Wanna get at this now since it'll be useful later


You actually haven't proven anything... I shouldn't have to be the one to tell you extrapolating such a narrow analysis (looking at events that don't exist under or show a contrast between situations where there are and aren't muslim bans) doesn't show you that under circumstances of a well known ban that you'd stop a majority of attacks.

You might remember my little scenario from my last post.

Big macho honcho ISIS big boss man: "Damn, the Americans really did enact that muslim ban. Oh well, send operative y instead of operative x on one of the next flights, he should still be able to pull it off."

We know for a fact that ISIS has recruited and/or converted all kinds of different ethnicities and nationalities - other than those who would traditionally/stereotypically be labeled as muslim: i.e. the ones who would be questioned in airports following a muslim ban, assuming the TSA doesn't have time to extensively question every single passenger flying in the US (even if they did, all said operative needs to do is say, "No, I'm not a muslim" and make them believe it... it's a system of beliefs, you can only take someone at their word whether they hold it). They would easily be able to circumvent a muslim ban and commit whatever act of terror they so choose wherever they please. In the end, it comes down to good domestic investigation and police work. A muslim ban just wouldn't help anything.

Pure speculation with no basis in reality, completely dishonest and illogical.

There is no reason to believe that the native would not have performed the attack without the immigrant.

FBI analysis indicates that he had a profile more resembling that of a standard massshooter than a terrrorist, but the Orlando shooter was one guy. He pretty easily orchestrated a terrible tragedy. Your talk about "this couldn't happen with one guy" is utter bollocks.

I understand you're talking about a single situation (where the charge of baseless speculation applies in every hypothetical), but you obviously mean to extrapolate your conclusion to all incidents. So yeah, utter bollocks

Oh man... you even brought out the numbered list. Jesus Christ dude, you look so professional but you're so wrong that I actually genuinely feel sad. Check out his comments after the shooting in San Bernardino, you'll find everything you've said here and all the semantics you've argued to be completely irrelevant.



Somewhere around 11:30, I'll quote him for you

This IS his original statement, he's very clear about it being a total and complete shutdown (not just settling/immigration).

In a relatively recent interview with Chuck Todd, he stated that he believes he's expanded the ban.



you might conveniently note that the words travel and emigration are used, so.... I don't know what to tell you. Two weeks ago, Trump's own comments on bans on travel and emigration.

i.e. Trump has not only expanded his ban to banning TRAVEL, ENTERING THE COUNTRY, COMPLETE AND TOTAL SHUTDOWN of muslims into the US, but also countries that have been 'contaminated' by populations of muslims/acts of terror.

"Until our representatives can figure out what is going on" is so ambiguous that the acceptance of any policy with that as the cutoff point would be grossly irresponsible. No surprise you don't have issue with it.

It's also very reasonable to expect - at the very least - a quote of this phantom explanation. Unless you mean to tell me your explanation was your statement I was wrong. You wouldn't fall into the trap of circular arguing, would you?

Although that is my bad then, I guess I didn't sum up your entire argument while I was mocking you.

"You're wrong, I claim that the real situation is you lying about the situation. Also, you're wrong because some other people who aren't you have made other arguments that are wrong. Checkmate!"


*cough*

You're not reinterpreting the single use of a pronoun, are you? If you can perform that kind of mental gymnastics with a single pronoun, it's a wonder you rail against what you would likely call mental gymnastics on my part.

No, by "we" I did not mean as to identify myself as the entirety of the left. Even had I, that remark was specifically an aside to my actual comment calling out your obvious bullshit.

Sorry you were confused by that, it seems that happens often huh

the irony of this literally had me doubled over. my sides might still hurt tomorrow. there's nothing i can even say about this lmfao, it totally speaks for itself

"I am a hero of logic and justice! I fight my battles with ad hominem and strawmen!"



EDIT: hey dude do you make those professionally, because with all this talk about deporting all the illegal immigrants it might be useful to have a couple of your expertly crafted strawmen tending our fields in lieu of the mysteriously absent workers we will have used to have


kek

This is incredibly naive, and your crying wolf over a false dichotomy just shows that you know it is.

When you talk about banning all muslims from entering the US, you run the pretty certain risk of sending a very clear message to muslims that "We don't like you, and we don't want you here" (since that's more or less what we're saying). Gosh, just imagine how Al Qaeda, ISIS, etc. would spin that sentiment in their recruiting. A ban like that draws lines on the sand on an already sour relationship (bombing hospitals doesn't tend to send the message of "We're here to help!")

in this case, you have a likely small positive effect (a muslim ban is easily circumvented by saying, "I'm not a muslim") and run a huge risk of feeding to extremist hate groups propaganda for the recruitment reels.

What's the real joke is your sad attempt at reinterpreting those comments in such an obviously false way.