In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On March 17 2016 03:33 Seuss wrote: So Rick Scott endorsed Trump, and the Fox News debate on Monday is cancelled thanks to Trump and Kasich pulling out. Welp.
The voters don't decide? Moment of silence for his career.
Don't underestimate the ivory tower effect for either party. When you're used to running things on high however you like when nobody's looking the spotlight reveals a lot of ugly truths.
Rick Scott did what he said: he endorsed the winner.
Honestly, despite the fact that he has a lot of stupid positions, I think that last Fox debate was not done in good faith. Sure, it's fair to call Trump out for his positions, but they clearly were not being as charitable as a debate host should be to its speakers. Add that to the fact that there have been too many debates and they're really getting repetitive, and I see good reason to cancel that isn't a petty vendetta.
Ideally people who are used to running things their way would have enough political tact to know when to lie and say the popular thing. Mitt Romney knew who you do and don't say his 47% line to, and that leak was just bad luck and/or someone leaking a private conversation. Saying that the voters don't decide to the public is quite politically stupid.
On March 17 2016 03:59 Plansix wrote: We also talk about how all of Africa treats its women and gays too. Or Asia. It is about as productive.
Being “honest about Islam” is mostly followed by the most surface level understanding of the religion, region and issues facing each nation where it is the predominant religion. It is self praise for the US for being better while offering nothing of substance beyond finger wagging.
Yeah, codified laws about how to kill women who cheat on their husbands, and how to throw homosexuals off roof tops, is such a surface level understanding of the religion.
On March 17 2016 03:44 Liquid`Drone wrote: having read some more of the thread now, let me add to my previous post that the idea of anyone justifying their hatred for Islam through Islam's stance towards homosexuality, while planning on voting for a GOP candidate, is a fucking joke. Seriously, how do some of you guys fail to see that all the progressive values you hate Islam for not sharing are also hardly shared by the party you plan on voting for?
You do realize that the same logic works both ways, right? GOP candidates aren't "progressive" and yet somehow they are the ones speaking more honestly about Islam. During WWII the allies had to work with Stalin to defeat Hitler. If the regressive left continues to try and shut down constructive conversation and repeat meaningless platitudes, you can hardly be surprised if more reasonable people consider voting Republican and the far-right groups start gaining ground. See Germany for example.
The notion that GOP candidates are "speaking more honestly about Islam" is hardly well-established enough to be referenced without a great deal of qualification. In other words, you haven't proven "that the same logic works both ways," you've merely proven that you agree with the rhetoric of the GOP lol.
Well they are addressing legitimate concerns that people have about Muslims. Not necessarily in the best way, possibly a bit destructively, but better than many liberals who refuse to acknowledge that Islam itself and Muslims have issues that cannot simply be brushed off. So it is trivially true that GOP candidates do a better job than complete ignorance of the problem.
On March 17 2016 03:59 Plansix wrote: We also talk about how all of Africa treats its women and gays too. Or Asia. It is about as productive.
Being “honest about Islam” is mostly followed by the most surface level understanding of the religion, region and issues facing each nation where it is the predominant religion. It is self praise for the US for being better while offering nothing of substance beyond finger wagging.
Yeah, codified laws about how to kill women who cheat on their husbands, and how to throw homosexuals off roof tops, is such a surface level understanding of the religion.
I agree, Christianity is a huge problem and we need to watch them carefully, especially around children.
in practice, being a fundamentalist islamist would disqualify at least someone within the refugee process. those guys can be disqualified based on security concerns that do not, at least at face value, cite their religion.
On March 17 2016 03:44 Liquid`Drone wrote: having read some more of the thread now, let me add to my previous post that the idea of anyone justifying their hatred for Islam through Islam's stance towards homosexuality, while planning on voting for a GOP candidate, is a fucking joke. Seriously, how do some of you guys fail to see that all the progressive values you hate Islam for not sharing are also hardly shared by the party you plan on voting for?
You do realize that the same logic works both ways, right? GOP candidates aren't "progressive" and yet somehow they are the ones speaking more honestly about Islam. During WWII the allies had to work with Stalin to defeat Hitler. If the regressive left continues to try and shut down constructive conversation and repeat meaningless platitudes, you can hardly be surprised if more reasonable people consider voting Republican and the far-right groups start gaining ground. See Germany for example.
The notion that GOP candidates are "speaking more honestly about Islam" is hardly well-established enough to be referenced without a great deal of qualification. In other words, you haven't proven "that the same logic works both ways," you've merely proven that you agree with the rhetoric of the GOP lol.
Well they are addressing legitimate concerns that people have about Muslims. Not necessarily in the best way, possibly a bit destructively, but better than many liberals who refuse to acknowledge that Islam itself and Muslims have issues that cannot simply be brushed off. So it is trivially true that GOP candidates do a better job than complete ignorance of the problem.
Here is a Liberal President dealing with Islam:
US drone, air strike kills more than 150 al-Shabaab fighters, Pentagon reveals
jesus, is that for real? That's absolutely terrible..
Murica?
You may want to take note of what our enlightened betters in Europe are doing.
Not discriminating people because of their religion?
To put it mildly, the German people seem to disagree with what Merkel has been doing.
Even then it's not a religious test being argued for. The people fucking shit up in Germany wouldn't be allowed into America for reasons other than religion. America is really hard to get into legally, a religious test does nothing to exclude undesirables and a lot to exclude desirable immigrants.
Hell, my department consists mostly of Middle Eastern, nominally Muslim, grad students. If they all get deported following their graduation then they'll be stuck in a country they're overqualified for that has no market for their skills and America will lose a great batch of nano engineering doctorates. And it's a surprisingly common story for Middle Eastern foreign students to fail to get their visas renewed following graduation.
The people of Germany are not bitching to Merkel about too many Iranian engineers and yet that is exactly the kind of thing Trump's policies will actually address. They're not going to stop terrorist attacks, they're just going to fuck shit up for people for whom the only disqualifying factor is their religion at birth.
On March 17 2016 04:03 ticklishmusic wrote: Trump's number one foreign policy advisor is himself best he has a great mind. The best mind, which comes up with the best words.
If I told my boss something like that, she would ask me if I had a stroke.
It's pretty obvious Trump is speaking in very simple words for the electorate.
Here's a great video about it.
For anyone who really think Trump's current public persona is an actual representation of his intelligence level doesn't give Trump nearly enough credit for crafting his public persona.
Here's Trump in '91 giving an eloquent talk to Congress. Are people really still trying to push this "trump is dumb" meme?
I harp on Christianity all the time, but it's been reported that they don't actually abuse children more than the general public itself. I'm unsure if that's true because it could be very biased and it's not something I've studied. A quick google search: http://www.themediareport.com/fast-facts/
Their problem was knowing about it, hiding it, and pretending they are still morally superior. Which is usually the case with religion since it's all one big game of bullshit. The fact that they had a known pedophile (or was he one of the ones who hid pedophiles) voting who would be the next Pope is ridiculous. Especially since the church knew about it.
On March 17 2016 03:59 Plansix wrote: We also talk about how all of Africa treats its women and gays too. Or Asia. It is about as productive.
Being “honest about Islam” is mostly followed by the most surface level understanding of the religion, region and issues facing each nation where it is the predominant religion. It is self praise for the US for being better while offering nothing of substance beyond finger wagging.
Yeah, codified laws about how to kill women who cheat on their husbands, and how to throw homosexuals off roof tops, is such a surface level understanding of the religion.
I agree, Christianity is a huge problem and we need to watch them carefully, especially around children.
This is why it's codified in the constitution to have a secular state.
Meanwhile, Islam is as political as it is religious.
When exactly have the GOP "talked honestly about Islam" in the sense people want to here? All they do is talk about it through the lens of wanting to stop terrorism, including glassing a country and killing civilians, not how the religion treats women or whatever. Are people reading tea leaves to find out what Cruz, Trump, Kasich, et al think about the religion or what?
I mean Trump pretty much said that the only reason he cares about it is the terror threat which has ZERO to do with Islam as ideology; if ISIS weren't a thing he wouldn't give a shit, and he didn't before San Bernardino. That's why this is all "till we get ISIS" sorted for him, not "till we 'fix' Muslims" like some people seem to think it is.
This is some absurd next level reading into their policies.
On March 17 2016 03:44 Liquid`Drone wrote: having read some more of the thread now, let me add to my previous post that the idea of anyone justifying their hatred for Islam through Islam's stance towards homosexuality, while planning on voting for a GOP candidate, is a fucking joke. Seriously, how do some of you guys fail to see that all the progressive values you hate Islam for not sharing are also hardly shared by the party you plan on voting for?
You do realize that the same logic works both ways, right? GOP candidates aren't "progressive" and yet somehow they are the ones speaking more honestly about Islam. During WWII the allies had to work with Stalin to defeat Hitler. If the regressive left continues to try and shut down constructive conversation and repeat meaningless platitudes, you can hardly be surprised if more reasonable people consider voting Republican and the far-right groups start gaining ground. See Germany for example.
The notion that GOP candidates are "speaking more honestly about Islam" is hardly well-established enough to be referenced without a great deal of qualification. In other words, you haven't proven "that the same logic works both ways," you've merely proven that you agree with the rhetoric of the GOP lol.
Well they are addressing legitimate concerns that people have about Muslims. Not necessarily in the best way, possibly a bit destructively, but better than many liberals who refuse to acknowledge that Islam itself and Muslims have issues that cannot simply be brushed off. So it is trivially true that GOP candidates do a better job than complete ignorance of the problem.
Politicians talking about the theological tenets of "Islam itself" are automatically out of their depth, save for maybe a few tiny exceptions, so no, it isn't even trivially true that GOP candidates do a better job than complete ignorance of the problem. Ill-conceived rhetoric aimed towards generalizing a religion for the purposes of gaining political favor among people who literally know nothing about Islam beyond the fact that 9/11 was committed by Muslims makes the problem worse, not better.
oneofthem's post focuses on the issue more appropriately; a political emphasis on more than merely the religion itself is integral to productive political discourse as to immigration policy.
On March 17 2016 04:11 TheTenthDoc wrote: When exactly have the GOP "talked honestly about Islam" in the sense people want to here? All they do is talk about it through the lens of wanting to stop terrorism, including glassing a country and killing civilians, not how the religion treats women or whatever. Are people reading tea leaves to find out what Cruz, Trump, Kasich, et al think about the religion or what?
I mean Trump pretty much said that the only reason he cares about it is the terror threat which has ZERO to do with Islam as ideology; if ISIS weren't a thing he wouldn't give a shit, and he didn't before San Bernardino.
The only talks have been trying to get nukes out of Iran so that they don't fucking glass themselves. What the hell are you talking about?
On March 17 2016 04:11 TheTenthDoc wrote: When exactly have the GOP "talked honestly about Islam" in the sense people want to here? All they do is talk about it through the lens of wanting to stop terrorism, including glassing a country and killing civilians, not how the religion treats women or whatever. Are people reading tea leaves to find out what Cruz, Trump, Kasich, et al think about the religion or what?
I mean Trump pretty much said that the only reason he cares about it is the terror threat which has ZERO to do with Islam as ideology; if ISIS weren't a thing he wouldn't give a shit, and he didn't before San Bernardino.
The only talks have been trying to get nukes out of Iran so that they don't fucking glass themselves. What the hell are you talking about?
Making the sand glow and carpet bombing don't ring any bells?
On March 17 2016 04:11 TheTenthDoc wrote: When exactly have the GOP "talked honestly about Islam" in the sense people want to here? All they do is talk about it through the lens of wanting to stop terrorism, including glassing a country and killing civilians, not how the religion treats women or whatever. Are people reading tea leaves to find out what Cruz, Trump, Kasich, et al think about the religion or what?
I mean Trump pretty much said that the only reason he cares about it is the terror threat which has ZERO to do with Islam as ideology; if ISIS weren't a thing he wouldn't give a shit, and he didn't before San Bernardino.
The only talks have been trying to get nukes out of Iran so that they don't fucking glass themselves. What the hell are you talking about?
Making the sand glow and carpet bombing don't ring any bells?
On March 17 2016 04:11 TheTenthDoc wrote: When exactly have the GOP "talked honestly about Islam" in the sense people want to here? All they do is talk about it through the lens of wanting to stop terrorism, including glassing a country and killing civilians, not how the religion treats women or whatever. Are people reading tea leaves to find out what Cruz, Trump, Kasich, et al think about the religion or what?
I mean Trump pretty much said that the only reason he cares about it is the terror threat which has ZERO to do with Islam as ideology; if ISIS weren't a thing he wouldn't give a shit, and he didn't before San Bernardino.
The only talks have been trying to get nukes out of Iran so that they don't fucking glass themselves. What the hell are you talking about?
Making the sand glow and carpet bombing don't ring any bells?
"Needing to go after their families. We need to hurt them. They don't value their own lives" I paraphrase, but I remember it being close to that.
On March 17 2016 02:49 Plansix wrote: They don’t even have an argument. They just want to wait because they don’t want anyone who Obama picks on the bench. They can’t even vote on the subject or have public debate why. Its “we have the power not to do this, so we won’t.” The Republicans just refuse to accept that the other party exists and will only take action if it looks like the economy might implode by their inaction.
Its gross. My grandfather is likely spinning in his grave right now. He gave money to the party for his entire life and he ended up voting for Obama over Romney because he couldn't deal with what the party had become. I am so glad he didn't live to see the rise of Trump.
There is no precedent or constitutional argument. It is brute political force. Either Obama folds, or McConnell folds. Can the Republicans maintain their blockade in the face of nominee they are on record as praising? Can they hide from the press? Can Trump even mouth a judicial philosophy to counter Clinton and Obama's clear arguments? I think the Republicans are in a much weaker position here and McConnell folds shortly after Trump wins the Republican nomination.
I bet they hold their position for another week, then look for a way to save face, quickly bring it to a vote over a weekend or something and put the whole thing behind them like it never happened. Merrick is by far their best scenario. The likelihood of them winning the general is just too low to risk it, and even if they win it would likely be Trump and he is a wildcard.
And it will be another slap to the face as they claimed loud and wide they would never accept a nominee. All it will do is give the Tea Party another piece of ammo against GOP leadership.
This assumes they want the Tea party in the GOP.
There's basically no GOP at this point without the Tea/Trump parties. You can't jettison your engine and expect to get anywhere.
That's why there's so much talk of realignment. It's clear the GOP can't keep appeasing their donor class while ignoring the rest of their base, but it's also clear a lot of the GOP establishment is so thoroughly enthralled with the power and prestige of hobnobbing with elites that they'll cling to the condescension of their donor patrons all the way to oblivion. What happens next is anyone's guess.
Ok it's like, some positions are logically sound positions to reach if you hold a certain world view. Others are not. I have no problems with someone supporting republicans while also supporting gay rights. There's no issue there, because indeed, you don't have to agree with everything your party stands for. I also understand opposition to Islam, I even understand how some feel the need to differentiate between Islam and Christianity, it is possible to interpret current world events/world history in a way that makes one look better than the other. I'm not making an argument either way here. (I have in the past, but now I'm busy and this is a complex issue which can't be stated in a quick sentence or two. )
But you cannot argue that the reason why Islam sucks is how it treats homosexuals (even women is a stretch) while supporting the GOP over democrats. And you cannot say that you hate all religion, just Islam more, while supporting the GOP over democrats. These are not logically consistent arguments. I mean, average republican voter at least used to be more skeptical (somewhat of an euphemism for hateful) towards atheists than towards muslims - wouldn't be surprised if that has changed lately though. Also, you need to realize that while Trump is Trump, there's a reason why he's running for the republicans and not democrats.
The counter-argument that 'it should be impossible for leftists to embrace Islam and homosexuals at the same time' could be logically sound - if not for the fact that it misses the mark on why and to what degree leftists embrace Islam.
it is important to control the access of radical islamists to vulnerable populations. the best way to do this is to enhance the message of moderate muslims in the family and community. having a public politics that is hostile to 'islam' in general is insanely counterproductive.
seriously, it is not easy to separate identity from the religious criticism. when someone that is considered as 'other' or foreign criticize some belief subscribed to your group, be it a religious, national or whatever group, it takes a critical mind to not take that as offensive and in turn harden against the criticism.
it would be great for moderates to reform islam or other archaic belief systems internally. external actors face a very difficult challenge, especially vs fundamentalists. it's not some amazing intellectual accomplishment to discover that some religions are utterly trash and dangerous, so keep it to yourself unless you can engage productively.
EPT
