Trump: Dawn of the 3rd Party

I don't yet know where kalasle stands on these matters, but he seems to clarify and analyze carefully. Even if we mostly disagree, I appreciate his approach. +4

 

Potentially! You should be critical of the sources on which you base your stances, at least, and considerate of other sources' methodologies, which may mean that you come to depend upon sources you previously thought were inaccurate, or eventually discard sources you currently find credible. I think some of Sok's criticism of your selection here relates to that reflexive criticism.

For instance, it seemed like you were picking up on the Daily Express because it was a source you found that supported your case, but its approach to reporting and use of information was suspect when compared to other publications with whose conclusions you disagree.

As an abstraction on this example, say that one study supports position A, and has a poor research design, while another study supports the inverse position of B, and has a strong research design. The study supporting A may be the best made out of all the studies that support A, and so if you supported A, you would elect to sight this study. The problem shows up because the study supporting B is actually the stronger study on a technical level, and thus should be convincing to someone who values a sense of impartial accuracy in methodology. Of course, there's a lot more to consider when making decisions than just the research design or reporting methods, but those are still worth something.

 

The objective data must change, or I remain firm in my belief.

I DO believe in climate change, just not the hysteria that 7 trillion dollars must be spent each year for the next decade, and then even more later or... The second coming of the environment will kill everyone a few generations from now. Omgwtfbbqsauce?!? Yes, we are polluting. Yes, we need to go green. Yes, we should spend plenty of money researching climate change. Yes, CO2 is almost certainly causing some harm. So are other factors. Yes, the models have been revised by scientists as the data changed. No, I am NOT upset that scientists adapted their models. Yes, I want my great-great-great-great grand kids to inherit a wonderful planet. I really, truly, honestly believe that lasting and true progress can be achieved. Tremendous inertia must be overcome to get humanity back on track. /dissertation.

 

Yeah, it's a neat link. I'm mostly talking about -- thinking of -- situations that can reasonably escalate their actual research design, into cases where researchers can for instance use a true experiment. The first example in the link is doing what's essentially a data-heavy time series, which is barely better than a cross-sectional analysis and only partly accounts for time; that's a constant issue with economics data, though, so there's not much getting around it, and it's why people often criticize the softer sciences. For some of the later medical material the author discusses, those researches are either lazy (to be cruel about it), hasty (to view them practically), or most likely just underfunded: doing more complex designs takes up more time and resources, and there's no guarantee it helps. I took a really solid EPPS class on this stuff, which is from where I'm pulling a majority of my views.

 

Long, but very fantastic read! I highly recommend. Thanks Sok.

 

TIME has chosen Angela Merkel as 2015 "Person of the Year."

http://news.yahoo.com/german-chancellor-angela-merkel-named-person-time-130505430--finance.html


She is a good choice, even though I have serious reservations about her open door-ish policy.

The leader of ISIS was 2nd, while Trump was 3rd. This proves TIME is nutso!! It also gives The Donald his first loss in the last 6 months, and to a bonafide mass murdering and mass raping evildoer. Imagine how Obama and/or Hillary and/or Jennifer Lawrence feel about taking 4th or worse. I mean, JLaw overthrew TWO national tyrants just last month!!!

 

Oh boy. I don't even know how to start with this, but here we go

If I'm right, what you're saying is more or less: "because Islam is more than just a religion, because it also incorporates politics (and the first amendment seperates those in the USA), it creates friction concerning immigration".

I can agree with that to some extend. Islam goes much further than christian faiths in that way and we have secular states.

However, how you go from that to "lets stop every muslim from entering this country until an undefined time because a very very minor portion (god knows what the numbers are, but I'd wager less than 1%) seeks to enter the USA and actively harm us". Like what. How is this okay? How this even remotely okay? A few threads ago you were against the ban on selling weapons to people on a terrorist watch list, because the government can make mistakes and second amendment/personal rights. But somehow banning over a billion people, about 1/7th from the worlds population from entering the USA because of a minor few is a great plan? Somehow having the right to bear arms, even when on a terrorist watchlist (justified or not) is more important than the rights of a billion Muslims to enter your country (American and non-American citizens alike).

Can I just ask, honest to God, what do you envision this would lead to? Because to me, the only possible outcome of Trumps plan is spiting Muslims around the world, playing right into ISIL's hand. I don't see how this doesn't end up with more people supporting, having sympathies or joining ISIL. I can't imagine that any Muslim banned from seeking job opportunities, visiting family/friends/loved ones, following dreams just goes "oh well, not to worry, still love you and those preaching hate against the USA are still totally wrong". I'm not saying they'll all just jump into ISIL's hands, far from it. But it's gotta sting, and I believe it will definitely incite some to radicalize. I just don't understand how you could see this plan doing any good.

Oh and by the way, how does one envision this "ban on muslims"? Do we brandmark all of them? Do we give them a shiny star, WWII style? I'm overplaying it, but you get my point. How is this not going to end up a "every person of color will now officially be held to a different standard when trying to enter the country" sorta thing?

I just have so many questions. Just.. I'm mindblown.

I do agree with your premise, Islam is a much more 'complete package' so to say and some seek to actively impose sharia law in non-muslim countries. But to go from this to a ban until further notice, no I can't support that.

I believe that if we want to deal with this, we want to keep the majority of the muslim population, who does not approve of ISIL's actions "on our side", or whatever that means. They are the key. They are the closest to possible growing radicalism. It starts in their communities. They are the ones who can notice it first. They are the ones who can help keep it under control, as much as possible. If we just write a blanket "Firk you" cheque to the whole religion, well.. I don't think the consequences will be desirable.

/rant over

 

Kotakuinaction is pretty extremist, over the top unnecessary I feel. PC can be cancerous, but not to the extent that some portray. Not sure about r/theredpill, but these communities tend to do more harm than good.

I typed this right after seeing soks post about r/kokatuinaction, so ill refrain from adding my additional input until I finish the thread

 

Yes the TIME publicists chose Merkel, but a poll of the readers chose Bernie Sanders as the winner. Let us never forget

 

That might very well have been your best political post ever, within Off Topic.

Islam is not just a religion. Sadly, a significant minority of Muslims are supremacists. And they want to overthrow the entire political, legal, cultural, and religious order of the West. Terrorists come from the ranks of Muslim supremacists. Moderate Muslims, a big majority, focus on religion and thus they have been getting along just fine with the rest of us for generations. Our gvt has a tough time differentiating between those two types of Muslims. For this reason Trump proposed a temporary ban on all new Muslims entering the USA, until a better method is found to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I happen to disagree with The Donald on this matter, but I am very glad that he raised the topic. Many millions are discussing this issue now, and hopefully most will come to realize that winning is not as simple as just capturing/killing the actual terrorists--because they are only a sign of the core problem. Muslim supremacy is the twisted ideology that must be crushed. I oppose DJT's idea to ban new Muslims from entering Murica.

Non citizens do not have a right to enter this country. Fact.

You did go over the top a bit, but I agree with your conclusion that a temporary ban would do more harm than good. A longer ban would be even worse. On the other hand, Muslim supremacists are at war with the West. Britain did not import German warriors during WWII. Italy did not import American warriors during WWII 2. Carter stopped Iranians from immigrating during the hostage crisis. Heck, FDR was a LOT worse with Americans of Japanese descent than what Trump is proposing. Again, I oppose DJT on this ban plan.

I agree 100% with your last paragraph. Excellent closing statement!

 

December 10, 2015


Most of the interviews for this poll were conducted before Trump made statements concerning a ban on Muslims entering the United States.

Thirty-five percent of Republican primary voters support Trump, up 13 points since October, and his highest level of support in CBS News polling. Ted Cruz (16 percent) has moved into second place, while Ben Carson, who led the October poll, has dropped to third.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-do...z-second-hillary-clinton-over-bernie-sanders/

 

You have really weird opinions on Merkel.

serious reply: both merkel and the ISIS leader have been more influential worldwide over the year than your trumpet.
( unless you are trying to argue that trump should be lower on the list? because i'd agree)

 

I just re-read it and cringed over the spelling errors, but whatever. I sometimes do good things.

I don't think we are at war with the Islam as a whole, which is why the idea seems nuts to me. There's gotta be some middle ground solutions as far as the whole religion goes.
Also, I think FDR was generally regarded as a good president for what he did during WWII and whatnot, but people didn't particularly agree with how he set up camps to round up Japs or whatever exactly happened.

I agree that the one positive from this whole debacle is that there's conversation now, although it comes at the cost of offending Muslims around the world. Who knows if something good will come of it, let's hope so. I'm glad politicians at least spoke up to disagree with the silliness.

 

Can't comment on Trump, but seems logical that Cruz is surging. He's having some good times. As far as I'm concerned, it's a matter of time before Carson drops to irrelevancy. He ran off non-politician and neurosurgeon fame, but now that it's starting to get tight on knowledge and acting as a potential president, the guy just doesn't have it in him and probably never will.

Imo, you just can't become POTUS if you haven't been following politics and foreign affairs for years. This makes it harder to find a viable non-politician candidate, but you can't hand the biggest military and one of the most complicated foreign affair nations to a guy who started learning it a year beforehand. Just no. Advisors or not, just no.

 

DJ has not posted this challenge to the trumpchump yet;

 

On the issue of Muslim immigrants this Pew research is very enlightening and highly troublesome.

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-topline1.pdf
It's a long document dealing with their surveys in Islamic countries.

About half way down are questions 53 and 54 which ask is it justified for the family to end the life of someone (a family member-one question deals with female the other male) who committed adultery or premarital sex to preserve the family honor. There is quite a range of response, but the lowest was 4% to over half of Muslims said it would be often or sometimes justified for the family to kill the family member.

A little further down is question 58 about whether the woman should have the right to decide for herself whether she should wear a veil. Only 3-% in Afghanistan said yes. The highest on the list was 92%.

Question 76 about blasphemy was only in one country (Pakistan). 75% said that blasphemy laws are necessary to protect Islam in the country. It would be interesting to see how that would change in other countries.

Question 78 deals with how much a wife must obey her husband.

Question 79 do you favor making Sharia Law the law of the country. Chilling! Outside of Europe and Central Asia most countries had half or more say yes. 99% in Afghanistan.

Those are just ones I noticed in a quick look through the document.

There were several numbers skipped so I don't know what happened to those. I wish there was something on about how they feel about punishment of apostates from Islam i.e. people who convert away from Islam. My gut feeling is the results would not be comforting.

The question is are too many Muslims who come into the country have values that are incompatible with ours? If so why shouldn't Muslims face greater scrutiny in immigrating to the US particularly with the existing terrorist threat? Doesn't every nation have a sovereign right to choose who they allow to come into the country and who to exclude?

I'm not so sure Trump's idea to put a pause Muslims immigrating into the US is such a bad idea in general.

The key issue of the effectiveness of the vetting process used for immigrants needs and must be addressed. How to watch out for those being radicalized to become a danger is a parallel key issue that also needs to be addressed.