**** Elections thread *****

[CoccoBill]

Then argue that the policy is misguided. The policy is still based on Islamic terrorism.

Explanations can be given for the results you stated existing along with a higher probability of terrorism. But once that's where the debate goes, it's about Islamic terrorism, which is what those in power who do not like the policy wants it to not be about.

So which do you think it is, they have no idea what they're doing or it's not about muslim terrorism? I don't see an option c) here either.

[wufwugy]

So which do you think it is, they have no idea what they're doing or it's not about muslim terrorism? I don't see an option c) here either.

If we're looking at where future terrorism is likely to come from, these places are among the most likely. Non-US terrorism, which is where there is way way way more terrorism, comes from these places. MMM just finished telling me that Islamic terrorists kill their own people the most. Yeah, they do. Where do they do it? Places like Syria.

We've also had big restrictions with these places already. Less so with Saudi Arabia. The former has been a strength and the latter has been a weakness.

[Poopadoop]

The shit-clock is ticking on those terrorshits.

[CoccoBill]

If we're looking at where future terrorism is likely to come from, these places are among the most likely. Non-US terrorism, which is where there is way way way more terrorism, comes from these places.

Link? Sounds incredible that all the countries that HAVE attacked american citizens in the past are no threat whatsoever, making it a sound choice not to ban them.

I'm unimpressed by your quantity and quality of data and logic presented.

[wufwugy]

Link?

Look for it yourself. There is a tremendous amount of Muslim on Muslim terrorism. And tons that has hit Europe.

The reason I don't provide substantiation myself as a rule anymore is because that sets it up to be disagreed with. If somebody seeks it out themselves, they are far more likely to weigh it.

Sounds incredible that all the countries that HAVE attacked american citizens in the past are no threat whatsoever, making it a sound choice not to ban them.

I wish they were banned. There are reasons they are not. A hope is that we will eventually have enough domestic oil production to tell Saudi Arabia to fuck off. But now, we can't.

I'm unimpressed by your quantity and quality of data and logic presented.

Eh, I could give the world and the typical response would still be



I do the same shit to others. It's nasty.

[Poopadoop]

The reason I don't provide substantiation myself as a rule anymore is because that sets it up to be disagreed with.

Well if your source is something credible, that would support your arguments. If your source is something you read on r/thedonald, then yeah you're probably right.

Unless you provide evidence to back up your claims when asked, they're nothing but empty arguments.

If somebody seeks it out themselves, they are far more likely to weigh it.

That's not how arguments work.

Descartes: Cogito ergo sum.

Pepe Lepeux : Why do you say that?

Descartes: Look it up.

...doesn't happen.

[wufwugy]

Well if your source is something credible, that would support your arguments. If your source is something you read on r/thedonald, then yeah you're probably right.

Unless you provide evidence to back up your claims when asked, they're nothing but empty arguments.




That's not how arguments work.

Descartes: Cogito ergo sum.

Pepe Lepeux : Why do you say that?

Descartes: Look it up.

...doesn't happen.

Assuming the human element is neutral. When in debate, it is not neutral.

[Poopadoop]

Assuming the human element is neutral. When in debate, it is not neutral.

Doesn't change the fact that if you present arguments with no evidence, they're shitarguments.

[wufwugy]

Person A: Syria is so dangerous! Islamic terrorists keep killing Muslim Syrians! They're refugees!

Person B: We think the Islamic terrorists that are killing other Muslim Syrians are infiltrating the refugee groups.

Person A: What evidence do you have that there are terrorists in Syria!?!?!

[Poopadoop]

Person A: Syria is so dangerous! Islamic terrorists keep killing Muslim Syrians! They're refugees!

Person B: We think the Islamic terrorists that are killing other Muslim Syrians are infiltrating the refugee groups.

Person A: What evidence do you have that there are terrorists in Syria!?!?!

Are you saying cocobill is A and you are B?

[CoccoBill]

Look for it yourself. There is a tremendous amount of Muslim on Muslim terrorism. And tons that has hit Europe.

The reason I don't provide substantiation myself as a rule anymore is because that sets it up to be disagreed with. If somebody seeks it out themselves, they are far more likely to weigh it.

What do you mean anymore?

I wish they were banned. There are reasons they are not. A hope is that we will eventually have enough domestic oil production to tell Saudi Arabia to fuck off. But now, we can't.

Ok, so nothing to do with islamic terrorism. Glad we agree.

Eh, I could give the world and the typical response would still be



I do the same shit to others. It's nasty.

I dunno, maybe you're right. Wouldn't hurt to try tho.

[MadMojoMonkey]

MMM just finished telling me that Islamic terrorists kill their own people the most.

Huh? I mean... I wouldn't at all be surprised if that's true, but I have no data to directly suggest such, and I don't recall saying it (but was sick last week, so probably said a lot of stuff I don't remember), and I quickly scanned my posts on this page and I didn't say it here.

My point is: IF I said that, it was not researched. Grain of salt.