AH sorry I keep mixing up total immigration and immigration just from those seven countries. completely my bad. Still waiting on ND's statistics in the meantime

We're never going to get them, lmao. He's just going to wait until we forget and then get back to trolling. I'll make sure to harass him about it whenever he posts.

The court will return to the balance it had when scalia was alive. As for roe v wade i hope it is overturned by the same margin it passed: 5 to 4.
Over 50 million children killed in US since 1974. Good job, liberals and moderates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_States, 1970 - 2013 :51,888,303

Curious CAPT_Brad - how do you feel about the death penalty? There is the most curious disconnect among liberal and conservatives (not saying this is the case with you, but asking), where liberals are for abortion, but against the death penalty, whereas conservatives are for the death penalty, but against abortion. Seems like a disconnect to me.

I know the liberal argument is that fetuses are not people yet, especially early in pregnancy. So you can believe that or not.

And I know the conservative argument is violent criminals are not innocent, unlike unborn children. Although this makes light that over 10% of death row inmates have been set free after being condemned to die because of a mistake, which seems an awfully bad error rate if you're talking about killing people (source: http://www.ncadp.org/pages/innocence). Should any innocents being condemned to die just so we can kill some guilty ones?

I am opposed to the death penalty and euthanasia as well. I believe in the dignity of human life from conception to grave.

Your argument on its face seems to present a 'balanced' view. Yet it betrays the wishy-washy middle ground of moderates. Beyond liberals, moderates are the lowest political animal as they agree to everything and stand for nothing. Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.

The conception of a human being, left on it's own with little exception, develops into a gift for its parents. The sad truth of life in the united states is that children are seen as a burden and not the gift they are.

Nah - I'm a hard core liberal, but I try to at least give the other side a fair shake. Even if I disagree with their premises, at least I can recognize that their conclusions are reasonable based on the assumptions and beliefs they start with. Those that argue the conclusions of an opposing view are crazy or irrational are often ignorant of where the true disagreement lies in the fundamental assumptions.

@slypups

"where liberals are for abortion, but against the death penalty, whereas conservatives are for the death penalty, but against abortion. Seems like a disconnect to me."

umm... usually the death penalty is given for the most severe and awful of crimes. Trying to equivocate it with killing a baby - or even a human fetus... is kind of psychotic. Even if you're pro-abortion surely you can recognize these two things aren't at all alike. Jesus.

I'm personally not for the death penalty, especially since a shit ton of innocent people get pushed over onto that list, but the principle behind it doesn't AUTOMATICALLY deem abortions worthy.

@CAPT Brad

"Beyond liberals, moderates are the lowest political animal as they agree to everything and stand for nothing. Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything."

Wow. Join us or die. How about you assholes put out a candidate people actually want to give their vote to for once? How about you recognize that people can have a set core of beliefs and values, separate from purely Right and purely Left? How about you stop complaining about polarization, then turn around and demonize people willing to listen to each side?

I am not complaining about polarization. I am not telling anyone to die. As for candidates there are more republican office holders by far than any other party despite being a minority of voters. Could be that conservative ideas have merit for people's real lives. And what are the 'core' vales of moderation? Are there any?

@CAPT Brad

moderates aren't necessarily a single entity. Some support secular gov't but are religious, low taxes but support regulation, pro-choice but anti-death penalty, there can be SO many differentiations that aren't purely left or right.

when you say moderates, you're not addressing a set core of ideology. some moderates can lean left or right on certain issues

people in-between two sets of belief aren't always:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R66r_XMoDkk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0F9b_o3uBk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxDvjWTCmIY

You didn't answer the question. What are the core values of moderation?

"As for candidates there are more republican office holders by far than any other party despite being a minority of voters. Could be that conservative ideas have merit for people's real lives."

Nah, that sounds more like evidence that some voters are more equal than others.

Oh letho, when the facts do not support you, you throw mud. So like a liberal. Even Obama said that republicans were the party of ideas.democrats are the party of mudslinging.

The facts you presented are that a minority of voters are strongly overrepresented in government. Quote mining won't change what facts you presented. Nor will attacking me personally.

@CAPT Brad

THERE AREN'T ANY SPECIFIC CORE VALues. Republicans hold a certain set of core values, Democrats hold a certain set of core values.

Now those core values shift, so you're very left, or not very left, very right, or not very right. Moderates are very close to the center, the usual formula is socially liberal fiscally conservative.

You clearly do not understand what people mean when they say they're centrists. They don't like the radical ends of the spectrum.

@lethologica

what he MEANS is, the people who don't register with a party look at both tickets, and swing right usually.

Yea I'm jumping on with James here. Moderates aren't not choosing as much as hey are choosing al la carte on each issue as an individual issue. For example:
I choose to support gay marriage because i don't feel it is nessecary for the government to regulate who can and can't get married.
I am personally pro-life but believe the government should make laws based on facts and only facts and since neither pro-life or pro-choice can clearly show when a fetus becomes a person I have to leave the conversation with "well then that's not the governments business and needs to be left for individual decision".
I am against raising the minimum wage
I am for socialized healthcare, energy, and water
I am for military intervention in order to advance our interests.
I am against the death penalty
I am for legalization of marijuana
I am for replacing social security
I am against the ACA
I am against a border wall
I am for deportation of illegals who commit crimes.
I am against deportation of families who are living peacefully.

I have a well thought out and researched opinion for each of these issues. I don't pull the lever blue or red but flick the switches honestly on each issue.

Sure the republicans are the party of ideas. Bad ideas. Ideas that say market forces should determine success even when it leads to immoral or undesirable outcomes. But those are ideas for sure.

@JamesYanik - I can equate the death penalty with abortion, at least I could if I believed fetuses were entitled to human rights that trumped the rights of their human hosts. But if you believe fetuses are humans, then both abortion and the death penalty kill people unnecessarily - they are equal in that way. Why is an innocent and helpless adult entitled to less mercy and consideration than a fetus?

I would think a core value of a moderate could mostly be explained as " when faced with an issue make sure to explore all options and then make a decision only when you have considered every angle. Be open to being wrong. Be willing to change should you be proven wrong.

Research

“More than 55 percent of all attacks took place in five countries (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and Nigeria), and 74 percent of all deaths due to terrorist attacks took place in five countries (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Syria).”

(Please note that two of the nations on this list have been temporarily restricted due to Trump’s executive order: Iraq and Syria.)

“The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/ISIS) was responsible for 31 percent fewer terrorist attacks in Iraq, the number of attacks carried out by ISIL in Syria increased by 39 percent.

-- The geographic reach of attacks by ISIL and its affiliates expanded as several existing terrorist groups pledged allegiance to ISIL. In addition to Boko Haram in West Africa, the most active of these ISIL branches were located in Afghanistan/Pakistan, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen.”

-Please note that some of these countries include Libya, Yemen, Syria and Iraq (all restricted temporarily)-

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/11774-number-terror-attacks-worldwide-dropped-13-2015

Review of this relevant source evidence: Many of the suspects on this list come from Pakistan and Nigeria, but some also come from Iraq.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#Islamic_extremism and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_terrorist_plots_in_the_United_States_post-9/11

This document reviews 60 Terrorist Plots since 9/11. Published in 2013. Interesting cases include: Lackawanna Six (2002), Nuradin M. Abdi (2003), Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar (2006), Air Cargo Bomb Plot (2010), Mohamad Osman Mohamud (2010), Iranian Terror Plot (2011), AQAP Plane Bomb Plot (2012), Chiheb Esseghaier and Raed Jaser (2013).

These foiled plots include plots supported or directed or having involvement with temporarily restricted nations.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/07/60-terrorist-plots-since-911-continued-lessons-in-domestic-counterterrorism and

http://dailysignal.com/2015/09/10/a-timeline-of-73-islamist-terror-plots-since-911/
This is a list of individuals in the United States who have left to join Islamic terrorist organizations.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-uncovered/americans-15-who-left-united-states-join-isis-n573611

Additional information of individuals who have left to join ISIS. Some are from temporarily restricted nations or connected to traveling to those nations.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/isis-suspects/

This link includes information about Syrian Refugees and how some have turned to terror after getting a refugee status: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3322649/The-enemy-Nearly-SEVENTY-arrested-America-ISIS-plots-include-refugees-given-safe-haven-turned-terror.html

“America over ISIS plots in the last 18 months - including refugees who had been given safe haven but 'turned to terror'
• Federal and local law enforcement agencies have made dozens of arrests of men and women suspected of ISIS involvement
• Analysis shows that they include refugees who entered the United States as refugees”


Additional evidence: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/21/us/6-somali-americans-arrested-in-isis-recruiting-case.html

There are countless more articles like these that suggest foiled terror attacks within the United States. Some of which are connected to the temporarily restricted nations from Trump’s executive orders.

This list does not even include really examples of terror in those countries of in Europe.

Apparently I'm nearly full-fledged member of the CommanderByron party. I only disagree with two of those positions, and not that strongly on those.

This took me about thirty minutes to compile. If I actually spent more time on it, well it would be a lot longer.

@Marxists: Please do your research. I did this to educate you.

That's fair, James. Doesn't substantiate Brad's claim, though. And it's not consistent--see e.g. this chart:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/independents/data-presidential.html

ND logic: US should have banned people travelling to the US from Canada, Syria, Germany, and Iraq, because some of those countries are responsible for 55% of the attacks.

Radical Right - 100% support for ideology, no exceptions in theory or life
Normal Right - believes in rightism, believes leftism is wrong, will allow debate
Leans Right - holds views that more often fall to the right
Moderate - holds a variation of views, and does not constantly support one ideology
Leans Left - holds views that more often fall to the left
Normal Left - believes in leftism, believes leftism is wrong, will allow debate
Radical Left - 100% support for ideology, no exceptions in theory or life

this can occur on several levels, economic, social and political are the primary
- Pure right economics is 100% free market and pure left is 100% command economy
- Political right is pure anarchism and political left is pure fascism

Those are the radical sides of each

- Social right and social left constantly change, depending on the society. Previously conservative positions either die and liberal positions become conservative, or conservative positions endure and the liberal positions become eternally shunned.

Conservative positions are tested with liberal positions, the reaction of society examined, and either implemented, shunned, or postponed in lieu of other potential social changes.

This process will generally occur naturally, although the extant of extremism in which these events unfold will yield different results, for different societies, with different histories, culture and geography (a fairly important factor)

@Letho

DAMN independents ARE dying

@slypus - out of curiosity which two??

ND you realize that none of that means that immigrants from these countries commit disproportionately more terrorist attempts, right?