doing math on a tablet @_@

Trump isn't the answer, he will likely not win in the end or even get the nomination from his party.

The only good thing about him is that he is talking about a subject career politicians view as "political suicide" and therefore avoid the subject all together. Banning Muslims is not the answer but talking about protecting our borders one way or another is the solution. He is giving that talk some attention and traction.

That has little to do with islam compared to christianity and ALOT to do with westerners thinking it is okay to kill a few million brown people and destabilize secular governments for their own interest. Even the 9-11 attacks where piss in the ocean compared to what the US has done. For some context refer to Osama bin Laden's (who by the way the US FUNDED at first) letter to America
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

.

Hey look at your current building of congress, and tell me what those roman looking bundle of sticks with two axes are called.

You might be one of the most pedantic, pseudo-intellectual, incoherent, and blowhard person I've seen speak in a while.

I already provided you with one example that 99.9999% of Churches/Christians believe is an obsolete law/guideline from the Old Testament and that is no longer relevant, and that is animal sacrifices to forgive sins. So any other cherry picked verses that say otherwise are taken out of context and/or do not apply.

I don't agree with extremism in any form. There always has to be a middle ground where both sides give and take a little.

To just say to ban all Muslims is a ludicrous statement and anyone who takes that at face value is not seeing the meaning behind the statement. First off, he is playing to ppls fears for votes, something every presidential candidate has done since forever. Secondly, Trump has always been about securing our borders as a whole and not just the Mexican one. I fully support him for his stance on our borders and linked to that security is keeping out the biggest threat to our country. At this time, that threat happens to be Radicalized Muslims. Whatever he or any president can do to get that done, he/she has my support for that single issue.

If you consider what the US has done to be "terrorism" then I guess some could agree with you. I am not among them.

Agreed. And yet our current president, refuses to even use the term Radical Muslim. And says that ISIS or (ISIL as Obama calls them) are not Muslims. Yet they claim they are. The first step to resolve the issue is to identify the problem. At least Trump has done that unlike the current clown we have in the white house.

You shouldn't throw around terms that you don't understand, and then resort to ad hominem if you get called out for it.
P R O J E C T I N G

building onto my original post since those are only statistics from Europe let's have some fun

more estimation. let's just say that since 125k was the sum of the UK Germany and France, each country in the world has around 42000 people prone to extremism. 42k x 193 UN members = 8106000 + 1109000 = 9215000

9215000/1600000000 equals the earth shattering total of

0.005759375%

Keep in mind that is a gigantic overestimate considering the data is based on 1% of each country's population and not a flat rate (in fact there are seven countries in the world with populations less than 42000)

I love math
and sleep

Yea, i wouldnt expand too much like that though, unless you're haggling for a position at the government agency that keeps track of unemployment

"it's not terrorism when we do it" ~first world white people

Sad that you had to resort to this because someone disagrees with your opinion. Nothing you said was fact at all, simply opinion.

yea, the shocking truth that a "fascist" isiolationist USA, kinda like Franco, or Salazar, wouldn't be a super nice place to live in, but overall if you see the global impact of the foreign policy of 20th century USA, and how it's only expanding in some cases, i goess it would be relatively benign compared to just being a government for hire for corporations to exploit resources globally. And the issues we face today are usually the result of some intervention of the USA in the past, like, It's pretty reasonable for Iran to hold a grudge on the USA in the 70s there are zero reprocussions for your leaders, so they get away with murder by the millions, but the world doesn't forget and usefull idiots like you get whooped up in supporting "humantiarian" wars, ask the women in Libya if they feel better now thanks to Obama and Hillary clinton letting Islamist rebels take over. Good thing for you, the alternative (the USSR) was even worse,

In the words of Viper: Just nuke yourself, my man.

Kennedy was a remarkably poor negotiator and had no idea how to work through congress like Johnson did. His death was a tragedy, but as a President he was actually ineffective compared to an expert like LBJ. Civil rights would not have been passed close to as soon as they did had Kennedy stayed president instead of LBJ. Kennedy's death garners him more praise than he deserves as an actual president. It's also worth mentioning that Kennedy played a HUGE part in the mess that was Vietnam.

don't forget the bay of pigs, or putting the entire world at risk with the cuban missile crisis, but hey he shagged marilyn Monroe and he looks cool and he got shot so he must have been this messianic saviour, totally not coming from a family connected to the mob for generations which caught up to them with the assassination on his brother.

Also Johnson enacted the civil rights and thus i quote him "so we have the nigger vote in the south for the next twenty years". guess people forgot that the democrats were the original party of the slave owners.

trump's popularity is a logical conclusion of the GOP being buddy-buddy w/ birther-conspiracy tea partiers for so long despite standard right-wing extremism and libertarian extremism only really agreeing on "fuck taxes". they made their bed, now they're gonna lie in it

way I see it, if america just did canada's strategy of voting for the hottest dude available there'd never be an issue

http://www.news1130.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/sites/9/2015/10/22/jt-215x300.jpg

I'd trust a man like that with my life, lemme tell ya

I think I have more of an understanding on the whole Trump situation now. We do have sections in this country who would mirror his opinion but fortunately we laugh at their ignorance. I assume if Trump was elected any law he tried to pass of this nature would be sat down in congress if there was a democratic majority (hell even a republican one). Its odd, in the UK we have an opposition more left leaning causing divisions in the party according to the media, whilst in the US the opposition is becoming more right wing.

Thanks Amerifriends.

another shocking revelation achieved over many pages - there's multiple sets people in the world that aren't very nice.

it's honestly pretty pointless to argue which group/religion/country has more. It's really obvious that the only similarity between all not nice people is just that they aren't.

.......wait...a..second.........
an american politician said something dumb!!!?!?!????

ima ban autists yanks from sweden cuz they seem to shoot up schools all the time. BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY. we dont have a border to mexico but i'd be fast to bar that up as well.

also holy fuck sac go study english or something i don't care if you're right or wrong but any post you make is unbearable.

I think it has way more to do with how developed a country is than the religion itself. People used the bible to justify multiple religious wars back in medieval times when there was no way to inform yourself.

I feel like Donald Trump just likes getting attention (even if it's negative), and one of the easiest and most successful ways to get attention is to say really controversial things that make a lot of people mad or disagree with you.

It's kind of the same mentality with shitposting I guess.

Basically, the GOP has a fairly regressive contingent within their political coalition - it has been present for some time. Usually it's been weeded out much earlier because more traditional power brokers within the GOP itself have been too powerful to let those regressive sentiments out in the open. However, because of changes which've been brought about by the 2008 recession, a lot of people feel like their backs are against a wall, and many of the traditional power brokers within the GOP have been forced into the background or out of party leadership positions - out of fear of attack from the right-wing of the party. The other issue is that the way elections are run in the US, *usually* the primary process hasn't begun this early, and in the past the strategy was more or less to save all of your campaign money until the last 3 weeks before an election, with the majority of your time prior to those last 3 weeks before the Iowa caucus mainly just going to setting up support organizations within the various states. Due to the campaign beginning much earlier, more fringe candidates have the ability to outspend their traditionally minded opponents (who are saving most of their money for the sprint to the finish). The same thing happened in the last presidential primary year with the veritable parade of candidates who were "in the lead" prior to Romney's eventual nomination.

Trump isn't going to win. But, precisely because of that, and the fact that we're still quite a way away from any actual votes, he and other fringe candidates (Ted Cruz, Ben Carson) will likely have their moment in the sun first. Before the more traditional candidates (like Marco Rubio and especially Jeb Bush) even begin to try. The only game they're playing right now is "don't fuck it up." Don't say anything egregiously stupid, don't spend your money yet, don't get involved in any big fights, and don't get written off as an amateur or a hack.

It's easier to see in the smaller democratic race - where Bernie Sanders and Mark O'Malley are both challengers to Clinton from the left of the party, and they're more or less smoking what they've got now because they'll never be able to compete with Hillary once it actually matters - while Hillary isn't doing much of anything until most people *actually* begin to pay attention - basically just "don't fuck it up".

Why is Trump currently in the lead and not another fringe GOP candidate (Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, FIorina, etc)? It's mainly because he's a more effective demagogue. What a demagogue wants is not only to say highly inflammatory things - but they want the audience to feel good about *themselves*. For example, if you watch a Trump speech, he'll regularly insult and belittle anybody running against him in exceptionally strong language - but generally immediately after he'll praise the people supporting him for being so smart, so patriotic, or what ever else - that can make some people feel good about themselves. He does it far more effectively than any of the other fringe candidates (who know they'll never last past the first few primaries at best).

.

"I Still Want 'Healthcare For Everybody,' but Not Obamacare" -Donald Trump
I'm conservative guys I swear!

http://i.imgur.com/JtPb3Rz.png

but is your candidate's hair endorsed by chester cheeto

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CN0j0gTUAAEWdKt.jpg