If we assume that all races of people are equally good at basketball, how can it be explained that 74.4% of basketball players are African American but African Americans only make up 13.2% of the population? The chances that there is no discrimination is way lower than 1 in a billion.
And the fastest times in every event at the Olympics are all held by men! The discrimination is infinite!
What is it that is "obvious" that I am missing? That restricting gun ownership reduces shootings? That's like saying we could reduce pool drownings by banning swimming pools,
No-one said anything about banning anything. Maybe learn to stick to the actual discussion rather than what you think it might be.
I can assume by this response that you do agree that less guns means less deaths. Once you accept that then we can discuss how would could create policies that allow sensible people to own guns while trying to prevent the crazies from doing so.
Pretty much every developed country has some level of gun ownership, they just apply some sensible rules around who can own them and how they can be used. And they all have lower murder rates, both with or without guns than the US. I fail to see how you think this outcome is a bad.
FWIW, if you look at how pool drownings have been reduced over, it is through regulation. You know this yet can't bring yourself to admit that this method actually works.
but when the same number of people drown because they just go to the river to swim then you claim "success"?
I just provided a link that shows that is not the case. Go back and at least read the summary paragraph.
It's actually sad that you believe this. I'm not a Hillary supporter but she has published detailed policies, and a known financial history, which should be a minimum to run for the highest office in the land, regardless of political ideology.
No, I was speaking down to your level since you wouldn't understand or bother to try and comprehend an informed response, it would have been wasted on you...
The response you received was accurate for you, you're an asshole, no more or less...
The laws also protected other from him or others just like him from having a gun and killing more people, which is equally likely. There is no way of knowing the exact outcome, maybe she has a gun and he takes it from her and still kills her? In any case assuming that you do know is disingenuous.
"Trump will ruin the country" is *mostly* a Democratic thing as an article of actual belief. Among Republicans, I'd argue it's more like "Trump will destroy party".
The thinking is closer to "Trump is a bigger liability than Hillary" which leading Republicans, Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, Colin Powell, George HW Bush, and all those NSA types have all expressed extreme concerns about. Trump is also universally panned by anyone outside the US (except Russia suspiciously), none of which are Democrats.
During the Cold War... The majority of US politicians vented relentlessly....
The key here is that they were all politicians, with political skills and strategy behind their actions. Trump is neither, he is a big mouth loose cannon that could easily be goaded into starting a war simply by calling him chicken. He really is that immature.
But the rest of the doom and gloom prophesy seems vastly overblown and tied to a sales technique designed to make anyone who doesn't accept it feel as if they're somehow stupid or uneducated.
The thing with education is that once you reach a certain level, you gain the ability to analyse based on reason rather than emotion.
And even if you don't agree with someone you can argue points based on reality, not fiction like we are doing now. I don't see any of that with Trump. His entire campaign is hot air, and the bulk of his supporters come from lower educated groups. That may sound bad as a headline but it is actually a provable fact.
If you can point to somewhere where you can discuss his policy with rational supporters I'd love to hear it. Because so far it amounts to is make America great, and Hillary is a witch. I even started watching Fox News to see what they had to say and they were struggling to defend his campaign. That is how bad it is.
Hillary offers only disastrously bad interventionism. This is not an exaggeration -- look at her track record. Who among us can put destruction of an entire country on the resume?
Uh, I'm not sure there are many Presidents or SoS's in here. However, if you are looking historically, then you only have to go back to the previous administration. And if you go back, pretty much every administration before that has those on their resume too. That is the unfortunate nature of the world we live in.
What that really means is her interventionism is low-threshold. Trump's interventionism is high-threshold.
No, hers in known and his in unknown. That's all there is.
This is the same logic that got us ISIS in the first place, ie Saddam is bad, nothing could be badder than that so let's just get rid of him. Well see how that worked out? To complete the analogy, Hillary is Saddam, and Trump is ISIS, which do you prefer?
The latter is a safer strategy for the world even if it misses a few false negatives.
Completely wrong, which is why all the people invested in national security even in the Republican party are distancing themselves from Trump's looney tunes approach to international relations. The knave beats the fool every time.
What's interesting is that seems perfectly analogous to medical interventions. Would you rather have a doctor who sends you under the knife frequently, even for injuries that eventually self heal, or a doctor who prescribes surgeries very conservatively?
Er, that makes no sense. They way I see it, would you prefer a doctor that performs a lot of surgery but has killed a few patients (ie just like doctors do), or get surgery from your Real Estate agent because he hasn't killed anyone?
It really is that stupid. Doctors kill people, but we don't all think we need 'anti-establishment' doctors with no training or experience.
Some Americans have a strange fascination with the opinions of foreigners on our politics - the American left wing holds them in particularly high regard - for reasons I cannot fathom.
Um, because peace requires that we get along with our neighbours, and peace is good for business. It's not too hard if you use a brain cell or two...
Daily at my workplace I "interact" with - in person - a person from Ukraine, 4 more persons from Russia, one from Latvia, two from Germany, two from UK, one from France, four from China, a half dozen from India, two from Japan, one from Jordan, one from Uganda, one from Egypt, one from Israel... ok, it's just getting tiring now, I could name 20 other countries. Sounds like a real echo chamber!
Same here. Being in IT it's a regular United Nations, mostly Asians (Japan, Korea, China, Vietnam, Thai, Malaysian, Sri Lankan, Indian, Armenian, Ukraine, Russia Iran etc... It is universal disgust for Trump across the board. No-one is Hillary "supporter" either, but the general impression is that she is just another politician, so at least will know how to handle the role, more of the same etc. Trump really has the potential to burn the place to the ground. That is the risk potential on offer here.
He is really embarrassing, but most people I know down here in Brazil think that if Trump wins it will be mostly on the "lesser of two evils" concept.
No offence guy, maybe that's why Brazil is still an undeveloped country because of opinions like that? Those of us in the developed world, who know what skills and experience are required to maintain a developed economy think Trump is the biggest risk to our way of life. Like it or not the US is a pillar of the free world, and any change to that has a ripple effect on the rest of us.
As someone put so nicely, Hillary is the Knave and Trump is the fool. At least a knave is competent if untrustworthy, but a fool is always doomed to fail.
Not sure why you got modded funny, as this is extremely poignant. Knave and fool sums up the dilemma perfectly and also offers wise advice on how this should be played.
That's ignorance talking, making a leap from Trump is loud and obnoxious to he would fire nukes. Trump is a nationalist and doesn't want to be engaged outside of what directly confronts US interests.
And this shows how inexperienced he is in this space. We learnt from WW2 that if you wait til the threat is knocking on your door it's too late. Interventionism may not be ideal, but the alternative is worse
The solution to bad interventionism is better interventionism, not none.
The one big idea Democrats have really succeeded with (at least among Democrats) is the "Trump will ruin the country" meme.
This is not a Democrat thing, it's an anyone with an education thing. It's why even senior Republicans are distancing themselves, and pretty much anyone outside the US that is aware of international diplomacy is fearful of the consequences he could bring. As you say you have Congress to protect your domestic policy, but a couple of stupid comments can ignite tensions globally that can start wars. This not just FUD, there is a real risk that everyone can see except a minority percentage of redneck Americans.
many Trump supporters, including several IN CONGRESS, have LITERALLY DEFENDED the idea of bringing back US Internment camps.
On a related note, a lot of Hillary supporters are big fans of the last US president who locked people up in concentration camps.
-jcr
Also interesting, every time someone calls out anything bad about Trump someone always responds with "but Hillary", including Trump himself.
It's like you have no response to valid criticism so can only try to distract by trying to change the subject.
My dad hates Obama, and calls him a communist. That is, of course, absurd.
Calling Trump a Nazi is equally absurd. I don't like the guy, and I am not voting for him, but comparing him to Hitler is just silly, and you lose your credibility by making that comparison. You need to read a history book.
I'll bite since I'm aware of some history.The GP didn't call Trump a Nazi, he said he has similar tactics to Hitler which he does. Go ahead watch/read some of Hitler's early speeches. He didn't come out and say gas the Jews from the get go, he originally only wanted to make Germany great again. And that the problems were all due to immigrants, other religions, the weak and easy to isolate members of the community. The media were traitors, dissenting voices are all traitors are should be shut down in any way possible. This is how it starts, and Trump has already started down this path. Once you buy into the personality rather the process you are opening yourself up to tyranny.
This is not a Red vs Blue thing, or a pro Hillary thing. Trump is the type of 1%er sociopath we all know and despise. I get the rednecks buying into this, but anyone with an education should recognise that a sociopath has no place in the Whitehouse.
Trump is actually the more reasonable of the two choices... He isn't married to any one position, he has already shown flexibility when it comes to various points during the election. He is more more of a moderate than Clinton is.
There's a strong correlation between education level and support for Trump. So don't worry it's not your fault.
Yes because in one instance, it is an American with a proven record of acting in the best interests of other people and the country(even if you disagree with the policy you must still admit he intends to do the right thing),
In the other is an American with a history of fucking over other Americans at every opportunity, and has suspected connections to an enemy state that could be cleared up with some simple transparency but refuses to do so, and evidence that he cares more about his own financial position that his country.
One of those is much, much worse than the other.
The time to address these issues is after the election.
That would be fine with any other candidates ay any other election, but one of these ones is actually threatening to shut this important pillar of democracy down. If you say anything bad he'll sue you.
Hate to pull Godwin, but Trump really is the most Hitler-like candidate since well, er Hitler.
So... because she's no longer SoS... the donations and apparent quid-pro-quos while she was in office don't matter any longer?
They don't matter in this conversation which is about Trump. Why is it that every time Trump is questioned about anything, the response is always hey look over there at Hillary!
It's comical how much Hillary gets used to avoid a proper response.
There is a tendency for stricter state gun laws to coincide with higher murder rates in those states.
Where people are able to carry weapons freely the violent crime rate tends to be low.
This could've made sense if you provided a reference to backup such a ridiculous claim. Here allow me to help:
http://www.vpc.org/press/state...
In the more populous states, which tend to also have restrictive laws on the carry of weapons, murder rates are high.
Wrong. Alaska was the highest state in the link above and without even looking it up I'm guessing it one of the least populous
I know you want to believe your gun is what's saving you from the dragons, but the facts say otherwise.
That's a better answer than you deserve in response to your mindless rant but I had a few minutes to type this out. I doubt you'll grasp the concept here but I hope someone gets the idea.
Your answer really has nothing to do with the topic being discussed, nor does it make sense.
Back on topic, you think everywhere outside the US is filled with dragons, I pointed out that most developed countries don't have a US style constitution yet have a higher quality of life. It's up to you if you want to continue to believe the dragon stories.
Slashdot Mirror
If we assume that all races of people are equally good at basketball, how can it be explained that 74.4% of basketball players are African American but African Americans only make up 13.2% of the population? The chances that there is no discrimination is way lower than 1 in a billion.
And the fastest times in every event at the Olympics are all held by men! The discrimination is infinite!
What is it that is "obvious" that I am missing? That restricting gun ownership reduces shootings? That's like saying we could reduce pool drownings by banning swimming pools,
No-one said anything about banning anything. Maybe learn to stick to the actual discussion rather than what you think it might be.
I can assume by this response that you do agree that less guns means less deaths. Once you accept that then we can discuss how would could create policies that allow sensible people to own guns while trying to prevent the crazies from doing so.
Pretty much every developed country has some level of gun ownership, they just apply some sensible rules around who can own them and how they can be used. And they all have lower murder rates, both with or without guns than the US. I fail to see how you think this outcome is a bad.
FWIW, if you look at how pool drownings have been reduced over, it is through regulation. You know this yet can't bring yourself to admit that this method actually works.
but when the same number of people drown because they just go to the river to swim then you claim "success"?
I just provided a link that shows that is not the case. Go back and at least read the summary paragraph.
It's actually sad that you believe this. I'm not a Hillary supporter but she has published detailed policies, and a known financial history, which should be a minimum to run for the highest office in the land, regardless of political ideology.
No, I was speaking down to your level since you wouldn't understand or bother to try and comprehend an informed response, it would have been wasted on you...
The response you received was accurate for you, you're an asshole, no more or less...
Donald is that you?
Regardless of how I answer you will no doubt find fault with it.
If yes your position makes no sense, if no your position flies in the face of actual evidence. So of course you are avoiding the obvious.
Instead I have some questions for you. Would you rather that these "gun death" suicides were from people jumping out of windows?
Except we already know that is not the case
So you are zero from two. Is it sinking in yet?
Since they did not make that distinction I am inclined to believe they included justified homicide numbers in their statistics to pump up the numbers.
Of course you are because that's how religion works. Any gap is a place for your god to exist.
Are you pleased that New Jersey gun laws protected this man from a potential "gun death"?
Citation: http://freebeacon.com/issues/n...
The laws also protected other from him or others just like him from having a gun and killing more people, which is equally likely. There is no way of knowing the exact outcome, maybe she has a gun and he takes it from her and still kills her? In any case assuming that you do know is disingenuous.
"Trump will ruin the country" is *mostly* a Democratic thing as an article of actual belief. Among Republicans, I'd argue it's more like "Trump will destroy party" .
The thinking is closer to "Trump is a bigger liability than Hillary" which leading Republicans, Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, Colin Powell, George HW Bush, and all those NSA types have all expressed extreme concerns about. Trump is also universally panned by anyone outside the US (except Russia suspiciously), none of which are Democrats.
During the Cold War... The majority of US politicians vented relentlessly....
The key here is that they were all politicians, with political skills and strategy behind their actions. Trump is neither, he is a big mouth loose cannon that could easily be goaded into starting a war simply by calling him chicken. He really is that immature.
But the rest of the doom and gloom prophesy seems vastly overblown and tied to a sales technique designed to make anyone who doesn't accept it feel as if they're somehow stupid or uneducated.
The thing with education is that once you reach a certain level, you gain the ability to analyse based on reason rather than emotion.
And even if you don't agree with someone you can argue points based on reality, not fiction like we are doing now. I don't see any of that with Trump. His entire campaign is hot air, and the bulk of his supporters come from lower educated groups. That may sound bad as a headline but it is actually a provable fact.
If you can point to somewhere where you can discuss his policy with rational supporters I'd love to hear it. Because so far it amounts to is make America great, and Hillary is a witch. I even started watching Fox News to see what they had to say and they were struggling to defend his campaign. That is how bad it is.
Hillary offers only disastrously bad interventionism. This is not an exaggeration -- look at her track record. Who among us can put destruction of an entire country on the resume?
Uh, I'm not sure there are many Presidents or SoS's in here. However, if you are looking historically, then you only have to go back to the previous administration. And if you go back, pretty much every administration before that has those on their resume too. That is the unfortunate nature of the world we live in.
What that really means is her interventionism is low-threshold. Trump's interventionism is high-threshold.
No, hers in known and his in unknown. That's all there is.
This is the same logic that got us ISIS in the first place, ie Saddam is bad, nothing could be badder than that so let's just get rid of him. Well see how that worked out? To complete the analogy, Hillary is Saddam, and Trump is ISIS, which do you prefer?
The latter is a safer strategy for the world even if it misses a few false negatives.
Completely wrong, which is why all the people invested in national security even in the Republican party are distancing themselves from Trump's looney tunes approach to international relations. The knave beats the fool every time.
What's interesting is that seems perfectly analogous to medical interventions. Would you rather have a doctor who sends you under the knife frequently, even for injuries that eventually self heal, or a doctor who prescribes surgeries very conservatively?
Er, that makes no sense. They way I see it, would you prefer a doctor that performs a lot of surgery but has killed a few patients (ie just like doctors do), or get surgery from your Real Estate agent because he hasn't killed anyone?
It really is that stupid. Doctors kill people, but we don't all think we need 'anti-establishment' doctors with no training or experience.
They claim stricter gun laws reduce gun death rates.
And do you agree or disagree with that claim?
There's a strong correlation between education level and support for Trump. So don't worry it's not your fault.
Ahh, so you're a flaming asshole who thinks you're smarter than me because I support Trump and you support the criminal?
No, but this response only supports my original assertion.
Some Americans have a strange fascination with the opinions of foreigners on our politics - the American left wing holds them in particularly high regard - for reasons I cannot fathom.
Um, because peace requires that we get along with our neighbours, and peace is good for business. It's not too hard if you use a brain cell or two...
Daily at my workplace I "interact" with - in person - a person from Ukraine, 4 more persons from Russia, one from Latvia, two from Germany, two from UK, one from France, four from China, a half dozen from India, two from Japan, one from Jordan, one from Uganda, one from Egypt, one from Israel... ok, it's just getting tiring now, I could name 20 other countries. Sounds like a real echo chamber!
Same here. Being in IT it's a regular United Nations, mostly Asians (Japan, Korea, China, Vietnam, Thai, Malaysian, Sri Lankan, Indian, Armenian, Ukraine, Russia Iran etc... It is universal disgust for Trump across the board. No-one is Hillary "supporter" either, but the general impression is that she is just another politician, so at least will know how to handle the role, more of the same etc. Trump really has the potential to burn the place to the ground. That is the risk potential on offer here.
I know when I want serious political discourse I go to Steam to chat with other 13 year olds. Really?
He is really embarrassing, but most people I know down here in Brazil think that if Trump wins it will be mostly on the "lesser of two evils" concept.
No offence guy, maybe that's why Brazil is still an undeveloped country because of opinions like that? Those of us in the developed world, who know what skills and experience are required to maintain a developed economy think Trump is the biggest risk to our way of life. Like it or not the US is a pillar of the free world, and any change to that has a ripple effect on the rest of us.
As someone put so nicely, Hillary is the Knave and Trump is the fool. At least a knave is competent if untrustworthy, but a fool is always doomed to fail.
+1
Not sure why you got modded funny, as this is extremely poignant. Knave and fool sums up the dilemma perfectly and also offers wise advice on how this should be played.
That's ignorance talking, making a leap from Trump is loud and obnoxious to he would fire nukes. Trump is a nationalist and doesn't want to be engaged outside of what directly confronts US interests.
And this shows how inexperienced he is in this space. We learnt from WW2 that if you wait til the threat is knocking on your door it's too late. Interventionism may not be ideal, but the alternative is worse
The solution to bad interventionism is better interventionism, not none.
The one big idea Democrats have really succeeded with (at least among Democrats) is the "Trump will ruin the country" meme.
This is not a Democrat thing, it's an anyone with an education thing. It's why even senior Republicans are distancing themselves, and pretty much anyone outside the US that is aware of international diplomacy is fearful of the consequences he could bring. As you say you have Congress to protect your domestic policy, but a couple of stupid comments can ignite tensions globally that can start wars. This not just FUD, there is a real risk that everyone can see except a minority percentage of redneck Americans.
many Trump supporters, including several IN CONGRESS, have LITERALLY DEFENDED the idea of bringing back US Internment camps.
On a related note, a lot of Hillary supporters are big fans of the last US president who locked people up in concentration camps.
-jcr
Also interesting, every time someone calls out anything bad about Trump someone always responds with "but Hillary", including Trump himself.
It's like you have no response to valid criticism so can only try to distract by trying to change the subject.
My dad hates Obama, and calls him a communist. That is, of course, absurd.
Calling Trump a Nazi is equally absurd. I don't like the guy, and I am not voting for him, but comparing him to Hitler is just silly, and you lose your credibility by making that comparison. You need to read a history book.
I'll bite since I'm aware of some history.The GP didn't call Trump a Nazi, he said he has similar tactics to Hitler which he does. Go ahead watch/read some of Hitler's early speeches. He didn't come out and say gas the Jews from the get go, he originally only wanted to make Germany great again. And that the problems were all due to immigrants, other religions, the weak and easy to isolate members of the community. The media were traitors, dissenting voices are all traitors are should be shut down in any way possible. This is how it starts, and Trump has already started down this path. Once you buy into the personality rather the process you are opening yourself up to tyranny.
This is not a Red vs Blue thing, or a pro Hillary thing. Trump is the type of 1%er sociopath we all know and despise. I get the rednecks buying into this, but anyone with an education should recognise that a sociopath has no place in the Whitehouse.
Trump is actually the more reasonable of the two choices... He isn't married to any one position, he has already shown flexibility when it comes to various points during the election. He is more more of a moderate than Clinton is.
There's a strong correlation between education level and support for Trump. So don't worry it's not your fault.
Yes because in one instance, it is an American with a proven record of acting in the best interests of other people and the country(even if you disagree with the policy you must still admit he intends to do the right thing),
In the other is an American with a history of fucking over other Americans at every opportunity, and has suspected connections to an enemy state that could be cleared up with some simple transparency but refuses to do so, and evidence that he cares more about his own financial position that his country.
One of those is much, much worse than the other.
one thing seems clear.
The time to address these issues is after the election.
That would be fine with any other candidates ay any other election, but one of these ones is actually threatening to shut this important pillar of democracy down. If you say anything bad he'll sue you.
Hate to pull Godwin, but Trump really is the most Hitler-like candidate since well, er Hitler.
So... because she's no longer SoS... the donations and apparent quid-pro-quos while she was in office don't matter any longer?
They don't matter in this conversation which is about Trump. Why is it that every time Trump is questioned about anything, the response is always hey look over there at Hillary!
It's comical how much Hillary gets used to avoid a proper response.
There is a tendency for stricter state gun laws to coincide with higher murder rates in those states.
Where people are able to carry weapons freely the violent crime rate tends to be low.
This could've made sense if you provided a reference to backup such a ridiculous claim. Here allow me to help: http://www.vpc.org/press/state...
In the more populous states, which tend to also have restrictive laws on the carry of weapons, murder rates are high.
Wrong. Alaska was the highest state in the link above and without even looking it up I'm guessing it one of the least populous
I know you want to believe your gun is what's saving you from the dragons, but the facts say otherwise.
>
That's a better answer than you deserve in response to your mindless rant but I had a few minutes to type this out. I doubt you'll grasp the concept here but I hope someone gets the idea.
Your answer really has nothing to do with the topic being discussed, nor does it make sense. Back on topic, you think everywhere outside the US is filled with dragons, I pointed out that most developed countries don't have a US style constitution yet have a higher quality of life. It's up to you if you want to continue to believe the dragon stories.