Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

Lurkio

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Its like saying I should have something personally against Scottish protestant settlers for occupying six counties and instituting apartheid among many other historical atrocities, shocker, I dont, even though they are part of the hive minded unionist cult....

.....actually what you're doing is essentially blaming all protestants/protestantism for "Scottish protestant settlers".

oscarBravo

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Im not calling for a ban solely on muslims... I dont discriminate on the basis of ones religion.

So you disagree with Trump that all Muslims should be banned from entering the US?

K-9

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Its like saying I should have something personally against Scottish protestant settlers for occupying six counties and instituting apartheid among many other historical atrocities, shocker, I dont, even though they are part of the hive minded unionist cult....

Yeah, that would be dumb wouldn't it?

KingBrian2

People are actually answering questions that were never posed. Trump says we need to ban Muslims entering the US. This is followed immediately by if's and but when everyone knows this is in reaction to Islamic terrorism You want to see the Islamic terrorism look at virtually every Muslim country which is plagued with Islamic disruption. The media accuse Trump of sectarianism when he only wants to keep Americans safe. The same cannot be said of Clinton. She was to continue to cover up Islamic atrocities while at the same time support US presence in the Arab world. Both those positions are contradictions. America the strongest military on the planet supports counterterrorism as well as assuming the role of Sheriff in Arab lands. A blatant violation of international law.

oscarBravo

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Trump says we need to ban Muslims entering the US. This is followed immediately by if's and but when everyone knows this is in reaction to Islamic terrorism

It. doesn't matter. what it's in reaction to. A stupid proposal doesn't get any less stupid because you can make excuses for it.

KingBrian2

oscarBravo wrote: »

It. doesn't matter. what it's in reaction to. A stupid proposal doesn't get any less stupid because you can make excuses for it.

It in appropriate for any future commander and chief to reassure the population by letting it be clear any form of terrorism Islamic, Communist or otherwise be put down by the army. The US president has a military rank. Former Presidents were themselves Generals of old. A president is not the same as Congress person who has no such duty to uphold. It is up to the military to decide what is the most appropriate method of committing forces to counterterrorism.

oscarBravo

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It in appropriate for any future commander and chief to reassure the population by letting it be clear any form of terrorism Islamic, Communist or otherwise be put down by the army. The US president has a military rank. Former Presidents were themselves Generals of old. A president is not the same as Congress person who has no such duty to uphold. It is up to the military to decide what is the most appropriate method of committing forces to counterterrorism.

...and now you're talking about military action rather than a blanket immigration ban.

My point just keeps being reinforced: the only way to be a Trump supporter is to actively ignore everything he says, and make up your own mind what it suits you to believe he means.

Which is doubly bizarre in the context of the claim that he "tells it like it is".

KingBrian2

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and now you're talking about military action rather than a blanket immigration ban.

My point just keeps being reinforced: the only way to be a Trump supporter is to actively ignore everything he says, and make up your own mind what it suits you to believe he means.

Which is doubly bizarre in the context of the claim that he "tells it like it is".

Clinton has says nothing on what must be done about Islamic terrorism. She is not alleviating anyone's fears. Fears that were stoked up by previous administrations.

JPNelsforearm

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you disagree with Trump that all Muslims should be banned from entering the US?

Yes, I wouldnt institute or agree with, a blanket ban on any one group entering any country, you could block a nuclear scientist solely because he comes from X region, which would be idiotic.
Saying that, a country has that right, if you dont control your borders and native demographics, you are not a country, so absolutely, Donald Trump can stop whoever he wants when he is president.

JPNelsforearm

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

context.

Seems a little arbitrary?

Should Trump ban all men with brown hair from entering America too?

**** it, surely just banning all men is safer?

JPNelsforearm

Deleted User wrote: »

Seems a little arbitrary?

Should Trump ban all men with brown hair from entering America too?

**** it, surely just banning all men is safer?

"arbitrary"

Yeah, its like all these men have absolutely nothing in common, oh, wait they do, its brown hair of course...... Shared genetics, culture and religion, **** that ****, its obviously the brown hair, amirite!

Christy42

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Seems a little arbitrary?

Should Trump ban all men with brown hair from entering America too?

**** it, surely just banning all men is safer?

One seems to be on the balderdash side of things. Might be tough to enforce if they all start shaving their hair. Notice that if that is the context JP hasn't called for women to be exempt from the ban. None of them in the photo.

I presume school children will also be banned from the states given the amount of shootings they have done in the states.

JPNelsforearm

Christy42 wrote: »

One seems to be on the balderdash side of things. Might be tough to enforce if they all start shaving their hair. Notice that if that is the context JP hasn't called for women to be exempt from the ban. None of them in the photo.

I presume school children will also be banned from the states given the amount of shootings they have done in the states.

Im not calling for a ban or exemption. Donald Trump is.

Absolam

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

How many dead or raped Europeans does it take?

I'm going to go with something like; you'll need to demonstrate that any number at all is attributable to the fact that they were killed or raped by people because that's what Muslims (or any other religion, or any other geographically defined population, or any other ethnicity, depending on which in particular is your 'context') do, rather than that they were killed or raped by people because that's what a very small percentage of any population does?

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Also lol, at "an act of violence", yes that all those attacks were, "a random act of violence".

Lol at "an act" magically transforms into " a random act" in a sentence with no explanation whatsoever?

JPNelsforearm

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

"arbitrary"

Yeah, its like all these men have absolutely nothing in common, oh, wait they do, its brown hair of course...... Shared genetics, culture and religion, **** that ****, its obviously the brown hair, amirite!

Yes. It is arbitrary.

What might be less arbitrary for Trump to do is to be far more specific in what he considers clusters/groups the men in the photo. Why their religion and not their hair colour? Why their religion and not their gender?

If Trump had proposed something that included the specifier "we should ban all radical Muslims from entering the country" then perhaps he might be appropriately defining the shared characteristic here.

However, the 'rule' provided through the blanket soundbite has an enormous propensity to lead to an abundance of Type 1 errors, so much so as to render the metric wholly useless in application.

Given that the vast, vast, vast majority of Muslims have not been involved in any terror attacks, perhaps it is more useful to consider that 'subscribes to Islam' alone is not the indicator variable here, and that better profiling might include digging deeper into that variable?

Lets imagine that we want to clear a field of weeds. The goal is to remove the weeds, and only the weeds. If when we go to take the weeds out of the field, we observe that the first 12 of them are green, does that give us cause to simply remove all green items from the field? Or would we benefit from being more accurate in our ruleset?

Lurkio

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

"arbitrary"

Yeah, its like all these men have absolutely nothing in common, oh, wait they do, its brown hair of course...... Shared genetics, culture and religion, **** that ****, its obviously the brown hair, amirite!

Ja, Ja. Is True.

Lurkio

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Im not calling for a ban or exemption. Donald Trump is.

So you think the ban is wrong? Why didn't you condemn him or his policy then?

JPNelsforearm

Absolam wrote: »

I'm going to go with something like; you'll need to demonstrate that any number at all is attributable to the fact that they were killed or raped by people because that's what Muslims (or any other religion, or any other geographically defined population, or any other ethnicity, depending on which in particular is your 'context') do, rather than that they were killed or raped by people because that's what a very small percentage of any population does?

Lol at "an act" magically transforms into " a random act" in a sentence with no explanation whatsoever?

Percentage wise, im not going over it again, because I've posted them countless times and you know as well as I do what those stats are, pick any country in Europe(with a high non EU immigrant population) and look at crime stats by demographic, then look that that per capita. Look at Sweden, they have actually stopped reporting the stats when they were at 53% of all rapes in the 90's due to political correctness. You have lost the argument when you resort to hiding facts.

Constant terrorism is not just "an act", which implies some degree randomness or a once off occurrence. You are dealing with an assault on Europe that has been ongoing since the sixth century, with land theft, slavery and ethnic cleansing going on right up until the 20th century, so dont pretend this is just some unforeseeable "wow where is this coming from" act.

JPNelsforearm

Lurkio wrote: »

So you think the ban is wrong? Why didn't you condemn him or his policy then?

Because the debate has swung so far to the left it needs an extreme solution to end up back in reasonable territory.

JPNelsforearm

Lurkio wrote: »

Ja, Ja. Is True.

Arabs dont share genetics:rolleyes:

The new inquisition, any study of genetic fact and the reality of the human condition is to be stopped forthwith, lest you want to be Godwinned by the archaic left wing who cant accept human genetic diversity and the reality of evolution because it flies in the face of internationalism(or whatever they call their cult).

Lurkio

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Because the debate has swung so far to the left it needs an extreme solution to end up back in reasonable territory.

So not only are you a racist, with anti-semetic views, you flop all over the place on the issues. Dear me.

JPNelsforearm

Lurkio wrote: »

So not only are you a racist, with anti-semetic views, you flop all over the place on the issues. Dear me.

Not all over the place, I agree with him 99.9%, its just I wouldnt impose a blanket ban, because there are people who would be an asset to a country, no matter their religion, ethnicity, views on civil rights, whatever. It'd be idiotic to ban someone from your country, if say he was a nuclear engineering genius because he was X from X region. Look up Operation Paperclip, thats how an immigration program should operate, you have an essential skill? You're hired.

"racist", "anti semetic", anti semitism and racism are against forum charter, as I've said countless countless times to your shtposting "muh racism", post anywhere I have been anti semetic or racist, its yawn inducing shtposting at this stage.

Lurkio

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

.........................

"racist", "anti semetic", anti semitism and racism are against forum charter, as I've said countless countless times to your shtposting "muh racism", post anywhere I have been anti semetic or racist, its yawn inducing shtposting at this stage.

I can only guess at the meaning of the above, but imagine its disclaiming racist and anti-semetic posts which have been dragged up before and are fairly clearly racist and anti-semetic. Of course if you have a problem with anything I claim you are free to report my posts.

JPNelsforearm

Lurkio wrote: »

I can only guess at the meaning of the above, but imagine its disclaiming racist and anti-semetic posts which have been dragged up before and are fairly clearly racist and anti-semetic. Of course if you have a problem with anything I claim you are free to report my posts.

Nope, I'm a big boy, I can take it, I also believe in freedom of speech, I have not, and will not, report a post. If I post against forum charter the mods can ban me, running commentary and insults as opposed to debate, its standard really from your ilk.

Absolam

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Percentage wise, im not going over it again, because I've posted them countless times and you know as well as I do what those stats are, pick any country in Europe(with a high non EU immigrant population) and look at crime stats by demographic, then look that that per capita. Look at Sweden, they have actually stopped reporting the stats when they were at 53% of all rapes in the 90's due to political correctness. You have lost the argument when you resort to hiding facts.

I haven't hidden any facts? The argument presented so far is that the actions of twelve people are sufficient context to justify discrimination against millions. I simply don't buy it.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Constant terrorism is not just "an act", which implies some degree randomness or a once off occurrence. You are dealing with an assault on Europe that has been ongoing since the sixth century, with land theft, slavery and ethnic cleansing going on right up until the 20th century, so dont pretend this is just some unforeseeable "wow where is this coming from" act.

Well, one single 'act' has been referred to so far. If we're talking centuries old constant terrorism, are we simply ignoring the incursions of white Europeans & later Americans into the middle east? Surely not?

KingBrian2

Absolam wrote: »

I haven't hidden any facts? The argument presented so far is that the actions of twelve people are sufficient context to justify discrimination against millions. I simply don't buy it.
Well, one single 'act' has been referred to so far. If we're talking centuries old constant terrorism, are we simply ignoring the incursions of white Europeans & later Americans into the middle east? Surely not?

You seem to be of the view that all these Muslim terrorist organizations are not really Muslim terrorist organizations. The Muslim Brotherhood sponsors terrorism and endorses sharia law. It is not a bad thing to say we don't want any of these Muslims in America.

Lurkio

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Nope, I'm a big boy, I can take it,...........

That will come in handy.

JPNelsforearm

Lurkio wrote: »

That will come in handy.

Absolam

KingBrian2 wrote: »

You seem to be of the view that all these Muslim terrorist organizations are not really Muslim terrorist organizations. The Muslim Brotherhood sponsors terrorism and endorses sharia law. It is not a bad thing to say we don't want any of these Muslims in America.

Nope, I'm of the view that the 12 people put forward are not representative of the millions of Muslims who aren't terrorists, in fact, Muslim terrorist organisations aren't representative of millions of Muslims, just like Christian terrorist organisations aren't representative of millions of Christians, and so on for whatever religion you choose. It's not a bad thing to say you don't want terrorists in America, it is a bad thing to say you don't want Muslims in America. Which was it Trump said again?

recedite

Politicians on an election campaign always exaggerate their position. That's how they differerentiate their own position from the others. Trump is constantly signalling his intentions with his "ideas" but these are not actual policies. The voters understand that the "ideas" will never transform literally into reality, but that if Trump was president, they would influence future state policy in some way or other.

Nobody is saying that all Muslims are terrorists. Neither is it true to say Muslims are no different to anybody else.
"Profiling" for security purposes according to ethnicity may not be PC, but it is not a "collective punishment" It is a practical use of limited security resources. It helps to protect lives.