Thanks Ken. I appreciate it. 🙂

No, I was reacting to jam who said the Reps won’t nominate Trump no matter what. That could happen, but will become ever more unlikely to if his lead keeps growing. If Trump does well today, with so many super Tuesday states being in the south including Texas, we’ll know it’s his, I think. If Cruz comes third in Texas, or distant second?, he’ll likely drop out.

I don’t see how people voting on emotion makes a difference. The polls now don’t mean much when the candidates involved aren’t running against each other. People have talked about how Trump would clean up Sanders, but Sanders can fight back because he’s proud of his positions and doesn’t have the sort of baggage that Clinton does. I think Trump is capable of making Hillary look very bad indeed. He won’t have any cross over power, as I’ve said before, but he doesn’t need any if disenchanted Dem voters just stay home. Or the emotions could work the other way and with Hillary being given a pass for everything because of how bad Trump is. Not saying I know, just saying we can’t predict this with any confidence. It will be interesting to see what mainstream right-wing media do with such a choice. That could be decisive. Fascinating!

Here’s the link to Sam’s email debate with Bruce Schneier: https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/to-profile-or-not-to-profile

That all depends on people voting on facts rather than emotion, and if this election is about anything, it’s not facts. Most of the polls show that head to head, Trump can’t beat Clinton or Sanders. I heard a Trump speech yesterday where he was saying EXACTLY the same thing about pharmaceutical companies and the cost of drugs as Sanders does in his rallies. Even down to the detail of how much USians pay compared to the UK, Canada etc.

Also, Fox News viewers are not being shown things like the situation yesterday, which I even saw on One News, of people being kicked out of and assaulted at Trump rallies. Ted Cruz is complaining that Fox’s Chris Wallace is taking his questions from Trump campaign talking points. However, Wallace is one of the few fair interviewers on the network, and he was equally tough on Trump in an interview a few minutes earlier.

Did I say there’d be a brokered convention? If so I was wrong. I no longer think that will happen if I did. I do think a Trump candidacy could destroy the party. Fox are reporting none of the opposition to Trump by voters, but CNN are finding plenty of Republicans who say they’ll never vote for Trump, and polls back up the anecdotes.

I was thinking of all the people who are coming into Europe at the moment. If they register, they’re go through a proper process, but those who don’t, don’t. And it’s those who don’t register who are the ones more likely to be denied entry. That’s less likely to be a problem in the UK of course, because of the problem getting over the channel.

It sounds like we heard what Maryam said differently. As I said, I was doing other stuff so I concede I’m the one who’s more likely to have got it wrong. I understood her to say that in principle, anyone who wants to come should be let in. She did talk about screening but it felt to me like it was something she was saying as an aside, and not what she thought should happen. Besides, once people are there, it’s difficult to find them, let alone send them back. At the very least, there are the Human Rights implications of sending anyone back to a war zone – it’s not something I’d wish on my worst enemy.

I agree with why profiling gets a bad name – we have the same issue in NZ (which is another thing you probably know about better than me), though it’s improving, with Maori more likely to be stopped by the Police, and receiving tougher sentences for the same crimes.

Profiling, by its very nature, is an imperfect science. It’s rare for any correlation to be 100%, so it’s never going to pick up every problem. The terrorists are constantly losing their battle with law enforcement, but they only have to succeed once for law enforcement to be considered the failures. Profiling imo does work, just not 100% of the time. As far as I’m concerned, those who say it fails expect it to succeed 100% of the time. I haven’t listened to Harris debating the issue, and that’s something I should do because I feel like I need to be better informed about it.

As I’ve even said in a post, NZers and USians have nothing to worry about. We have ocean privilege when it comes to refugees from the ME, and they’re all screened via the UNHCR.

Many are saying now that they’ve all left it too late to deal to Trump. We’ll know a lot more this time tomorrow, but I don’t agree the Republicans will have a brokered convention. If Trump goes in with an overwhelming majority, the calculation they have to make is whether nominating someone without support and therefore easily painted by the Dems as illegitimate, would do less damage to the Party than Trump as president. And if they decide it would be less, they have to find someone who would be willing to take the fall, which is probably not Rubio or Kasich.

None of this is impossible, but neither is Trump winning against Hillary as others have said. This article puts it well:

“Every one of Clinton’s (considerable) weaknesses plays to every one of Trump’s strengths, whereas every one of Trump’s (few) weaknesses plays to every one of Sanders’s strengths. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, running Clinton against Trump is a disastrous, suicidal proposition.”

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/02/25/trump-gains-momentum-both-sides-ask-who-can-stop-him

Paxton, Maryam’s history lesson is at the end as I said so it’s not hard to find if you want to. I agree she could have said more about it during the two hours, but I think she was very forthright and clear when she did (and I think Sam was exhausted by then and put up no argument). As for not controlling the discussion, Sam got away with less with her than anyone ever has, so she didn’t do so bad.

I will always think that emotive name calling is meant to distract from the real matters being debated and in fact does so very effectively, which is why children do it and adults do it too. We may not be able to end it any more than we can end actual racism, but that’s no reason to ignore it.

Heather, who are the people who don’t come in through a proper process? Namazie spent a good bit of time discussing how she’d worked with the processes in Europe and the US and how tight they both were and that they were very effective screens for undesirables including those who had committed criminal acts. At no point did she say just anyone should be let in unscreened. She said there should be no quotas and that people shouldn’t be screened out because they held conservative religious or political views. And yes, she also said jihadi views, but not who have committed violent acts.

I think I agree re profiling at airports too. My hesitation is that I’ve read where many security experts say it doesn’t work. Harris has debated one of them. But I haven’t investigated it to form a definite view.

Profiling gets a bad name because it has become associated with police harassment of blacks and there’s plenty to be said for actual racist drivers behind that. I agree it’s different in airports and should also be in the FBI, which they also discussed, and which doesn’t patrol street crime.

Yeah, she did say that at one point, but she was talking about the people that come in through a proper process. In that part I agreed with her. She’s also said elsewhere that anyone should be able to go anywhere, and it doesn’t matter if people come on who are jihadis because they already exist and we’ll deal with them the say way we deal with those who are already here. That’s where I had a problem. Sam tried to pin her down, but she refused to answer and kept talking about other stuff when he did that.

I don’t have a problem with Sam’s view of profiling either. I think people hear the word “profiling” and get their knickers in a twist, but all he’s doing is being practical. An issue many (especially younger) people is they forget (or don’t accept) that there is a limited pool of funds, and they should be used in the most efficient way possible. It is a waste of money to do a full body search of a 90 yr old Amish women just to prove you’re being fair. There are things like age ranges, travelling alone, criminal history etc that make someone far more likely to be a terrorist. And you are more likely to be a terrorist if you’re a Muslim than if you’re a Catholic. That doesn’t mean all Muslims are bad and all Catholics are good, but if it’s a choice between two people who are equal in all other categories, then screen the Muslim more closely.

I’m on the same page as Heather and Ken regarding the Harris-Namazie interview. I agree with Heather that Namazie’s open border argument is unrealistic, but I wish she had made a stronger point that a major cause of the refugee crisis is the west’s meddling, and that therefore we have a moral responsibility to alleviate their misery somehow. I agree that accommodating them in safe camps over there until peace is resolved, is the best plan, but the US/UK in particular have a responsibility to those whose lives our invasions upended.

I really don’t have a problem with Sam’s profiling policy either. It makes sense to focus our security resources on the cohort most likely to commit terrorism. This would include young men of all races, ethnicities, and religions, and not just Muslims.

But Harris has a larger agenda than just emigration and profiling. Namazie recognized this and was determined not to let Harris draw he into blanket condemnations of Islam.

Ken said, “Namazie gives Harris quite a history lesson about imperialism as the fundamental cause of terrorism” I wish I had a transcript to check this claim, but I’m afraid it’s overstated. Yes, she made some comments along those lines, but that should have been the primary focus of the discussion. She let Harris focus the discussion on what Muslims have done and might do to us, instead of what the west has done and might do to Muslims.

But just as reform of Islam is unlikely to be facilitated by westerners like Harris pointing out its flaws, reform of American military policy will not be accomplished through the criticisms of Muslims. It’s only when Americans speak out about our role in promoting radicalization of Muslims, and the current chaos in the middle east, that reform will happen. Donald Trump made the clearest statement I’ve heard yet in one of the Republican debates, but his proposals will only make things worse.

Ken, without a transcript I can’t address your claim that “Paxton, having now listened, I don’t see how you concluded that Namazie was not unhappy with attempts to stop her from speaking, or that Harris goaded her about it.” I think what I was trying to say was more like your following statement: “What she did react strongly to was Harris’ view that the pre-judgement of speakers made them victims in any way. I got the impression she was just resigned to it. She said it happened equally on both sides and they just had to get over it and just keep clarifying themselves.” My point exactly.