Oh No, The New Awesome Primary Thread

This from the guy who said Trump was good at lying.

If you don't even hear about it, how do you know about it? We already have a thorough and elaborate screening process for that, which takes about two years per refugee. That may indeed be common sense. Trump wants to ban all Muslims from entering the country, which is blithering insanity. What if they're already jihadists, but are pretending to be Christians? Terrorists occasionally do naughty things such as telling fibs. This is why we have this elaborate screening process which you would apparently like to waive for anyone who says the magic word "Jesus".

Really, Faith?Look, how is this meant to work? Suppose someone wants to visit America as a tourist, or on a business trip, or whatever. Should we let him in? Not if he's a Muslim, says Trump, not until "our country's representatives have figured out what's going on". But if he isn't a Muslim, we should let him in, since we don't want to destroy the tourist trade or turn away business opportunities.So, how are we going to do this? Well, you suggest we should ask them. OK, let's do that. We ask "Are you a Muslim?" He replies (let's suppose) "No, I'm a staunch atheist." What do we do then? We could try to trip him up with trick questions but these would be easily avoided. Things like:"So, how many gods do you believe in?"
"None."
"Do you pray to Mecca five times a day?"
"No."
"If you're a real atheist, can you quote any of the sacred scriptures of atheism?"
"No."
"OK, I guess you check out."So, if we let him in on this basis, then we don't have much of a process. Any Muslim terrorist could circumvent it, and we'd let them all in. If, on the other hand, we exclude the tourist or businessman until he can prove the negative proposition that he definitely isn't a Muslim, then we won't let anyone in.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Then he might point them out. It would be his patriotic duty. If he's keeping quiet about what they are until (as he hopes) he takes office next January, then he is willfully exposing America to a terrorist threat in the meantime.But perhaps he's not colluding with terrorists. Perhaps he knows of no such flaws, and he's just rabble-rousing and banking on his followers being so ignorant that they don't know about the screening process (like you before we told you) and that even if they find out about this process, they'll have such blind faith in Trump that they'll say something like "If he wants more than the screening process already in place, perhaps he's aware of its insufficiencies. Why is that so hard to follow?"

Well, I can find mainstream sources like Time, Newsweek and the BBC reporting on the car burnings, and halfwitted loonies like Pamela Geller ascribing them all to Muslims without a shred of supporting evidence. Not necessarily. It depends what you say about these subjects.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

How did you figure that? What proportion of refugees, to your knowledge, have turned out to be secret jihadists? Or he thinks his target audience can be made to be concerned. But let's credit Trump with a little sincerity (I can barely believe I typed that). Then does he have any reason for his concern? As I say, if he knows of any actual flaw in the process, it's time for him to speak out.

See my post #1255. People are burning cars in France, especially on public holidays such as New Year and Bastille Day. Young men with nothing better to do. Apparently it's what that sort of person does if they're French, like the British used to go in for soccer hooliganism.I would guess that some of them are Muslims, 'cos France has bored young Muslim men too, but even those that are aren't doing it because it's a Muslim thing but because it's a French thing. If there's one good thing to be said about the Qur'aan, it's that there's nothing in it in favor of randomly burning cars.

Apparently, yes.

That would just be correctness. Of course it is. Who else? Who defaces things with graffiti, Faith? Who vandalizes bus stops? Who smashed phone boxes back when we had phone boxes? Is not gratuitous vandalism almost invariably perpetrated by young males with too much free time and insufficient intelligence to make use of it?

I am in fact thinking. Right now I'm thinking that France probably has more bored louts than it does jihadis. I'm also thinking that that would explain why they have more acts of pointless vandalism (which one associates with bored louts) than suicide bombings (which one associates with jihadis).Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

My theory is that this is made up. This theory explains perfectly why you have no evidence for it.

Faith still has the ability to make me laugh out loud.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

What do you mean "release" it? There are arrest records and trials of those that are caught. If they don't specifically give their "ethnic identity", it would be perfectly possible to see if they're all called Muhammad and Ali and Abdul.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Let me know.