No, because NEITHER line means that.
No, because NEITHER line means that.
>I guess so, but you can't go from what you consider mathematically appropriate to what is appropriate.
Sometimes there is only one answer. Those times are the times when one can be calculated mathematically.
>they are a domestic problem but one unlikely to grow larger with christian immigrants.
>Muslim terrorism is likjely to increase with muslim immigrants, so they should be discouraged.
Anyway, even if your unsubstantiated bullshit is true - you haven't dealt with the much bigger issue. The former problem is much more severe - and your proposed solution for the latter (much smaller) problem is provably aggravating the larger problem. That makes it a stupid plan. What makes it even stupider is that your explanation for the former problem - exactly applies to the latter. The Muslims who wish to enter the United states are fleeing oppression by fundamentalists within their own religion, just like your protestant ancestors did - and you would THINK then that those protestants would apply the Golden Rule - the single most important thing that their Jesus ever taught them and do unto others over there. Remembering that they got there after fleeing oppression by another sect of their own religion, should make them WANT to welcome other people doing the same.
Sorry, but this is the most insane idea ever that you are proposing because it fundamentally ignores human nature, both the best and the worst of it.
No. He doesn't. Does "I will end ISIS" sound isolationist to you ?
Hint - boots on the ground in Syria or Iraq would be the worst thing America could do right now. That will mean war with Russia.
And besides, the results of Trump has already begun. This past week 3 terrorists were arrested in Kansas, they had built a pretty major bomb they were planning to set off in a place of worship, and had stockpiled over 2000 rounds of amunition which they were intending to use for a massacre. But you won't hear them called terrorists on Fox because they are white, male and christian. Only the official arrest report calls them that you know, not something reporters should tell the public or anything right ? People who plan to attack civilians for political or religious reasons are terrorists, it doesn't matter *what* religion.
All three are on record as wanting to vote for Trump (they may miss election day though on account of being in jail and rather unlikely to get bail).
In fact - if Trump was serious about terrorism he'd be going after rightwing white militias, not Muslims, since they are by far the biggest threat. Since 2002 far more Americans have been killed by Christian terrorist groups (aka rightwing white militias but lets call them what they are - radicalised Christian terrorists) than all other kinds of terror groups combined (yes, including Muslim terrorists). That's according to the FBI.
A separate study by Westpoint Military academy rated radicalized Christian terrorists the single largest threat to American national security. The right wing tried very hard to censor that report with republican congressmen even threatening to cut their research funding if they didn't retract it.
Why is it that Trump won't even say the words "Radicalized Christian Terrorism" ? Is he in cahoots with them ? Unlike his claims about Obama causing ISIS he actually DOES have a measurable share of blame in this - these groups have gotten significantly more emboldened, dangerous and violent since his campaign started. He has given them a sense of legitimacy they lacked before. Since they were ALREADY the greatest threat to American lives from terror - his actions have pushed them into an entirely new category.
And that's just domestically. Globally - the world has not been in this much of a tightrope situation since 1914. The global powers are fucking itching for a fight. The last time the world was anything like this - it took just one assassination of the wrong person in the wrong place to set of the first world war. And nobody predicted THAT outcome - hell weeks afterwords the markets hadn't even shifted yet, the full horror of what began when the Archduke got shot didn't register until 3 months later when the body bags started returning. Some 10% of the global population was killed over the next 3 years.
Isolationism wouldn't work - for starters it would actually decrease the already extremely low odds of preventing another world war. The two biggest factors in doing so thus far has been the USA and the EU. The EU has been hugely weakened in recent months thanks to Brexit, that weakens their capacity to prevent another landwar in Europe (and they have been GOOD at that, under the EU Europe has had the longest period of peace in it's entire history). Now you want remove the other one ? AT the same time that Russia is flexing it's muscles ? Testing the willingness of other nations to honour treaties. The same time that China is flagrantly ignoring diplomacy and flat-out stealing teritory from other South Asian countries ? Those acts of invasion hasn't escalated yet - but any one could be the last straw.
Already Trump's talks about NATO has caused some EU politicians to call for a European army to be created - because they fear they can no longer rely on the US to provide backup if they need to defend themselves against a power like Russia or China.
And if you think isolationism means the US could let the world fight a war and stay out of it then you're really silly, they tried that - TWICE. It isn't possible.
We need a US leader who will do all in her power to prevent another world war, to de-escalate the shit that's happening around the world. We may not get one, an isolationist would aggravate the problems. Regardless of which you get - if the war that's coming is not avoided, the US will be FORCED to join. And then we will need the most coolheaded, and least egotistic leader in the US we can get. Because the world's largest nuclear power can NOT enter a world war thinking there is ANY situation where they should use them.
We need a leader who will actually refrain from launching a nuke EVEN if a US city gets hit by a nuke from elsewhere. Because one dead city is still better than a dead world.
A thin-skinned egomaniac with no respect for the US's values, for what it stands for, even for it's proud tradition of peaceful transitions of power where the loser always concedes to the winner... that will be like throwing fucking chunks or lithium in the powder-keg.
The good news is - it's not going to happen. I've said since July that Trump is about to hand the democrats the biggest landslide victory since Barry Goldwater got his ass handed to him and for the same reason. The racist hicks who supported Goldwater and now support Trump are very loud - but there just aren't that many of them. Trump has a bigger chance of locating his tiny penis on a cold day than he has of becoming president.
The line you agreed with and the line you take issue with are two ways of saying the exact same thing. That was the whole point.
I've only had a few encounters with him - and he was pretty crazy each time. So you're saying he was saner in the past ? Must be the Trump effect.
Well seriously - nobody could claim that the board is overstepping their bounds if they revoke her license. She has a clear and long history of dangerous misinformation - which she gives weight to with the authority of her credentials, she is clearly aware that she is violating the code of conduct and has publicly stated that she continuous to do so.
Surely any organisation has the right to remove their association with somebody who refuses to act according to the rules for membership of that organisation ?
My dad is an electrical engineer. Every employment contract he has ever taken included a clause specifically prohibiting him from doing private work - even in his own time, and the cited reason is professional liability. If he screws up a design he did privately, his employers are liable.
>Awareness of an event does not alter your chance of experiencing that event unless you are actively seeking, or avoiding it.
Yes, which is why I said that what you said was true. It's STILL useless though. It tells us nothing that every smart person didn't already know.
But then nobody at all suggested it and it's mindboggling how you could conclude that what the GP said meant that. Nobody was suggesting awareness alters the odds. We were informing you of the simple fact that it wouldn't be on the news unless the odds were astronomically low. Hence, if it is on the news - you can conclude that the odds must be astronomically low. Ergo, if it's on the news it will not happen to you.
No. You're an idiot and everything you said is false. Those ideas were displaced by better science.
That's the RIGHT way to challenge science - the ONLY way - with better science. There is no science backing anti-vaxxers whatsoever. It's not even worse science, it's the complete absence of science.
There have been nurses who successfully overturned the orthodoxy on treatments - and made breakthroughs, but they did it with better science - they defeated the orthodoxy with methodically gathered evidence.
That's the only way that is acceptable.
These nurses are killing people.
>The United Kingdom fell?
No. The British Empire fell. What exists today has is something quite different and no more the same empire surviving than the modern city of Rome is the Roman Empire.
Only a complete wingnut moron like yourself could look at a fact and conclude from it the exact OPPOSITE of what it implies.
There are quite a few - and notably a study that showed that spreading the schedule out and NOT following the suggested schedule DOUBLES the risk factors.
There are plenty wrong with Clinton - and she will almost certainly launch at least one new war. But at least HER war won't be a nuclear war.
You're a fucking idiot if you would give the fuckign nuclear launch codes to a 'narcisistic clown'. You don't give those to anybody who is not VERY thick-skinned.
Take an astronaut to launch.