and by "disagreeing with the left" you mean "proposing ideas that are not only literally the same as the ones used in pre-WWII Nazi Germany, but also targeted against selected group for no reason other than hate".
In a world where many on the so called the left have chosen to ally themselves with groups whose ideas are themselves "literally the same as the ones used in pre-WWII Nazi Germany" your comment makes no sense!
Concerning refugees, if he had come out and said "Look, there are a lot of people in many parts of the world that don't like us and we need to be able to screen them to make sure they won't come here and hurt us" everyone would have agreed with him. But no, he has to say "no Muslims".
Actually if he had said what you suggest there would be another republican candidate running against Hillary.
His campaign took off because he said that - up to that point it was just his four yearly "run for president as a publicity stunt" thing.
Mind you, some insiders have it that he didn't really want to run for president and - from that perspective - it was a mistake.
While it's true that the 1st Amendment wouldn't apply to private companies even in the U.S.
The reason why the 1st amendement applies to government is because it is a de jure monopoly. However large companies like Facebook are de facto monopolies - more so than traditional newspapers - or even TV channels - so there is an argument for applying it to them.
Roads? Only amount for the 1% of the causes of death; and that also answers Richard's question.
Actually it doesn't.
The statistics don't tell you the cause. They tell you what people at the scene thought the cause was. It is folly to rely ion statistics in these cases.
To blame the road you have to be aware of the road issues that can cause problems - and most people filling in post accident forms aren't aware. Plus the forms themselves don't have clear categories for blaming the road - so it isn't a surprise that the statistics don't reflect reality on that point.
In formula 1 the drivers are all highly skilled and so it is natural to blame road or car design for deaths, which is why fatalities have fallen even more in that domain.
Plus - if you classify death statistics by type of road then you find some types to be safer than others - which more or less proves that the road is, to some extent, to blame all of the time.
Well you can get a good approximation to it just by Googling
police shootings US
In fact there is a US law, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, specifically Section 210402, the U.S. Congress mandated that the attorney general collect data on the use of excessive force by police and publish an annual report from the data. However this has not been done in recent years so the void has been filled by crowdsourcing.
SO who's fault is it that the don't have the data?
Re: Re: Re: Re: The technology is here. The genie is out.
A felony record will make it a lot harder to maintain good relations and a good job, making you less attractive as a mate and less successful in procreation.
Meanwhile, in the real world these people are put into a position where the only recreation they can afford is procreation - whilst the higher achievers are too busy with their careers to bother with having children.
Re: Re: Re: The technology is here. The genie is out.
You don't turn more than a millennium of religious zealotry on the subject into the ideal world in one generation.
Unfortunately, as I commented above, "religious zealotry" isn't the problem. After all many of the current generation of moral zealots are actually, or even officially, atheists (eg the Chinese government).
The actual problem is an innate human tendency to want to have someone to look down on. Sometimes this manifests as racism, sometimes as religious moralising or bigotry - all of which goes against the true teaching of the religion which tells you to ingore the speck in your brother's eye until you have removed the plank from your own.
It is somewhat ironic that the practitioners of that religion who ought to have been leading the charge against this problem for nearly 2000 years have actually spent a lot of the time making it worse.
But then again there are also the verses: "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
We've abandoned moral disapproval of so many things that used to be on the "unmentionable list" (sex/pregnancy outside marriage, homosexuality, promiscuity etc) but we just can't do without something to get all high and mighty about - so it is all heaped on the one thing that we can all agree on - paedophilia and child porn.
We are really comfortable doing this because it is the only sin that we aren't tempted by personally. It's really good to complain about other people and not to have to examine ourselves
In my mind this attitude is more destructive than the things it diisapproves of - and this case demonstrates it perfectly - because all the parties here (apart from the daughter and her boyfriend) are guilty of it!
Actually, whilst all traffic deaths are down, they have not gone down as far as airline deaths and motorsport deaths. The big difference is that in these two fields the culture is not to blame the driver/pilot because there will always be mistakes (or in the case of regualr road traffic, idiots) but rather for the authorities to change the things that they can change.
Obvious examples of that are road layout/furniture and vehicle design.
Speed limits and drink drive laws have a role - but their downside is that they encourage a blame culture that can actually get in the way of real improvements.
Take the death of Princess Diana.
People blamed the paparazzi for creating a chase. People blamed the driver for drugs/drink and speeding. People blamed Princess Diana herself for not wearing a seatbelt.
However the authorities could do precisely zero to affect any of these - without serious civil liberties implications.
What the French authorities could have done is to install a crash barrier to prevent a head on collision with one of the pillars.
AFAIK THEY STILL HAVEN'T DONE THIS! yet it would have saved the lives of everyone in the car regardless of their bad behaviour and that of the press.