likely-to-win-the-2016-election


Read Dave haynie's answer, 3rd one down I believe.

That is some seriously obsolete logic. Back when war meant standing around and fighting over a space the size of a parking lot. Hague Convention needs to go.

Yeah, but part of the Nato charter means adopting it. Not likely to disappear anytime soon.

But NATO is likely to disappear with the UN sometime...

I'm no Fudd, but that seems a little inhumane.

That is some seriously obsolete logic. Back when war meant standing around and fighting over a space the size of a parking lot. Hague Convention needs to go.

Yeah, but part of the Nato charter means adopting it. Not likely to disappear anytime soon.

But NATO is likely to disappear with the UN sometime...

what? That's the case for every other demographic of people, or didn't you know it takes years for citizenship? There are outrageous numbers of people not allowed in the country. That's why there is a passport system at customs. unless, of course, you are a muslim "refugee" from syria.
Dolt.

Then why say "Muslim" why not refugee? That presents it as an issue of bigotry, it doesn't present him someone with a plan, simply an angry bigot.
So you're point is he doesn't actually plan to act on any of the claims he makes?

Except the only support he's gotten is among the lowest common denominator of Americans. Any "strength" he's gotten by convincing the populace he's nothing but a loud blowhard is lost by him killing his chances at actual support.

Are you retarded? It's a fucking politician and political candidates JOB to speak clearly and concisely. That's literally what they're getting fucking paid for (among other things).
Let's just forgive doctors for fucking up a diagnosis because they have to deal with so many patients a day.

>>#517 (suck my fucking asshole, nerd)

not Trump. Have you been paying attention?

And as a bonus, Trump has made the same speech plenty of times to the point where if it was "just a fuck-up" it'd be forgiven if he corrected himself. He hasn't.

Except he "meant" one thing but said a very different thing. it's not a simple mistake to make it's deliberate word choice. It would seem the only one making excuses here is you.

So you know you're reaching desperately to justify a stupid position and can't further support it? Glad we both agree.

Poll numbers are a baseless way to define a "good" person or politician. Same thing as saying Lil Wayne is talented because he has record sales.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."
Bandwagon fallacy, my brutha. It's a fallacy for a reason, since the popular opinion doesn't mean diddly. People want something and they're falling for his promises much in the way of Nazi Germany. The truth is, illegal immigrants aren't ruining our economy, they're not doing jack shit. They're helping by paying into Social Security more than they take out ( news.vice.com/article/unauthorized-immigrants-paid-100-billion-into-social-security-over-last-decade I know it's Vice, but they do interview the social security administration chief actuary, so I'll believe it).

Because the polls at this stage aren't representative of popular opinion. Only the most polarized and easily swayed are responding at this stage.

It's called a rebuttal, you presented the polls as evidence, I said why I don't find them convincing. Your options then are to respond to my perspective or throw a tantrum, you chose the latter.

It would seem you're the one who's tremendously upset over any dissent to his opinion.

Not to mention: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Bandwagon fallacy. Polls cannot be used to support why a politican is good or else it's just a fallacy.

Not saying that the anon committing a fallacy makes his position wrong, just his argument invalid.

So because you've failed to convince me of your position I must be obtuse and uncompromising? It's impossible I just don't agree with your arguments? You're hilarious.

"1) The country has been attacked by supporters of a terrorist organization that is currently creating a despotic country in the middle east that calls for the US's destruction."

So now putting every muslim under accustion of supporting terrorism is right? I would just help to Speed up their destruction and finally stop my own CIA/goverment to finance more radical Groups in the fucking east so i have finally some time to deal with other bullshit. (Befor you start to argue, yes you guys financed until now almost every Terror Group in the middle east at one Point since 30 fucking years.)

"2) There is an extremely high number of illigal immigrants from the south, many with unverifiable pasts and unprovable intent"

a) this fucking problem is overblown and pushed to be such an "giant" problem, that it needed trump first to actuelly become an open discussion. b) An wall will not stop this People, i will Need unbeliefble amount of personal to guard an 1000s of miles Long wall, where then most likely still many will just be able to get over it. Not even considering the billions to Keep this fucking wall intact, nor will i Spill bullshit out like that i will mexico pay for the wall, as they have anyway barrely anything working in their own Country. I would Reform the Immigration papers to help People that are poor to have an easyer time to legaly Immigrant into my Country, helping them not just out of their missery, but also reducing effectifly illegal Immigration and getting more People to pay taxes, financing programs that are more important then an silly wall.

"3) The country is exceptionally politcally divided, this is a bad thing for obvious reasons."

I will speak the voice of reason and try to find COMPROMISSES between this 2 parties instead of allieng with one, you know, the reasonble Thing to Keep everyone happy.

"4) There is major concern of censorship, free speech and political correctness"

> Setting up laws to hinder and disrupt the oligarchy in my goverment.
> Trying to stand for the rights of People to be who they are while not directly supporting one Group.
> Free speech includes also the right for this People to talk freely about their worrys of unrestricted free speech, i can´t stop them from doing so unless i would like to be called an giant hypocrite.
> If you would get more often out into the fresh air, you would notice most People facepalm to this overly correct idiots and just find them patethicly hillarious.
> on the Point of censorship is critical, certain things should be found and censored and in extreme cases be stoped, like pedophile rings, slave traffic and other attrocious things. I would also try to make the People less butthurt about minor things, slowly getting them to stop beeing fucking pussys.

Anything else you want?

And he hasn't replied yet. Let's see if he will.

And my point is he wants to negotiate with his colleagues to find an amenable solution instead of bickering based upon partisanship. Our current president refuses to negotiate, and uses a divide and conquer policy to justify executive fiat instead of working with what he views to be an uncompromising congress. Once you become President the goal shouldn't be to polarize the people to opposing viewpoints, but compromise to attempt to bring them together. Say what you will that is pro Obama, he has failed dramatically in that regard, both on the homefront and in international politics.

So your claim is Trump isn't going to be a polarizing figure, and his correct rhetoric will support him in that role?

It allows him to compromise his "extremist" campaign policies and work with the opposition far more readily. Of course, how much he would actually follow his own tactics is clearly debatable. He is setting himself up to accomplish many things as a president, more so than most of his associates. Whether or not he does it is kind of the question with all prospective candidates.

I think you may want to rethink that lowest common denominator part. Trump is massive.
www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Because a reasonable sample is responding to these polls at this stage of course. It's obviously not the most easily swayed. Especially considering Trump doesn't consistently come out on top out of two options.

www.quora.com/Is-Donald-Trump-likely-to-win-the-2016-election


Read Dave haynie's answer, 3rd one down I believe.

Except Trump isn't talking about holding off on letting the refugees in, he's talking a bout banning all Muslims, regardless of country of origin. So Canadians, British, Japanese, whatever.

Except nothing he's said has improved his negotiating position, his entire strategy is to maximize exposure. So yeah, you and the author of that article vastly overestimate the Trump campaign.

Yeah? How about you take some in your house, and tell me what wonderful people they are.

Here we go with generalizations

Not all refugees are cirminals
Some of them are the scum of earth who deserve death or worse

Not everyone who says he's a Muslim knows about the requirements and Islamic laws

There are punishable people in every community. Why not adress those?

Why say "Hurr durr, Out with muslims" if you could say "Out with terroristic criminals"?

Dear god, there are even inherently german muslims. What about those?

That's the problem. Lumping people together and disrespecting the innocent among them. People need to realize that this isn't how you deal with problems IF YOU WANT TO SOLVE THEM

The problem with that, is that it doesn't work. Exhibit A,B,C,D latest 4 terrorist attacks.

Or the other solution is to capture and publicly execute every terrorist after force feeding them bacon and stuff like that.

Terrorists are terrorists. I mean, look at germany, for dozens of years there have been muslims living there. The trouble started when ciminals immigrated.

My idea is to watch out who is let into the countries.

Also, I highly doubt that when they kill innocent civilians that they care about eating pork.

public execution sounds good. I mean, in some cases i think death penatily is the only solution. The punishments for doing illegal stuff should be way more stricter too.

The idea of pork was just exemplary, but I dunno, dron them in pig's blood, whatevs. the point is to scare away these people, and desecrate them in the face of their own religion.

He doesn't hate the sand folk! Get him!

Don't you just wish they'd do that?

I wish they did it to most organised religions, but muslims mostly.

Yeah. We need a Technocracy.

That'd be nice, or rather a meritocracy based on technology primarily, but without shunning arts or physical stuff. We'd have scientists as celebrities, people'd want to be as smart as someone instead of just as rich.

But for that to work, basically around 60% of the human race has got to go.

An Ultra-Individualistic Militarized Technocracy.

...... until a procedure is established by which these people can be vetted. Did you miss that part? He said it. Everyone jumped to erroneously label him a racist (what race is muslim?) and the hype media was quick to cherry pick the damning parts of his speech and neglected once again the context.
Even if he was to become president, do you think he somehow has the magic power to bar any demographic group? He doesn't, fyi, not even through executive action. What he would have is a position to negotiate a settlement that seems a compromise, but in reality is what he was going for to begin with. You always pay window sticker price on cars don't you?

Maximizing exposure by polarizing the public on his extreme viewpoints is exactly how you put yourself in position of strength for negotiation. It allows you to seem to compromise your desires when you are really just working towards your initial goal. That's negotiation. He is doing this under the assumption that he will win the presidency, because if he doesn't than what does it matter anyway?

what? That's the case for every other demographic of people, or didn't you know it takes years for citizenship? There are outrageous numbers of people not allowed in the country. That's why there is a passport system at customs. unless, of course, you are a muslim "refugee" from syria.
Dolt.

Then why say "Muslim" why not refugee? That presents it as an issue of bigotry, it doesn't present him someone with a plan, simply an angry bigot.
So you're point is he doesn't actually plan to act on any of the claims he makes?

Except the only support he's gotten is among the lowest common denominator of Americans. Any "strength" he's gotten by convincing the populace he's nothing but a loud blowhard is lost by him killing his chances at actual support.

Are you retarded? It's a fucking politician and political candidates JOB to speak clearly and concisely. That's literally what they're getting fucking paid for (among other things).
Let's just forgive doctors for fucking up a diagnosis because they have to deal with so many patients a day.

>>#517 (suck my fucking asshole, nerd)

not Trump. Have you been paying attention?

And as a bonus, Trump has made the same speech plenty of times to the point where if it was "just a fuck-up" it'd be forgiven if he corrected himself. He hasn't.

Except he "meant" one thing but said a very different thing. it's not a simple mistake to make it's deliberate word choice. It would seem the only one making excuses here is you.

So you know you're reaching desperately to justify a stupid position and can't further support it? Glad we both agree.

Poll numbers are a baseless way to define a "good" person or politician. Same thing as saying Lil Wayne is talented because he has record sales.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."
Bandwagon fallacy, my brutha. It's a fallacy for a reason, since the popular opinion doesn't mean diddly. People want something and they're falling for his promises much in the way of Nazi Germany. The truth is, illegal immigrants aren't ruining our economy, they're not doing jack shit. They're helping by paying into Social Security more than they take out ( news.vice.com/article/unauthorized-immigrants-paid-100-billion-into-social-security-over-last-decade I know it's Vice, but they do interview the social security administration chief actuary, so I'll believe it).

Because the polls at this stage aren't representative of popular opinion. Only the most polarized and easily swayed are responding at this stage.

It's called a rebuttal, you presented the polls as evidence, I said why I don't find them convincing. Your options then are to respond to my perspective or throw a tantrum, you chose the latter.

It would seem you're the one who's tremendously upset over any dissent to his opinion.

Not to mention: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Bandwagon fallacy. Polls cannot be used to support why a politican is good or else it's just a fallacy.

Not saying that the anon committing a fallacy makes his position wrong, just his argument invalid.

So because you've failed to convince me of your position I must be obtuse and uncompromising? It's impossible I just don't agree with your arguments? You're hilarious.

"1) The country has been attacked by supporters of a terrorist organization that is currently creating a despotic country in the middle east that calls for the US's destruction."

So now putting every muslim under accustion of supporting terrorism is right? I would just help to Speed up their destruction and finally stop my own CIA/goverment to finance more radical Groups in the fucking east so i have finally some time to deal with other bullshit. (Befor you start to argue, yes you guys financed until now almost every Terror Group in the middle east at one Point since 30 fucking years.)

"2) There is an extremely high number of illigal immigrants from the south, many with unverifiable pasts and unprovable intent"

a) this fucking problem is overblown and pushed to be such an "giant" problem, that it needed trump first to actuelly become an open discussion. b) An wall will not stop this People, i will Need unbeliefble amount of personal to guard an 1000s of miles Long wall, where then most likely still many will just be able to get over it. Not even considering the billions to Keep this fucking wall intact, nor will i Spill bullshit out like that i will mexico pay for the wall, as they have anyway barrely anything working in their own Country. I would Reform the Immigration papers to help People that are poor to have an easyer time to legaly Immigrant into my Country, helping them not just out of their missery, but also reducing effectifly illegal Immigration and getting more People to pay taxes, financing programs that are more important then an silly wall.

"3) The country is exceptionally politcally divided, this is a bad thing for obvious reasons."

I will speak the voice of reason and try to find COMPROMISSES between this 2 parties instead of allieng with one, you know, the reasonble Thing to Keep everyone happy.

"4) There is major concern of censorship, free speech and political correctness"

> Setting up laws to hinder and disrupt the oligarchy in my goverment.
> Trying to stand for the rights of People to be who they are while not directly supporting one Group.
> Free speech includes also the right for this People to talk freely about their worrys of unrestricted free speech, i can´t stop them from doing so unless i would like to be called an giant hypocrite.
> If you would get more often out into the fresh air, you would notice most People facepalm to this overly correct idiots and just find them patethicly hillarious.
> on the Point of censorship is critical, certain things should be found and censored and in extreme cases be stoped, like pedophile rings, slave traffic and other attrocious things. I would also try to make the People less butthurt about minor things, slowly getting them to stop beeing fucking pussys.

Anything else you want?

And he hasn't replied yet. Let's see if he will.

And my point is he wants to negotiate with his colleagues to find an amenable solution instead of bickering based upon partisanship. Our current president refuses to negotiate, and uses a divide and conquer policy to justify executive fiat instead of working with what he views to be an uncompromising congress. Once you become President the goal shouldn't be to polarize the people to opposing viewpoints, but compromise to attempt to bring them together. Say what you will that is pro Obama, he has failed dramatically in that regard, both on the homefront and in international politics.

So your claim is Trump isn't going to be a polarizing figure, and his correct rhetoric will support him in that role?

It allows him to compromise his "extremist" campaign policies and work with the opposition far more readily. Of course, how much he would actually follow his own tactics is clearly debatable. He is setting himself up to accomplish many things as a president, more so than most of his associates. Whether or not he does it is kind of the question with all prospective candidates.

I think you may want to rethink that lowest common denominator part. Trump is massive.
www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Because a reasonable sample is responding to these polls at this stage of course. It's obviously not the most easily swayed. Especially considering Trump doesn't consistently come out on top out of two options.

www.quora.com/Is-Donald-Trump-likely-to-win-the-2016-election


Read Dave haynie's answer, 3rd one down I believe.

So the proper response is to set a ban on a religion for entering?

When said religion is completely at odds with The Constitution, YES!

How does Islam contradict the constitution?

Completely at odds with the First Amendment, at least.

So is Christianity.

No it isn't. That is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard! The constitution was written by a bunch of devout Christians. Christian biblical morals are represented in the bill of rights. Do you think they just made up life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness out of the blue? For a guy called theism you are remarkably ignorant of belief systems.

Except that at no point in the bible are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness mentioned. These ideas come from John Lockes writing. I've never understood this conservative argument. The US Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity.

Maybe you didn't know this, but the gospels, Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans- books of the bible- are all letters (epistles) to members of the faith from Paul the apostle. In his continuation of the teachings of Christ during the first century AD. During this time there was mass persecution of Christians in the known world. The Pauline Epistles address the fact that liberty through Christianity superseded the laws of man. Those of the faith needed to rise up from their persecution and be freed from tyranny and oppression, because that was the will of god.

Now I am paraphrasing a lot of this, but the similarities and terminology between biblical meaning of liberty and that set forth in the declaration of independance, the constitution and reinforced in the bill of rights are undeniable. Not to mention it is a well documented fact that all the founding fathers were leaders in churches and the Christian faith. They set the bill of rights as restrictions on government to protect individual liberty, as defined biblically. There are numerous clauses of "rights endowed by our maker" in the early foundation of US law.

Liberty: The opposite of servitude or bondage, hence, applicable to captives or slaves set free from oppression (thus deror, Leviticus 25:10; Isaiah 61:1, etc.). Morally, the power which enslaves is sin (John 8:34), and liberty consists, not simply in external freedom, or in possession of the formal power of choice, but in deliverance from the darkening of the mind, the tyranny of sinful lusts and the enthrallment of the will, induced by a morally corrupt state.
www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/liberty/
John Locke was one of the first to write about it, not the man who defined Liberty.

Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood. – John Adams, 1765

In Europe, charters of liberty have been granted by power. America has set the example . . . of charters of power granted by liberty. This revolution in the practice of the world, may, with an honest praise, be pronounced the most triumphant epoch of its history, and the most consoling presage of its happiness. – James Madison, Essays for the National Gazette, 1792

In it's purest form, yes.

Then why allow Christians into the country?

Because Christianity in it's purest form hasn't been around for quite some time.

Once they get aggressive, however... Well, I guess I'll just have to get radio together...

Christianity in it's purest form is an offshoot of Judaism. The US is full of christians who work against the first ammendment, should we kick them out?

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

In the last 15 years they've only killed 3 and injured 9. Looks like you lose.

You clearly can't read. Anti-bakala killed 1000 people over a month in Africa. LRA in Uganda. Breivik. Christian extremists in India. Abortion clinic bombings. How much did you read?

Might be a good idea for him to specify that.

The proper response is to be able to check that anyone entering the country is who they say they are, and are not affiliated with our enemies. Until we can do so it absolutely is a risk accepting carte blanche for asylum seekers. People are so focused on how Trump says things they completely disregard any validity to what he said. The government has every citizen's home address, drivers license, bank info, employment info, medical records, criminal records, and credit rating but somehow it is out of line to ask for background information on immigrants from an enemy war zone? OK buddy.

As far as Trump in general, he is a master of negotiation. Everything he has done or said in his campaign puts him in the position of power once negotiation starts. It is deliberate and tactful. Read here and tell me I'm wrong:
www.entrepreneur.com/article/250379

Except Trump isn't talking about holding off on letting the refugees in, he's talking a bout banning all Muslims, regardless of country of origin. So Canadians, British, Japanese, whatever.

Except nothing he's said has improved his negotiating position, his entire strategy is to maximize exposure. So yeah, you and the author of that article vastly overestimate the Trump campaign.

Yeah? How about you take some in your house, and tell me what wonderful people they are.

Here we go with generalizations

Not all refugees are cirminals
Some of them are the scum of earth who deserve death or worse

Not everyone who says he's a Muslim knows about the requirements and Islamic laws

There are punishable people in every community. Why not adress those?

Why say "Hurr durr, Out with muslims" if you could say "Out with terroristic criminals"?

Dear god, there are even inherently german muslims. What about those?

That's the problem. Lumping people together and disrespecting the innocent among them. People need to realize that this isn't how you deal with problems IF YOU WANT TO SOLVE THEM

The problem with that, is that it doesn't work. Exhibit A,B,C,D latest 4 terrorist attacks.

Or the other solution is to capture and publicly execute every terrorist after force feeding them bacon and stuff like that.

Terrorists are terrorists. I mean, look at germany, for dozens of years there have been muslims living there. The trouble started when ciminals immigrated.

My idea is to watch out who is let into the countries.

Also, I highly doubt that when they kill innocent civilians that they care about eating pork.

public execution sounds good. I mean, in some cases i think death penatily is the only solution. The punishments for doing illegal stuff should be way more stricter too.

The idea of pork was just exemplary, but I dunno, dron them in pig's blood, whatevs. the point is to scare away these people, and desecrate them in the face of their own religion.

He doesn't hate the sand folk! Get him!

Don't you just wish they'd do that?

I wish they did it to most organised religions, but muslims mostly.

Yeah. We need a Technocracy.

That'd be nice, or rather a meritocracy based on technology primarily, but without shunning arts or physical stuff. We'd have scientists as celebrities, people'd want to be as smart as someone instead of just as rich.

But for that to work, basically around 60% of the human race has got to go.

An Ultra-Individualistic Militarized Technocracy.

...... until a procedure is established by which these people can be vetted. Did you miss that part? He said it. Everyone jumped to erroneously label him a racist (what race is muslim?) and the hype media was quick to cherry pick the damning parts of his speech and neglected once again the context.
Even if he was to become president, do you think he somehow has the magic power to bar any demographic group? He doesn't, fyi, not even through executive action. What he would have is a position to negotiate a settlement that seems a compromise, but in reality is what he was going for to begin with. You always pay window sticker price on cars don't you?

Maximizing exposure by polarizing the public on his extreme viewpoints is exactly how you put yourself in position of strength for negotiation. It allows you to seem to compromise your desires when you are really just working towards your initial goal. That's negotiation. He is doing this under the assumption that he will win the presidency, because if he doesn't than what does it matter anyway?

what? That's the case for every other demographic of people, or didn't you know it takes years for citizenship? There are outrageous numbers of people not allowed in the country. That's why there is a passport system at customs. unless, of course, you are a muslim "refugee" from syria.
Dolt.

Then why say "Muslim" why not refugee? That presents it as an issue of bigotry, it doesn't present him someone with a plan, simply an angry bigot.
So you're point is he doesn't actually plan to act on any of the claims he makes?

Except the only support he's gotten is among the lowest common denominator of Americans. Any "strength" he's gotten by convincing the populace he's nothing but a loud blowhard is lost by him killing his chances at actual support.

Are you retarded? It's a fucking politician and political candidates JOB to speak clearly and concisely. That's literally what they're getting fucking paid for (among other things).
Let's just forgive doctors for fucking up a diagnosis because they have to deal with so many patients a day.

>>#517 (suck my fucking asshole, nerd)

not Trump. Have you been paying attention?

And as a bonus, Trump has made the same speech plenty of times to the point where if it was "just a fuck-up" it'd be forgiven if he corrected himself. He hasn't.

Except he "meant" one thing but said a very different thing. it's not a simple mistake to make it's deliberate word choice. It would seem the only one making excuses here is you.

So you know you're reaching desperately to justify a stupid position and can't further support it? Glad we both agree.

Poll numbers are a baseless way to define a "good" person or politician. Same thing as saying Lil Wayne is talented because he has record sales.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."
Bandwagon fallacy, my brutha. It's a fallacy for a reason, since the popular opinion doesn't mean diddly. People want something and they're falling for his promises much in the way of Nazi Germany. The truth is, illegal immigrants aren't ruining our economy, they're not doing jack shit. They're helping by paying into Social Security more than they take out ( news.vice.com/article/unauthorized-immigrants-paid-100-billion-into-social-security-over-last-decade I know it's Vice, but they do interview the social security administration chief actuary, so I'll believe it).

Because the polls at this stage aren't representative of popular opinion. Only the most polarized and easily swayed are responding at this stage.

It's called a rebuttal, you presented the polls as evidence, I said why I don't find them convincing. Your options then are to respond to my perspective or throw a tantrum, you chose the latter.

It would seem you're the one who's tremendously upset over any dissent to his opinion.

Not to mention: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Bandwagon fallacy. Polls cannot be used to support why a politican is good or else it's just a fallacy.

Not saying that the anon committing a fallacy makes his position wrong, just his argument invalid.

So because you've failed to convince me of your position I must be obtuse and uncompromising? It's impossible I just don't agree with your arguments? You're hilarious.

"1) The country has been attacked by supporters of a terrorist organization that is currently creating a despotic country in the middle east that calls for the US's destruction."

So now putting every muslim under accustion of supporting terrorism is right? I would just help to Speed up their destruction and finally stop my own CIA/goverment to finance more radical Groups in the fucking east so i have finally some time to deal with other bullshit. (Befor you start to argue, yes you guys financed until now almost every Terror Group in the middle east at one Point since 30 fucking years.)

"2) There is an extremely high number of illigal immigrants from the south, many with unverifiable pasts and unprovable intent"

a) this fucking problem is overblown and pushed to be such an "giant" problem, that it needed trump first to actuelly become an open discussion. b) An wall will not stop this People, i will Need unbeliefble amount of personal to guard an 1000s of miles Long wall, where then most likely still many will just be able to get over it. Not even considering the billions to Keep this fucking wall intact, nor will i Spill bullshit out like that i will mexico pay for the wall, as they have anyway barrely anything working in their own Country. I would Reform the Immigration papers to help People that are poor to have an easyer time to legaly Immigrant into my Country, helping them not just out of their missery, but also reducing effectifly illegal Immigration and getting more People to pay taxes, financing programs that are more important then an silly wall.

"3) The country is exceptionally politcally divided, this is a bad thing for obvious reasons."

I will speak the voice of reason and try to find COMPROMISSES between this 2 parties instead of allieng with one, you know, the reasonble Thing to Keep everyone happy.

"4) There is major concern of censorship, free speech and political correctness"

> Setting up laws to hinder and disrupt the oligarchy in my goverment.
> Trying to stand for the rights of People to be who they are while not directly supporting one Group.
> Free speech includes also the right for this People to talk freely about their worrys of unrestricted free speech, i can´t stop them from doing so unless i would like to be called an giant hypocrite.
> If you would get more often out into the fresh air, you would notice most People facepalm to this overly correct idiots and just find them patethicly hillarious.
> on the Point of censorship is critical, certain things should be found and censored and in extreme cases be stoped, like pedophile rings, slave traffic and other attrocious things. I would also try to make the People less butthurt about minor things, slowly getting them to stop beeing fucking pussys.

Anything else you want?

And he hasn't replied yet. Let's see if he will.

And my point is he wants to negotiate with his colleagues to find an amenable solution instead of bickering based upon partisanship. Our current president refuses to negotiate, and uses a divide and conquer policy to justify executive fiat instead of working with what he views to be an uncompromising congress. Once you become President the goal shouldn't be to polarize the people to opposing viewpoints, but compromise to attempt to bring them together. Say what you will that is pro Obama, he has failed dramatically in that regard, both on the homefront and in international politics.

So your claim is Trump isn't going to be a polarizing figure, and his correct rhetoric will support him in that role?

It allows him to compromise his "extremist" campaign policies and work with the opposition far more readily. Of course, how much he would actually follow his own tactics is clearly debatable. He is setting himself up to accomplish many things as a president, more so than most of his associates. Whether or not he does it is kind of the question with all prospective candidates.

I think you may want to rethink that lowest common denominator part. Trump is massive.
www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Because a reasonable sample is responding to these polls at this stage of course. It's obviously not the most easily swayed. Especially considering Trump doesn't consistently come out on top out of two options.

www.quora.com/Is-Donald-Trump-likely-to-win-the-2016-election


Read Dave haynie's answer, 3rd one down I believe.

I've never understood hollow-points. Wouldn't regular FMJ work better in trained hands?

I'm no Fudd, but that seems a little inhumane.

That is some seriously obsolete logic. Back when war meant standing around and fighting over a space the size of a parking lot. Hague Convention needs to go.

Yeah, but part of the Nato charter means adopting it. Not likely to disappear anytime soon.

But NATO is likely to disappear with the UN sometime...

What makes Wadcutters "fancy"?

Nothing, I'm referring to the "home defense" loads like the multiple impact and the RIP rounds. It's not like something is "more lethal" than a JHP through the bread basket.

I've never understood hollow-points. Wouldn't regular FMJ work better in trained hands?

I'm no Fudd, but that seems a little inhumane.

That is some seriously obsolete logic. Back when war meant standing around and fighting over a space the size of a parking lot. Hague Convention needs to go.

Yeah, but part of the Nato charter means adopting it. Not likely to disappear anytime soon.

But NATO is likely to disappear with the UN sometime...

In that case, I wonder if Wadcutters or Button Noses would be good for home defense. Supposed to stay in one piece, I'd imagine the Coroner would be grateful that they don't have to pick out tiny bits of shrapnel.

Oh god yeah. Not sure how much shrapnel picking a coroner does anyway, seems kind of pointless.

As a general rule, any ammo that is good enough for taking game works great as home defense. Granted, most pistols are limited in that regard. It's still kind of idiotic to spend $5 a round on all this fancy shit.

What makes Wadcutters "fancy"?

Nothing, I'm referring to the "home defense" loads like the multiple impact and the RIP rounds. It's not like something is "more lethal" than a JHP through the bread basket.

I've never understood hollow-points. Wouldn't regular FMJ work better in trained hands?

I'm no Fudd, but that seems a little inhumane.

That is some seriously obsolete logic. Back when war meant standing around and fighting over a space the size of a parking lot. Hague Convention needs to go.

Yeah, but part of the Nato charter means adopting it. Not likely to disappear anytime soon.

But NATO is likely to disappear with the UN sometime...

You don't use anything other than flechette loads for killing Humans, anyways.

I keep regular old soft points in my home defense loads. Shot placement is always more important that what's coming out of the barrel.

In that case, I wonder if Wadcutters or Button Noses would be good for home defense. Supposed to stay in one piece, I'd imagine the Coroner would be grateful that they don't have to pick out tiny bits of shrapnel.

Oh god yeah. Not sure how much shrapnel picking a coroner does anyway, seems kind of pointless.

As a general rule, any ammo that is good enough for taking game works great as home defense. Granted, most pistols are limited in that regard. It's still kind of idiotic to spend $5 a round on all this fancy shit.

What makes Wadcutters "fancy"?

Nothing, I'm referring to the "home defense" loads like the multiple impact and the RIP rounds. It's not like something is "more lethal" than a JHP through the bread basket.

I've never understood hollow-points. Wouldn't regular FMJ work better in trained hands?

I'm no Fudd, but that seems a little inhumane.

That is some seriously obsolete logic. Back when war meant standing around and fighting over a space the size of a parking lot. Hague Convention needs to go.

Yeah, but part of the Nato charter means adopting it. Not likely to disappear anytime soon.

But NATO is likely to disappear with the UN sometime...

How do you think the bear got in there?

Those traps are used typically for relocating bears and other dangerous large animals that wander too near human developed areas. They live trap them and bring them back away from people... dumbass

considering how they can kill people for engaging in sexual activities outside of marriage, rape would be against his culture, not part of it

being racist towards saudi arabians by misusing the term racist doesnt make you any less of a racist

Obviously. But don't wear a crucifix in public, because that's a micro-aggression. By the way you should have seen some of the "micro-aggression stories" posted at my school. They were hysterically made up, like the Asian woman who claimed that after a car accident a random bystander said to her "you Asians are such bad drives. You are going to murder us all!" Then she said that "hurt worse than the accident" and that the police later found that the accident wasn't her fault. Then everyone in the restaurant presumably stood up and clapped.

By the way, the "drives" thing is verbatim, not a typo. I should have added (sic) though.

But..but...if you let someone rape you, isn't it no longer a rape?

if you let him but regret it afterwards, its rape

>dirtbiking

real talk- back when i lived in east texas, we went bow fishing for buffalo carp in a lake, shit was awesome

Except the refugees were already being vetted. Trump called for a complete ban on Muslim immigration as well, from anywhere in the world.

President has the authority to suspend or halt immigration from specific groups for an unspecified time.

Obama did this with the Iranians and Iraqis.

Targeting by country is a much less idiotic solution. Had Trump said Syrians or refugees he wouldn't have gotten the same backlash.

There's a problem with these refugees. They aren't refugees.

The US never signed the Refugee act in the 40s and the amendments in the 70s.

They're economic migrants. The UN already set up the camps for them in the surrounding nations.

Perhaps Saudi Arabia should start taking in the refugees? Oh wait,they're Wahabbists. They're not going to take anyone I forgot. It's not the worlds responsibility to take them in. All we can do is make sure it doesn't go Chemical,nuclear or biological.

Now,if a Muslim wants to integrate into our society,and leave that backwards shit in the middle east shithole he came from,that's fine.

But when they start pushing Sharia,and start pushing their agenda,that is where you have to nip it in the bud early.

And your response to the Obama appointed director of the FBI saying that these Syrian refugees can't properly be vetted? How about the more than 1,000 open cases on Muslim immigrants already here with suspected ties to terrorist cells?

James Comey said allowing Syrian Refugees comes with significant risk because our screening process for immigrants and refugees relies on intel from ground troops, of which there have been none in Syria. All we have are the word of these people that they are fleeing the war and not insurgents instructed to go under cover to gain access here. Isis claims to have already infiltrated with sleeper cells. We just ignore that instead of offending some people half a world away?

More to the point, why are immigrants allowed much looser regulations than citizens for entering the country? We have laws stating we can't be interrogated or apprehended for crossing back with proper ID, yet we are trucking in those with no ID and providing places for them to live essentially on their word.

So the proper response is to set a ban on a religion for entering?

When said religion is completely at odds with The Constitution, YES!

How does Islam contradict the constitution?

Completely at odds with the First Amendment, at least.

So is Christianity.

No it isn't. That is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard! The constitution was written by a bunch of devout Christians. Christian biblical morals are represented in the bill of rights. Do you think they just made up life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness out of the blue? For a guy called theism you are remarkably ignorant of belief systems.

Except that at no point in the bible are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness mentioned. These ideas come from John Lockes writing. I've never understood this conservative argument. The US Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity.

Maybe you didn't know this, but the gospels, Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans- books of the bible- are all letters (epistles) to members of the faith from Paul the apostle. In his continuation of the teachings of Christ during the first century AD. During this time there was mass persecution of Christians in the known world. The Pauline Epistles address the fact that liberty through Christianity superseded the laws of man. Those of the faith needed to rise up from their persecution and be freed from tyranny and oppression, because that was the will of god.

Now I am paraphrasing a lot of this, but the similarities and terminology between biblical meaning of liberty and that set forth in the declaration of independance, the constitution and reinforced in the bill of rights are undeniable. Not to mention it is a well documented fact that all the founding fathers were leaders in churches and the Christian faith. They set the bill of rights as restrictions on government to protect individual liberty, as defined biblically. There are numerous clauses of "rights endowed by our maker" in the early foundation of US law.

Liberty: The opposite of servitude or bondage, hence, applicable to captives or slaves set free from oppression (thus deror, Leviticus 25:10; Isaiah 61:1, etc.). Morally, the power which enslaves is sin (John 8:34), and liberty consists, not simply in external freedom, or in possession of the formal power of choice, but in deliverance from the darkening of the mind, the tyranny of sinful lusts and the enthrallment of the will, induced by a morally corrupt state.
www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/liberty/
John Locke was one of the first to write about it, not the man who defined Liberty.

Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood. – John Adams, 1765

In Europe, charters of liberty have been granted by power. America has set the example . . . of charters of power granted by liberty. This revolution in the practice of the world, may, with an honest praise, be pronounced the most triumphant epoch of its history, and the most consoling presage of its happiness. – James Madison, Essays for the National Gazette, 1792

In it's purest form, yes.

Then why allow Christians into the country?

Because Christianity in it's purest form hasn't been around for quite some time.

Once they get aggressive, however... Well, I guess I'll just have to get radio together...

Christianity in it's purest form is an offshoot of Judaism. The US is full of christians who work against the first ammendment, should we kick them out?

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

In the last 15 years they've only killed 3 and injured 9. Looks like you lose.

You clearly can't read. Anti-bakala killed 1000 people over a month in Africa. LRA in Uganda. Breivik. Christian extremists in India. Abortion clinic bombings. How much did you read?

Might be a good idea for him to specify that.

The proper response is to be able to check that anyone entering the country is who they say they are, and are not affiliated with our enemies. Until we can do so it absolutely is a risk accepting carte blanche for asylum seekers. People are so focused on how Trump says things they completely disregard any validity to what he said. The government has every citizen's home address, drivers license, bank info, employment info, medical records, criminal records, and credit rating but somehow it is out of line to ask for background information on immigrants from an enemy war zone? OK buddy.

As far as Trump in general, he is a master of negotiation. Everything he has done or said in his campaign puts him in the position of power once negotiation starts. It is deliberate and tactful. Read here and tell me I'm wrong:
www.entrepreneur.com/article/250379

Except Trump isn't talking about holding off on letting the refugees in, he's talking a bout banning all Muslims, regardless of country of origin. So Canadians, British, Japanese, whatever.

Except nothing he's said has improved his negotiating position, his entire strategy is to maximize exposure. So yeah, you and the author of that article vastly overestimate the Trump campaign.

Yeah? How about you take some in your house, and tell me what wonderful people they are.

Here we go with generalizations

Not all refugees are cirminals
Some of them are the scum of earth who deserve death or worse

Not everyone who says he's a Muslim knows about the requirements and Islamic laws

There are punishable people in every community. Why not adress those?

Why say "Hurr durr, Out with muslims" if you could say "Out with terroristic criminals"?

Dear god, there are even inherently german muslims. What about those?

That's the problem. Lumping people together and disrespecting the innocent among them. People need to realize that this isn't how you deal with problems IF YOU WANT TO SOLVE THEM

The problem with that, is that it doesn't work. Exhibit A,B,C,D latest 4 terrorist attacks.

Or the other solution is to capture and publicly execute every terrorist after force feeding them bacon and stuff like that.

Terrorists are terrorists. I mean, look at germany, for dozens of years there have been muslims living there. The trouble started when ciminals immigrated.

My idea is to watch out who is let into the countries.

Also, I highly doubt that when they kill innocent civilians that they care about eating pork.

public execution sounds good. I mean, in some cases i think death penatily is the only solution. The punishments for doing illegal stuff should be way more stricter too.

The idea of pork was just exemplary, but I dunno, dron them in pig's blood, whatevs. the point is to scare away these people, and desecrate them in the face of their own religion.

He doesn't hate the sand folk! Get him!

Don't you just wish they'd do that?

I wish they did it to most organised religions, but muslims mostly.

Yeah. We need a Technocracy.

That'd be nice, or rather a meritocracy based on technology primarily, but without shunning arts or physical stuff. We'd have scientists as celebrities, people'd want to be as smart as someone instead of just as rich.

But for that to work, basically around 60% of the human race has got to go.

An Ultra-Individualistic Militarized Technocracy.

...... until a procedure is established by which these people can be vetted. Did you miss that part? He said it. Everyone jumped to erroneously label him a racist (what race is muslim?) and the hype media was quick to cherry pick the damning parts of his speech and neglected once again the context.
Even if he was to become president, do you think he somehow has the magic power to bar any demographic group? He doesn't, fyi, not even through executive action. What he would have is a position to negotiate a settlement that seems a compromise, but in reality is what he was going for to begin with. You always pay window sticker price on cars don't you?

Maximizing exposure by polarizing the public on his extreme viewpoints is exactly how you put yourself in position of strength for negotiation. It allows you to seem to compromise your desires when you are really just working towards your initial goal. That's negotiation. He is doing this under the assumption that he will win the presidency, because if he doesn't than what does it matter anyway?

what? That's the case for every other demographic of people, or didn't you know it takes years for citizenship? There are outrageous numbers of people not allowed in the country. That's why there is a passport system at customs. unless, of course, you are a muslim "refugee" from syria.
Dolt.

Then why say "Muslim" why not refugee? That presents it as an issue of bigotry, it doesn't present him someone with a plan, simply an angry bigot.
So you're point is he doesn't actually plan to act on any of the claims he makes?

Except the only support he's gotten is among the lowest common denominator of Americans. Any "strength" he's gotten by convincing the populace he's nothing but a loud blowhard is lost by him killing his chances at actual support.

Are you retarded? It's a fucking politician and political candidates JOB to speak clearly and concisely. That's literally what they're getting fucking paid for (among other things).
Let's just forgive doctors for fucking up a diagnosis because they have to deal with so many patients a day.

>>#517 (suck my fucking asshole, nerd)

not Trump. Have you been paying attention?

And as a bonus, Trump has made the same speech plenty of times to the point where if it was "just a fuck-up" it'd be forgiven if he corrected himself. He hasn't.

Except he "meant" one thing but said a very different thing. it's not a simple mistake to make it's deliberate word choice. It would seem the only one making excuses here is you.

So you know you're reaching desperately to justify a stupid position and can't further support it? Glad we both agree.

Poll numbers are a baseless way to define a "good" person or politician. Same thing as saying Lil Wayne is talented because he has record sales.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."
Bandwagon fallacy, my brutha. It's a fallacy for a reason, since the popular opinion doesn't mean diddly. People want something and they're falling for his promises much in the way of Nazi Germany. The truth is, illegal immigrants aren't ruining our economy, they're not doing jack shit. They're helping by paying into Social Security more than they take out ( news.vice.com/article/unauthorized-immigrants-paid-100-billion-into-social-security-over-last-decade I know it's Vice, but they do interview the social security administration chief actuary, so I'll believe it).

Because the polls at this stage aren't representative of popular opinion. Only the most polarized and easily swayed are responding at this stage.

It's called a rebuttal, you presented the polls as evidence, I said why I don't find them convincing. Your options then are to respond to my perspective or throw a tantrum, you chose the latter.

It would seem you're the one who's tremendously upset over any dissent to his opinion.

Not to mention: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Bandwagon fallacy. Polls cannot be used to support why a politican is good or else it's just a fallacy.

Not saying that the anon committing a fallacy makes his position wrong, just his argument invalid.

So because you've failed to convince me of your position I must be obtuse and uncompromising? It's impossible I just don't agree with your arguments? You're hilarious.

"1) The country has been attacked by supporters of a terrorist organization that is currently creating a despotic country in the middle east that calls for the US's destruction."

So now putting every muslim under accustion of supporting terrorism is right? I would just help to Speed up their destruction and finally stop my own CIA/goverment to finance more radical Groups in the fucking east so i have finally some time to deal with other bullshit. (Befor you start to argue, yes you guys financed until now almost every Terror Group in the middle east at one Point since 30 fucking years.)

"2) There is an extremely high number of illigal immigrants from the south, many with unverifiable pasts and unprovable intent"

a) this fucking problem is overblown and pushed to be such an "giant" problem, that it needed trump first to actuelly become an open discussion. b) An wall will not stop this People, i will Need unbeliefble amount of personal to guard an 1000s of miles Long wall, where then most likely still many will just be able to get over it. Not even considering the billions to Keep this fucking wall intact, nor will i Spill bullshit out like that i will mexico pay for the wall, as they have anyway barrely anything working in their own Country. I would Reform the Immigration papers to help People that are poor to have an easyer time to legaly Immigrant into my Country, helping them not just out of their missery, but also reducing effectifly illegal Immigration and getting more People to pay taxes, financing programs that are more important then an silly wall.

"3) The country is exceptionally politcally divided, this is a bad thing for obvious reasons."

I will speak the voice of reason and try to find COMPROMISSES between this 2 parties instead of allieng with one, you know, the reasonble Thing to Keep everyone happy.

"4) There is major concern of censorship, free speech and political correctness"

> Setting up laws to hinder and disrupt the oligarchy in my goverment.
> Trying to stand for the rights of People to be who they are while not directly supporting one Group.
> Free speech includes also the right for this People to talk freely about their worrys of unrestricted free speech, i can´t stop them from doing so unless i would like to be called an giant hypocrite.
> If you would get more often out into the fresh air, you would notice most People facepalm to this overly correct idiots and just find them patethicly hillarious.
> on the Point of censorship is critical, certain things should be found and censored and in extreme cases be stoped, like pedophile rings, slave traffic and other attrocious things. I would also try to make the People less butthurt about minor things, slowly getting them to stop beeing fucking pussys.

Anything else you want?

And he hasn't replied yet. Let's see if he will.

And my point is he wants to negotiate with his colleagues to find an amenable solution instead of bickering based upon partisanship. Our current president refuses to negotiate, and uses a divide and conquer policy to justify executive fiat instead of working with what he views to be an uncompromising congress. Once you become President the goal shouldn't be to polarize the people to opposing viewpoints, but compromise to attempt to bring them together. Say what you will that is pro Obama, he has failed dramatically in that regard, both on the homefront and in international politics.

So your claim is Trump isn't going to be a polarizing figure, and his correct rhetoric will support him in that role?

It allows him to compromise his "extremist" campaign policies and work with the opposition far more readily. Of course, how much he would actually follow his own tactics is clearly debatable. He is setting himself up to accomplish many things as a president, more so than most of his associates. Whether or not he does it is kind of the question with all prospective candidates.

I think you may want to rethink that lowest common denominator part. Trump is massive.
www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Because a reasonable sample is responding to these polls at this stage of course. It's obviously not the most easily swayed. Especially considering Trump doesn't consistently come out on top out of two options.

www.quora.com/Is-Donald-Trump-likely-to-win-the-2016-election


Read Dave haynie's answer, 3rd one down I believe.