Another Trump Victory!

[GoldenBoy89]

Do you read what you post?

You obviously can't find any fault in what I posted or you'd have pointed it out.

 

[expos4ever]

If you want to wear ideological blinders, go for it.

Why are you evading my repeated, and very reasonable request for some actual data to support your position?

You are rapidly painting yourself into a very uncomfortable corner - if you cannot give us actual credible data to support your stance on Muslim immigration, there is really only one conclusion that we can draw. And I think you know what that conclusion is.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Exactly, there's no middle ground between open borders and religious freedom. Never thought humanists would support such black and white thinking, but here we are.

I just think if we are banning entry from people because their religion makes them dangerous then we should also be limiting Americans from practicing that religion as well. Otherwise, we get nowhere with our solutions.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Seeing some anti-Muslim bigotry in this thread which is concerning.

lol, you must be new around here.

 

[HereIStand]

Why are you evading my repeated, and very reasonable request for some actual data to support your position?

You are rapidly painting yourself into a very uncomfortable corner - if you cannot give us actual credible data to support your stance on Muslim immigration, there is really only one conclusion that we can draw. And I think you know what that conclusion is.

Draw whatever conclusion you want. Those grounded in reality know better.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

I support the ban. Those banned countries are a clear and present danger to the safety and security of the United States of America. I would hate to see a ban on friendly Saudi Arabian followers of Wahhabism preventing them from coming to the United Sates and take flight training, that would be just horrible.

 

[TLK Valentine]

ps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-top-court-lets-trumps-latest-travel-ban-go-into-full-effect/ar-BBGexik?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

I guess he was right and the travel ban is perfectly legal and in his right to do so.

Guess again.

The high court said in two similar one-page orders that lower court rulings that partly blocked the latest ban should be put on hold while appeals courts in San Francisco and Richmond, Virginia weigh the cases. Both courts are due to hear arguments in those cases this week.

The Supreme Court said the ban will remain in effect regardless of what the appeals courts rule, at least until the justices ultimately decide whether to take up the issue on the merits, which they are highly likely to do. The court's order said the appeals courts should decide the cases "with appropriate dispatch."

 

[expos4ever]

Draw whatever conclusion you want. Those grounded in reality know better.

"Grounded in reality", eh? Hmmm....

To me, being grounded in reality means to have credible evidence. Given that you have produced none to support your view, it seems reasonable to conclude that your motivations for resisting Muslim immigration lie elsewhere.

 

[HereIStand]

"Grounded in reality", eh? Hmmm....

To me, being grounded in reality means to have credible evidence. Given that you have produced none to support your view, it seems reasonable to conclude that your motivations for resisting Muslim immigration lie elsewhere.

Hinting at dark motives again, I see. If you don't think that Muslim extremism is a terrorist threat given the lives they've taken in New York, London, Paris, San Bernardino, and elsewhere, then I'm sure what would evidence would be credible.

 

[expos4ever]

Hinting at dark motives again, I see.

It's simple logic really. If you don't have credible evidence that Muslims pose more of a threat than other groups, you are a racist or a xenophobe. And any properly educated person knows that anecdotes, such as the stuff you cited, do not constitute credible evidence.

 

[HereIStand]

It's simple logic really. If you don't have credible evidence that Muslims pose more of a threat than other groups, you are a racist or a xenophobe. And any properly educated person knows that anecdotes, such as the stuff you cited, do not constitute credible evidence.

Real people dying doesn't constitute anecdotal evidence. We don't need to abstract from reality to count dead bodies. That people are still labelled racist for pointing out what should be obvious is symptomatic of how deep the manufactured consensus is among the "properly educated."

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Real people dying doesn't constitute anecdotal evidence. We don't need to abstract from reality to count dead bodies. That people are still labelled racist for pointing out what should be obvious is symptomatic of how deep the manufactured consensus is among the "properly educated."

Considering that the country responsible for the most “real” people dying is left off the list is mind boggling.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Considering that the country responsible for the most “real” people dying is left off the list is mind boggling.

True, yes... mind boggling is very very good description.
and ....
Hmmm ,yes.... why don't the murderers just put up their hands and surrender ?

They have enough money to buy off the ..... oh, wait, they already own them....
so, that's why....

 

[expos4ever]

Real people dying doesn't constitute anecdotal evidence. We don't need to abstract from reality to count dead bodies. That people are still labelled racist for pointing out what should be obvious is symptomatic of how deep the manufactured consensus is among the "properly educated."

If it were "obvious", there would be more than just anecdotes - there would be robust data showing an association between being Muslim and committing acts of violence.

No one is denying that some people kill in the name of Islam. But people kill for all sorts of reasons.

You talk about counting bodies. When you can show that Muslims in America produce a higher stack of dead bodies than the stack produced by 20 - 30 year old white men, then you will have an argument.

If I can prove statistically that white men between 20 and 30 commit more acts of violence than Muslims in general, will you support a ban on immigration for such white men?

I will be interested to read your answer.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If I can prove statistically that white men between 20 and 30 commit more acts of violence than Muslims in general, will you support a ban on immigration for such white men?

I will be interested to read your answer.

How about this ?
You might be able to prove close to what you just said, with a strange (unexpected) twist.
How? Look up the most common causes of death in the USA. From official sites.
Be prepared for a devastating shock. Unbelief even, it is so staggering.
Don't expect to get others to believe you though, too much money is hidden.
And , btw, it is legal.

 

[expos4ever]

How about this ?
You might be able to prove close to what you just said, with a strange (unexpected) twist.
How? Look up the most common causes of death in the USA.

If you have a case to make, by all means do so. - present your data. It almost seems like you are asking me to do your homework.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If you have a case to make, by all means do so. - present your data. It almost seems like you are asking me to do your homework.

hahaha..... right ......

Everyone finds what they seek. Not what they are shown.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Real people dying doesn't constitute anecdotal evidence.

Yes, it does.

We don't need to abstract from reality to count dead bodies.

You need to count all of the dead bodies, not just some of them.

That people are still labelled racist for pointing out what should be obvious is symptomatic of how deep the manufactured consensus is among the "properly educated."

These things are only obvious to the bigoted.

 

[HereIStand]

Yes, it does.



You need to count all of the dead bodies, not just some of them.



These things are only obvious to the bigoted.

 

[rambot]

How many Muslim immigrants has Israel let in?

How many houses have Israelis stolen and/or razed?