PRESIDENT TRUMP

Your point about society not having cars because people quit their jobs. Society doesn't NEED cars. People mostly use cars to get to work, hah, and to go places they want to go(not need to go). Since people can go to further places, things stopped being local. (in a small town)Instead of going to the local Co-op grocery store, you have to drive to the next town over. If we didn't have cars we wouldn't starve to death. Our grocery stores would be closer. If we didn't have grocery stores, we would have to hunt for food and the ones who can't would die off. Cars have only existed for what, about 100 years. We got along fine without them for much longer than that.

And all this talk about not doing things for intrinsic reward, that's nonsense. That's a personal view that I know for a fact not everyone shares. I do things for that reason all the time. Based on some of the things I've seen you say about human nature over the years, I don't think you really know what the average person would do in a situation. Just like most people on most subjects. So saying that you know what everybody would do, even in a futuristic hypothetical, is going to be wrong every time.

author=Sam Harris
2. I think Trump’s “Muslim ban” is a terrible policy. Not only is it unethical with respect to the plight of refugees, it is bound to be ineffective in stopping the spread of Islamism. As many have pointed out, it is also internally inconsistent: It doesn’t include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, or Lebanon, any of which has been a more fertile source of jihadist terrorism than several of the countries Trump named.

3. However, most of what is being said in opposition to Trump’s order is thoroughly contaminated by identity politics and liberal delusion. The Left seems determined to empower the Right by continuing to lie about the problem of Islamism. As David Frum recently wrote, “When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders, then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won’t do.” I have been saying as much for more than a decade—and am vilified by my fellow liberals whenever I do.

4. It is perfectly possible—and increasingly necessary—to speak about the ideological roots of Islamism and jihadism, and even about the unique need for reform within mainstream Islam itself, without lapsing into bigotry or disregarding the suffering of refugees. Indeed, when one understands the problem for what it is, one realizes that secular Muslims, liberal Muslims, and former Muslims are among the most desirable allies to have in the West—and, indeed, such people are the primary victims of Islamist intolerance and jihadist terror in Muslim-majority countries.

5. If liberals who refuse to speak honestly on these topics continue to march with Islamists, denigrate free speech, and oppose the work of the real reformers in the Muslim community, they will only further provoke and empower Trump. And Trump, in turn, will empower Islamists the world over by threatening the civil liberties of all Muslims within his reach.

6. The next acts of jihadist terrorism to take place on American soil will most likely be met with terrifyingly blunt (and even illegal) countermeasures by the Trump administration. If all that liberals can do in response is continue to lie about the causes of terrorism and lock arms with Islamists, we have some very rough times ahead.

7. If you are listening to obscurantists like Linda Sarsour, Dalia Mogahed, Reza Aslan, and representatives of CAIR, and denigrating true secularists and reformers like Maajid Nawaz, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Raheel Raza, and Sarah Haider, you are part of the problem.

author=harmonic
Man this is getting silly. Just because Trump won doesn't mean you can throw together Antifa riots, beat people up, set fires to college campuses, call everyone you don't like a Nazi, and have celebrities quite literally call for the military overthrow of the government. I am morbidly curious as to how these things will be justified...

author=harmonic
Man this is getting silly. Just because Trump won doesn't mean you can throw together Antifa riots, beat people up, set fires to college campuses, call everyone you don't like a Nazi, and have celebrities quite literally call for the military overthrow of the government. I am morbidly curious as to how these things will be justified...

author=harmonic
Sarah Silverman is a celebrity with far-reaching influence

author=harmonic
You're creating an impossible situation. I'm civil. I'm not picking fights. But you're going to say I'm uncivil and picking fights. It doesn't matter what I do.

And you're going to get away with it because you're in the majority. And you're going to get away with posting memes from the 1990's.

author=harmonic
I'm asking for you to justify the left's propensity to burst into riots and violence lately. You cannot even do that. All you can do is be shitty. You have no arguments, you have no thoughts. Only being shitty.

author=pianotm
It's the University of Berkeley protests. It's been on all of the front pages all day.

As David Bier, an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute—a conservative, libertarian think-tank founded by Charles Koch, of Koch brothers fame—pointed out:

“The order would ban all people entering the United States from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen, and yet no terrorist from these places has carried out a lethal attack in the United States. Indeed, no Libyans or Syrians have even been convicted for planning such an attack. Moreover, the likelihood of being killed by any refugee from any country is just 1 in 3.64 billion a year. This discrimination is arbitrary and cannot be rationally justified based on a assessment of the risk.”