I didn't lie. You simply have trouble formulating your arguments and so you slip.
Yes you lied. You are trying to justify your lie. That "surprisingly" is not on me
This is where you approve of what Trump has suggested:
Now Hillary Clinton believes that increasing 500% the amount of Syrian Muslims immigrants into America is a great idea. Trump thinks placing a freeze on immigration of Muslims and folks from Muslim dominant countries is the way to go.
I think Trump is being rational but I don't think his immigration policy would be easily implemented or adhered to. It is something though. .
Now, you got it slightly wrong, because he doesn't simply want to ban Muslim immigrants, he wants to ban every Muslim from entering the US. Read about it here. This is what you actually approve of, only you're like a lot of people and got your facts wrong. A bit embarrassing but par for the course.
No. I had it right. This is what he had said in interviews. What I mentioned above is what I agreed in principle with. I did not get my facts wrong I agreed with what he said. Two very different things. What may or may not be embarrassing is, after me saying that I actually WANT to see him flesh this out and expand on it, to treat it as me getting it wrong once he does exactly that. I mean I would be a bit embarrassed but after you are shameless in your lying, I guess the downside is not that steep.
And this is where you do that awkward Ebola on steroids comparison.
It was not awkward and saying so does not make it so.
Not making any sense. Okay I will spell it out to you:
If a disease like Ebola on steroids that spreads quickly and is really deadly but also difficult to detect, starts in a country like.....I dunno....Iran.
So subtle. What you are saying is that they all look the same and so they should all be stopped until we learn how to tell them apart.
Take off your tinfoil, Odeon. An analogy is an analogy. It is not saying Muslims are some kind of plague. Who all look the same? People suffering with disease? The same in which way? In fact this is key to the analogy.
National safety at risk because there are a heap of people clamouring to get in and some of them are infectious and some are not. How do you tell who is infectious. Do they "look" sick? If so take out all those who appear sick and let in the reflect. Congrats some of those you did not let in were just a bit run down or had a cold and many you let in are sick. You have just spread a deadly disease to the United States.
Maybe when you said look the same you were not trying to implied that they "present the same" (ie sick people and well people may look similar or Moderate Muslims and radical extremist Muslim may present the same passports and answer the same questions in the same way not yielding their real views and with the same lack of records to back their claims) you were saying that they all are from the same ethnicity or race or whatever. I don't know but if you are trying the latter approach, don't bother.
As for me choosing Iran, why not? I wanted a smallish country surrounded by other countries. Let's be completely honest if I had of said any other country you would have had an issue with that country too. I would be a bigot if I said an African country or a South American country and no doubt if i had of said European country you would have found some way I was "subtle" there. No I was not subtle, it wasn't an issue, as much as you try to make it one.
It spreads like wildfire and is not contained before it crosses the border into nearby countries and population. People flee in terror of this horrid disease and try to escape to other countries as refugees. Many do not know they are infected.
Again, subtle. It's enough that they are Muslims, maybe they don't even know how radical they've become. Let's just stop them all until we learn how to do this.
No its not subtle. Radicalised Muslims DO know they are radical and they know their views, what an idiotic inference to make. No, I did not make it, you did.
This is stating in the analogy that the reasoning behind the leaving and the urgency and the crisis is honest. Infected people fleeing a plague is as crisis riddled as populations fleeing a war. The want to migrate is not suspect. You will know that most of the people fronting up have VERY genuine reasons to wanting to make somewhere else their home. Which one of these people IS a threat and how do you tell. THAT is the point.
Some do but are hiding their secret. Many are not infected yet. They all want to immigrate to the United States of America. Three options:
A) Bring them in at normal rates, business as usual - subpar screening.
B) Bring them in at accelerated rates - subpar screening
c) Acknowledge you have subpar screening and cannot detect all the sick ones and do not let any in until you can differentiate healthy from sick and sanction America from the diseased ones even if not allowing perfectly healthy ones in (as they may actually be sick but unable to be diagnosed) and that not doing so may place these innocents in harm's way.
C is not a nice option but it is not bigoted against Iranians.
(Oh yes swap ebola on steroids with Radical Islam and the point should make itself. If not I could make another analogy with Swedish Swimming Pools and the need for segregated swimming times.)
Your point has been made, yes. Stop them all because you are afraid and don't know how to tell them apart. No matter that the probabilities are low, lower than a lot of other things, say, shootings by nationals, and no matter that there is an easy solution to bring down those numbers, one that is supported by a majority of people.
Gun laws will not reduce that. You are simply a fool if you believe that. Are you a fool? No. Then what was the ACTUAL "easy solution".
Mateen as an example hated gays. He wanted to kill those gays in that nightclub. He chose his target. Radicalised Islamic hatred. Now take away legal access to that gun. What happens in this equation? Fire? Chemical attack? Or maybe another Boston bombing style event? Yes your "easy solution" would not have done shit, would it?
Out of interest what would the easy solution have done to the Boston Bombers? Nothing? Great conversation, great plan.
You are effectively comparing Muslims to Ebola but trying to explain it away. Donald would be so proud if he knew.
Where is the comparison? Again you repeating a lie is not masking it truth.
There is NO Ebola. In the analogy I did not even say there was Ebola (in which to compare to Muslims). I did say the disease was like Ebola on steroids. Which way was it like Ebola? In which ways was it different? what was it called? Where did it originate from? Was it a strain of Ebola?
No all you know is that it was NOT Ebola but was even worse.
Next part (not that you will get this because you are "playing dumb" - at least that is what I thought originally and now I am not so sure you are "playing")
The disease in this instance is analogous to "Radicalised Islamic extremism" (disease - ideology), What is also analogous Healthy people to Decent Moderate Muslims and Infected people - Radicalised Muslims.
So either you are too stupid to get this rather blatant and obvious distinction or you are pretending to not get it. Either way nothing to do with me.
What's sort of interesting is that if you actually missed that Donald wants to stop every Muslim, not just the immigrants, you are supporting a half measure and not the full Donald. Or is it that you think the terrorists only immigrate rather than travel to their targets on tourist visas?
There is very little interesting in that. It is two positions and I am happy holding two different opinions on two different positions. I am happy to consider the basis for the next version of things that he brings to the table too. I will judge everything as his opinion evolves and he starts exploring and examining his idea.
Why would I imagine that terrorists only immigrate? Is that an actual question? Do you imagine that asking this might better make a point or pad your position? I already made these points but here is a much better point. If he is stopping all Muslims, what is stopping a Muslim guy coming in and saying he is a Christian or an Atheist or a Hindu?
By the way word is that though Donald Trump's position is all Muslims, it looks like it will be softening as he fleshes things out. I don't begrudge him that. Hard approach and then make a few concessions than a soft position and try to pad it up.
I think a concept needs to evolve. Interested in what he will come up with in the end. It will be different to what he said first (that I agreed with in principle) nor that he has now. It will be something a little less hard and fast.
Anyway, I am now done with this argument. It's not going anywhere and pretty much any thread here is more fun.
Well when you lie about me, you will generally get called out. Probably best not lying in the first place if you do not want the result of your lying. Its not getting anywhere because you are doubling down on dump and trying to justify lies. There is no justification and doubling down on stupid is really silly