These politicians can't rule over themselves well, much less over America. They can't stop 70,000 guys with AKs and pipe bombs, when they have a advanced military of about two to three million, can't build a road without going over budget, and can't get rid of drugs and illegal guns. What makes you think these guys are skilled enough to rule the world?

What's the issue with USA ruling the world?

Good luck containing ethnic tension, fierce nationalism, a bureaucratic headache extended across the world and economic collapse in one area could have much longer lingering effects. Also, any path to America ruling the world would most likely lead to nuclear war.

Unless you're talking about a group of people who are all of the same race, it's not "racist" to do anything to them.

'

Unless you're saying there is nothing wrong with saying something like "Muslims are terrorists" then this is just pedantic and irrelevant drivel. You lay out the exact terms you'd like to use to describe Trumps despicable behavior and I'd be happy to use them so you can quit distracting from what matters with this nonsense.

no matter how much crime they commmit, it's just good for the economy to have more people

lol

No, that is not the "one simple reason to take them in." According to you we should let in known terrorists, murderers and rapists. Great for the economy!

The reason to let them in is that this is America and we don't discriminate. Especially when Muslim immigrants (or whatever terms you want to use) are no more harmful than any others, so Trump's whole basis for denying them is absurd.

Edited 6/10/2016 02:46:34

He isn't a liar

Trump lies more than any human being I've ever seen.

luls coming from the Hillary supporter bitch pls u can't say shit she dodged and hasn't taken a real question in her life "So Jesu-I mean Hillary, how is your ice cream? Do you enjoy being amazing?

From the guy accusing other people of trolling. Is that your strategy? Call everyone else a troll and it allows you to troll harder?

Just admit your a neocon not a libertarian. He is less interventionist than Hillary.

Good joke. Let's see what Trump is for that Clinton is not.
*For bigger military spending.
*Upscaling the war on Mashriq (sending footsoldiers).

Clinton:
*For upscaling the war on Mashriq (but no footsoldiers).
-----
*For lowering military spending.

It's actually pretty racist of you to call Muslims a "race".

What is a race? Race is just some cultural grouping of folk that they think they are in, and a pretty outdated and unspecific word, anyway. Whenever someone says "race", I think of German and other "ethnic scientists" in the 1930s.

What's the issue with USA ruling the world?

A Yemeni man whose son and grandson were both killed in a drone strike said this of Obama: "Others may see him as a good and great man, but I, I can only seem him as a merciless, heartless child killer who included my children in his murders.".

" Just admit your a neocon not a libertarian. He is less interventionist than Hillary. "

Why do you doubt I'm
Libertarian?


The only modern interventions I supported were Afghanistan ( Until the original mission was over, then it was a waste ) and Korea. Unless something is escaping me, that's it.


I support low taxes, the abolishment of the Department of Education and Homeland Security.

I am pro-gun rights, pro-gay rights, Anti-Patriot act.

I was and am against Operation Iraqi Freedom, Syrian Involvement, Ground forces in the war on ISIS, Active drone strikes where the legitimate government discourages it, Striking Iran.


I'm the classic libertarian

Islam isn't a race Billy, it's a intolerant believe system that has proven time and time again to conflict with Western values of Equality and Democracy.

Tell me again Kilos, what belief in this world isn't intolerant of something?

Edited 6/10/2016 05:35:17

Islam isn't a race Billy

I repeat:

You lay out the exact terms you'd like to use to describe Trumps despicable behavior and I'd be happy to use them so you can quit distracting from what matters with this nonsense.

Unless you're saying there is nothing wrong with saying something like "Muslims are terrorists" then this is just pedantic and irrelevant drivel. You lay out the exact terms you'd like to use to describe Trumps despicable behavior and I'd be happy to use them so you can quit distracting from what matters with this nonsense.

I already layed out the terms I would like you to use, and I did it in a fairly specific manner:

Categorizing all muslims as one race is very much discrimination against a religious group (which is the term we need to be using, not "racist") and implies an ignorance of the fact that there are followers of Islam from practically every race

---

lol

No, that is not the "one simple reason to take them in." According to you we should let in known terrorists, murderers and rapists. Great for the economy!

I never said that, you're the only one who did.

And to debunk your terrible idea; No, that's not good for the economy. Most known rapists, murderers, and terrorists will be locked up in prison and basically be a drain on the economy.

The reason to let them in is that this is America and we don't discriminate. Especially when Muslim immigrants (or whatever terms you want to use) are no more harmful than any others, so Trump's whole basis for denying them is absurd.

Lol, okay this is america and we don't discriminate. Ever heard of segregation?

Also, Muslims are statistically speaking more dangerous than other migrants. Just check out this list of terror attacks in the latter part of 2015 which is dominated by islamic extremism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_July%E2%80%93December_2015

Now granted we are talking about something like 0.0050% of muslims being radical compared to around 0.0000% of everyone else, but this statistic is still relevant when you're talking about such a large group.

Islam isn't a race Billy, it's a intolerant believe system that has proven time and time again to conflict with Western values of Equality and Democracy.

How exactly is this? A full 1% of americans are muslims, and in a lot of places in the west these numbers are much higher. There may be some teachings in the quran/hadiths that oppose western values, but the vast majority of muslims just don't give a crap.

Edited 6/10/2016 18:23:40

discrimination against a religious group

The very use of the word 'muslims' is imprecise, so this isn't accurate either. He doesn't care about white Germans who converted to Islam, for example. Very likely doesn't care about East and Southeast Asian muslims. I'm not going to say what kind of muslims he doesn't want because you still have not explained to me how I'm supposed to refer to those people without you whining about it.

I never said that

You also didn't say that you're not a giraffe but I can infer from what you have said that you are indeed not a giraffe.

Ever heard of segregation?

It's 2016.

Muslims are statistically speaking more dangerous than other migrants. Just check out this list of terror attacks

Terror attacks are the only type of danger?

0.0050% of muslims being radical compared to around 0.0000% of everyone else,

It's not 0.0000% of everyone else. Non-muslims commit terrorist attacks. See: school shootings. And the Oklahoma City bombings. Do muslims commit more? Probably. But what I care about are dead bodies, not the way in which they were killed. And I would like to see the data on the number of deaths attributed to each immigrant type. I'd bet a lot muslims are at or near the bottom and hispanics are at the top.

The very use of the word 'muslims' is imprecise, so this isn't accurate either. He doesn't care about white Germans who converted to Islam, for example. Very likely doesn't care about East and Southeast Asian muslims. I'm not going to say what kind of muslims he doesn't want because you still have not explained to me how I'm supposed to refer to those people without you whining about it.

It's not imprecise. In fact, there is very little ambiguity in the term. It's literal translation is "One who submits to God", and it is defnined as:

Muslims consider the Quran to be the verbatim word of God as revealed to the Islamic prophet and messenger Muhammad. They also follow the sunnah teachings and practices of Muhammad as recorded in traditional accounts called hadith.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim)

Refer to them as a religious group, a group of people primarily from asia, or a group of peanut butter sandwiches. It's really very simple, just don't call it "racism", as discriminating against certain sections of dozens of different races certainly does not qualify as "racism".

You also didn't say that you're not a giraffe but I can infer from what you have said that you are indeed not a giraffe.

It's only common sense to assume that I am not a girrafe. It's not common sense to assume that I am for loosing rapists and murderers, and in fact this is a completely ridiculous thing to infer from any sentence. The only logical justification for assuming that I am for loosing rapists, murderers, and terrorists is if I explicitly say so (Which I have not, in fact I have explicitly said the opposite).

It's 2016.

I'm not sure why you're going to try to tell me that there is absolutely no discrimination that ever happens in the US. This is a completely ridiculous assumption to make about any country.

It's not 0.0000% of everyone else. Non-muslims commit terrorist attacks. See: school shootings. And the Oklahoma City bombings. Do muslims commit more? Probably. But what I care about are dead bodies, not the way in which they were killed.

If you want to be really precise, it's not 0.0000%, it's much less than that. That is, around 0.000043% of americans are radical terrorists (182 out of 323,740,000).

Edited 6/10/2016 19:35:21

It's not imprecise.

It's imprecise in this context. What Trump means by Muslims. I explained that and you ignored it and deliberately misinterpreted my words.

You have done this repeatedly. As such, I cannot continue this discussion. It's pointless to respond to what you are saying as you will not address my responses directly and with intellectual integrity. You'll keep shifting the goalposts and coming up with more straw men to attack. That's not what people who are right do. That's what people who know they are wrong, but don't want to admit it, do.

I went ahead and read your other responses and as I expected, each of them was fallacious nonsense that did not address my point.

You should learn to just admit when you're wrong. You look foolish and lose all credibility when you take this route.

That's what people who know they are wrong, but don't want to admit it, do.

Actually, what normally happens when someone is wrong is that they insult your intelligence and then storm off in a huff, refusing to respond to any of your points.

Kind of like what you're doing.

Edited 6/10/2016 19:49:35

You did the same thing just now, that's a straw man, that's not what i said nor did.

Ironically, you accused me of what you keep doing: not responding to my points.

If you'd actually like to go back and address the points that I made, I'd be glad to explain why you're wrong. But you haven't addressed any of them. You quoted pieces of them out of context and invented straw men and random red herrings and other drivel. But my points remain. You tried to evade them.

Example: Muslims and how it's imprecise in this context. You haven't addressed that, you came up with some other unrelated nonsense, deliberately misinterpreting what I said, even though I explained it with examples.

Edited 6/10/2016 20:21:09

You did the same thing just now, that's a straw man, that's not what i said nor did.

It's not a straw man. your full post was:

You have done this repeatedly. As such, I cannot continue this discussion. It's pointless to respond to what you are saying as you will not address my responses directly and with intellectual integrity. You'll keep shifting the goalposts and coming up with more straw men to attack. That's not what people who are right do. That's what people who know they are wrong, but don't want to admit it, do.

Parts where you "refused to address my post and ran off in a huff" and "insulted my intelligence" are bolded.

Only quoting the relevant parts of your post does not imply a straw man, it just makes the discussion easier as you can tell exactly what part of your post I am responding to.

Example: Muslims and how it's imprecise in this context. You haven't addressed that, you came up with some other unrelated nonsense, deliberately misinterpreting what I said, even though I explained it with examples.

My response was not unrelated. You made a baseless claim ("the definition of muslim is imprecise, he only wants ban arab muslims"), and I simply refuted this. How do you know that he only intends to ban arab muslims and not indian/pakistani muslims?

Edited 6/10/2016 20:40:53