**** Elections thread *****

[Poopadoop]

One is in the constitution, the other is on an internet forum. That's not an arbitrary distinction.

Of course it is. If the majority of citizens are in favour of electoral reform, it's irrelevant if 63% is the same as the 66.7% of the representatives that are needed to change it. You just picked on something he said when it was clear he was referring to the same thing when he said 63% and 2/3, as if that somehow changes the meaning of what he said.

It's not made up. It's wholly based on your own statements. How can you claim outrage at a policy for its' targeting of religion, and then simultaneously say that there is no way to specifically target that religion. You're arguing against yourself there.

The fact that it's impossible to target the religion with precision doesn't prove the religion wasn't targeted.

Nice job sticking to the liberal-pundit playbook. When you run out of substantive arguments, name call. Classy.

So it's ok for you to dish out the insults and imply that those who disagree with you are clueless morons but when you get called something you don't like, it's offensive?

Here's a tip: Start showing others respect around here and you'll get respect in return.

I'm not playing this game where you say outrageous things, I paraphrase, and then you call me out for not quoting you exactly. That's petty nonsense that distracts from the substantive debate. But I'll give you this opportunity to correct the record if you like.

You're not 'paraphrasing' because if you were, there'd be no issue. What you're doing is extrapolating from my argument to some absurd extreme position that I don't hold and I never claimed to hold, like 'Trump hates muslims'. And you keep doing it over and over despite getting called out on it over and over. Stop doing it and I'll stop calling you out on it.

Confirmation bias.

You don't know what confirmation bias is if you think forming an impression of someone based on what they say and do is confirmation bias.

What about the larger population of citizens that DO agree with the idea?

There's no evidence that the majority agree with his decision, in fact the evidence is for the contrary - the majority appear to disagree with the idea.

Been made afraid by whom? I think there is a disagreement over whether terrorist attacks represent an existential threat to national security. There are some who believe it's on a lower tier than Kruschev putting nukes in Cuba, or the current situation with N. Korea. And there are others who believe that a threat to civilians that disrupts our way of life is on the same tier. I don't think those people have been "made afraid". I think they are genuinely afraid, and see ways that our government can do more to protect us.

The media for the large part, because they sensationalize everything. Fact: Since 2001, you're more likely to die by being struck by lightning in the US, shot by your toddler, or have a coconut fall on your head than die at the hands of an islamic terrorist. Yet I don't see any ban on palm trees.

It's really not an open question. Trump and his "gang" have stated what their motive is. It's rooted in facts. It's supported by statements made by leaders of national intelligence. Those statements were made BEFORE Trump ever had a chance at the presidency. On the other hand, an alternative motive, like xenophobia, has no supporting evidence and is refuted by the fact that the order has no religious component, and it only covers a tiny fraction of muslim countries. The question is only being kept open by stubborn opponents to Trump himself who are refusing to believe the stated goal of the administration. Inventing their own motives and flip-flopping their opinions whenever it's convenient to align against Trump is making it so that every question remains "open".

Why do you think so many people oppose Trump? Why were there more protesters at his inauguration weekend than revelers? Maybe ask yourself that.

It's not worth noting that. Partly because there is no basis for such an accusation whatsoever, and partly because alot of what you said there is categorically untrue. Trump has divested himself from his businesses in ways that satisfy all relevant legal and ethical standards.

By any legal expert's standards, he has not. Giving your companies' control over to your kids is not 'divesting your businesses' - it's not even close to removing the obvious conflicts of interest.

if you're passionate about an issue, there are ways to affect change. Sidewalk tantrums aren't it.

What a ridiculous statement. Guess all those civil rights protesters in the 60s had no effect then.

Well, if that's the case, then the protesters are protesting the man, not his policy. How can they expect to be heard if their message is so disingenuous?

Like I said they can protest both the policy and the man. It's perfectly logical to associate one with the other.

So they're protesting hypotheticals? It's ok to take action against a perceived 'slippery slope', but it's not ok to take action against a potential terrorist coming to America?

They have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. If they wait until the country is a dictatorship and no-one's allowed to protest, it's going to be too late.

Well, applause for admitting you don't know. Now tell me why you don't respect the opinions and policies of the people who do know.

I don't know their motives. Why should I assume they're all pure? All I can go on are their actions, and I disagree with them for several reasons: First, it's un-American to discriminate against members of a particular religion the way they do. Second, it's unclear what the ultimate purpose really is (I know what you think it is, but I'm talking about reality, not opinion. And I'm suspicious as to whether they're stated goals match their real goals). Third, it's unfair to all the people who are suffering needlessly because of this overblown paranoia and xenophobia.