lhslep134;1768464 wrote:If the majority of the citizens are as much of paranoid fear-mongerers as you and Belly, then yes, a majority of the citizens would be lined up with Trump, just like you two are now.


The fact you're aligned with him at all, even prior to any truly catastrophic event, shows exactly how big of a paranoid fear-mongerer you are because Trump's viewpoints on the subject are absolutely asinine.

They just took a poll of the communities in and around San Bernardino; a majority said they were either strongly aligned, or somewhat in agreement with Trump's position. I know, not what you wanted to hear.

FatHobbit;1768471 wrote:I'm just curious. If there are Syrian Christians fleeing from isis, should we let them in or do they need to stay in Syria to be slaughtered?

QuakerOats;1768427 wrote: All legitimate questions and concerns, yet hardly confronted

QuakerOats;1768473 wrote:The % of Christians in the Syrian refuge mix is .4%; yes, less than one-half of one percent.

Seems like Quaker can't comply with his own directive and simply answer your question.

QuakerOats;1768473 wrote:The % of Christians in the Syrian refuge mix is .4%; yes, less than one-half of one percent.

Let me rephrase that:
Do you think they should be left to die at the hands of isis?

QuakerOats;1768475 wrote:They just took a poll of the communities in and around San Bernardino; a majority said they were either strongly aligned, or somewhat in agreement with Trump's position. I know, not what you wanted to hear.

Show a link, because I think you're completely making this up.

Also, "Strongly aligned" and "somewhat in agreement" are very different points of a polling spectrum, especially considering how extreme Trumps views are, making whatever asinine point you're trying to claim untrue.

Logic and reasoning...I know, not what you wanted to hear.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/09/two-cities-near-san-bernardino-support-donald-trumps-muslim-immigrant-ban/


Here you go.

QuakerOats;1768485 wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/09/two-cities-near-san-bernardino-support-donald-trumps-muslim-immigrant-ban/


Here you go.

A poll of 500 adults, 72% of which did not call Islam a peaceful religion. Very representative survey you have there :rolleyes:

It's the Washington Post; you can't even shoot the reporting publication; they are huge liberals. Then you have the fact that the communities polled are mainly democrat, so for them to side w Trumpster is all the more meaningful.

But you have it your way.

QuakerOats;1768504 wrote:It's the Washington Post; you can't even shoot the reporting publication; they are huge liberals. Then you have the fact that the communities polled are mainly democrat, so for them to side w Trumpster is all the more meaningful.

But you have it your way.

Maybe you should take a look at the actual results of the poll. http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=81cc567e-6e0f-4bd6-830c-00764de3c43f&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

1) There were more Republicans than Democrats polled; 193 Rs, 162 Ds, 141 INDs....148 conservatives, 190 moderates, and 108 liberals. The breakdown is right there.

2) 500 is an incredibly small sample size.

3) There is an inherent recency bias in polling people "near", relative to the entire country, the San Bernardino shootings

4) Again, only 142 out of the 500 respondents thought of Islam as a peaceful religion.

If 72% of people voting are incapable of appreciating Islam for the peaceful religion it is, then the confirmation bias suggests that those people would vote the same way for a similar question. That question? Do you agree with Trump's policy to ban all Muslims.

So keep on touting your flawed poll! You certainly are making yourself look less radical! :rolleyes:



Also, what do you mean by "your" way? I'm almost certain you have no clue where I rest on the political spectrum/how I vote, yet you post like you do.

And QO That's the problem with radicals like yourself. It's obvious where your beliefs lie, but you're so radical and oblivious to other, tempered, beliefs you can't even tell you're arguing with someone from the same party.

Instead you make references to liberals, progressives, etc, and have no idea that I vote Republican, because I'm not a radical like yourself and think we should have a blanket ban on Muslims.

Also, Quaker, here's a relevant question you've left answered not once, but twice.

FatHobbit;1768471 wrote:I'm just curious. If there are Syrian Christians fleeing from isis, should we let them in or do they need to stay in Syria to be slaughtered?

FatHobbit;1768477 wrote:Let me rephrase that:
Do you think they should be left to die at the hands of isis?

Incoming babblefuck about being PC, head in the sand, rabble rabble.

Did I say there should be a ban on Muslims entering the country?

You are so head over heels in your spewing that you are attempting to incorporate non-happenings into your lectures.

But, ISIS is merely a JV team, so no worries about mass slaughter......... right ?


Take a chill pill.

QuakerOats;1768511 wrote:Did I say there should be a ban on Muslims entering the country?

You cited that above-mentioned poll as support for Trump's policy. Your comment, "I know, not what you wanted to hear" is an implication of your own support for the policy, as you posted the poll in response to my decrying Trump's policy.

I didn't realize you were that poor at comprehension and needed me to spell out the implications of your own posts. You may not have explicitly said that you supported Trump's policy, but you have unequivocally implied it.

FatHobbit;1768477 wrote:Let me rephrase that:
Do you think they should be left to die at the hands of isis?

He still doesn't want to answer that question.

lhslep134;1768515 wrote:You cited that above-mentioned poll as support for Trump's policy. Your comment, "I know, not what you wanted to hear" is an implication of your own support for the policy, as you posted the poll in response to my decrying Trump's policy.

Incorrect deduction, but I know you are searching for anything to fit your narrative.

Carry on.

I state a fact that a new poll shows a majority either strongly or somewhat agree with Trump's position.

At least one here goes bonkers about it, because obviously it is not what they want to hear.

So, go find a poll that says what you want it to say.

Good luck.

QuakerOats;1768518 wrote:Incorrect deduction

Let's take a look

1) I decry Trump's policy
2) you respond with a post of a poll showing local Californian support for Trump's policy with the line "not what you wanted to hear"
3) the post is a direct counter to me decrying Trump's policy


By entering the discussion on the side against decrying Trump's policy and stating that your evidence was "not what wanted to hear", you implicitly give your support for the policy.

Can you give me a logical breakdown of which aspect of the deduction was incorrect?

Or are you just disagreeing with the conclusion because it's logically sound and you don't want to seem any more radical than when you went full racist on the other thread?

Because you incorrectly think I'm a racist you automatically rush to reach a conclusion elsewhere that is not based in fact, nor logic. I don't know how to help you. Perhaps some form of counseling to help with avoiding labeling others ??

I give you props, you have mastered the art of deflection.

QuakerOats;1768521 wrote:Because you incorrectly think I'm a racist you automatically rush to reach a conclusion elsewhere that is not based in fact, nor logic.

No. I came to the conclusion you support Trump's policy based on the evidence presented on this thread, and this thread only. I even broke down the logic for your ease in refuting it. Your actions on the other thread only came into play in my final line where I explain why I was expecting a deflection from you. Without fail, you deflected.

Now please, answer this question:

lhslep134;1768520 wrote: Can you give me a logical breakdown of which aspect of the deduction was incorrect?

If you again make a post without answering the question, I will assume the deduction is correct because you will have failed, for a second time, to logically attack the deduction.

Automatik;1768522 wrote:I give you props, you have mastered the art of deflection.

I know right? The only two posts on this thread he's ignored, Fathobbit's question and mine, both involve his agreement with Trump's policy.

So by your 'reasoning', if I post a poll of Hillary Clinton leading Bernie Sanders, it means I support Hillary Clinton.


Interesting.



http://www.counselling-directory.org.uk/

QuakerOats;1768609 wrote:So by your 'reasoning', if I post a poll of Hillary Clinton leading Bernie Sanders, it means I support Hillary Clinton.


Interesting.



http://www.counselling-directory.org.uk/

Dude just answer the damn question. Why is that so hard for you?

rmolin73;1768644 wrote:Dude just answer the damn question. Why is that so hard for you?

It's a politard habit. Where they "say" something but because they didn't come out and bluntly say it, they try to act coy and play the "plausible deniability" card. Essentially the same thing he condemns various current politicians over, which just adds to the overall hilarity of political discussions on this site.