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.
I also think it's funny how people manage to think 'Trump is honest and trustworthy and he speaks his mind' while also thinking 'whenever he said something that wasn't totally gay friendly or when he spoke about what a christian he is, he was just lying because he has to pander to the republican base'.
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.
koch funding sanders would really create the conditions for a realignment. divide and conquer
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.
Unless you go after the 40% of Americans who identify as independent. It requires entering a brave new world.
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?
The quote was in reference to ISIS......
Also, interesting 1988 interview with Trump.
ISIS is a nation-state, if not a country. How is making the sand glow in their population centers not glassing a country?
Meanwhile I'm still not seeing any evidence Trump and Cruz view the problem of Islam as anything more than a problem with ISIS. Hell their rhetoric is all about that! Trump isn't banning Muslim immigration because they treat women badly, it's because they might be terrorists. That's why he freaking supported refugee immigration before San Bernardino.
Edit: Paris is more appropriate here, even though it's technically also before San Bernardino.
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 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.
Unless you go after the 40% of Americans who identify as independent. It requires entering a brave new world.
Your going to have a very hard time convincing enough of them to replace the losses suffered from the tea party. They are independent for a reason.
Do you really expect politicians to spend 20 minutes of their 30 minute speech time talking about how Islam treats the dhimmi? People would fucking fall asleep at these rallies.
On March 17 2016 04:24 wei2coolman wrote: Do you really expect politicians to spend 20 minutes of their 30 minute speech time talking about how Islam treats the dhimmi? People would fucking fall asleep at these rallies.
Do you really think Trump or Cruz gives a flying fuck about Islam outside of terror when there's 0 evidence at all he does so? It's not because people would fall asleep it's because he just doesn't share any of the views espoused in this thread. All he thinks is that terrorists are a threat to the U.S. and that banning Muslim immigration will help that.
Edit: Remember in September when Trump told O'Reilly that we need to take in Syrian refugees? I'm sure that in the two months between that and Paris he had an epiphany about Islam being a regressive religion and force for political evil and not just a realization he could capitalize on terror fears.
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.
The liberal media has largely tried to address the problem of radical Islam by pretending it doesn't even exist. Thus we see (even in this thread) repeated claims that radicalism is a small minority despite studies indicating otherwise (see the Pew study in 2013), misleading analogies to Christianity despite the fact that fundamentalism in Islam is not the fringe, and accusations of racism and Islamophobia to virtually any criticism of the religion despite the fact that Islam isn't a race. President Obama has made statements like "the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" and "terrorism has no religion".
When you have one party trying to ignore the issue completely, that leaves the floor free for the other to say whatever they want. The GOP has been responding to the issue of radical Islam with varying degrees of hyperbole and accuracy, but at least they are trying to address the problem. Nowhere have I said that I agree with all the rhetoric of the GOP. For example, Trump's proposed temporary ban on Muslims is ridiculous for reasons discussed ad infinitum. It is, however, worrying to me when a religious maniac like Ted Cruz can correctly call out Obama for not being even able to say the words "radical Islamic terrorism".
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.
Unless you go after the 40% of Americans who identify as independent. It requires entering a brave new world.
Your going to have a very hard time convincing enough of them to replace the losses suffered from the tea party. They are independent for a reason.
Yes, because neither of the parties serve or listen to them. The whole tea party plan doesn’t seem to be winning either, so its not like it matters.
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.
The liberal media has largely tried to address the problem of radical Islam by pretending it doesn't even exist. Thus we see (even in this thread) repeated claims that radicalism is a small minority despite studies indicating otherwise (see the Pew study in 2013), misleading analogies to Christianity despite the fact that fundamentalism in Islam is not the fringe, and accusations of racism and Islamophobia to virtually any criticism of the religion despite the fact that Islam isn't a race. President Obama has made statements like "the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" and "terrorism has no religion".
When you have one party trying to ignore the issue completely, that leaves the floor free for the other to say whatever they want. The GOP has been responding to the issue of radical Islam with varying degrees of hyperbole and accuracy, but at least they are trying to address the problem. Nowhere have I said that I agree with all the rhetoric of the GOP. For example, Trump's proposed temporary ban on Muslims is ridiculous for reasons discussed ad infinitum. It is, however, worrying to me when a religious maniac like Ted Cruz can correctly call out Obama for not being even able to say the words "radical Islamic terrorism".
Anyone who can look at Obama's tenure and conclude that his party has "ignore[d] the issue [of radical Islam] completely" is delusional.
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.
Unless you go after the 40% of Americans who identify as independent. It requires entering a brave new world.
Your going to have a very hard time convincing enough of them to replace the losses suffered from the tea party. They are independent for a reason.
Yes, because neither of the parties serve or listen to them. The whole tea party plan doesn’t seem to be winning either, so its not like it matters.
They seem to be doing pretty well at locking congress down. Their winning more then the GOP is for sure.
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.
Unless you go after the 40% of Americans who identify as independent. It requires entering a brave new world.
That's not to say the GOP couldn't find an underrepresented bloc of voters and put them on the national stage, but they've already tried that once and failed. That was the point of pushing for immigration reform, but the establishment didn't have the discipline to sacrifice the short term (e.g. the Tea Party) for a viable long term strategy. Nothing that's happened this primary indicates that the GOP is prepared to swallow their pride and take decisive, painful action to correct their present course.
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.
Unless you go after the 40% of Americans who identify as independent. It requires entering a brave new world.
Your going to have a very hard time convincing enough of them to replace the losses suffered from the tea party. They are independent for a reason.
Yes, because neither of the parties serve or listen to them. The whole tea party plan doesn’t seem to be winning either, so its not like it matters.
They seem to be doing pretty well at locking congress down. Their winning more then the GOP is for sure.
I am not convinced they can maintain the hold on congress and keep the non-tea party republicans in seats long term. People are very unhappy with congress and when that last happened, the democrats got a super majority. I don’t think it’s a sustainable long term plan, since the Tea party simply wants to make nothing happen.
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.
The liberal media has largely tried to address the problem of radical Islam by pretending it doesn't even exist. Thus we see (even in this thread) repeated claims that radicalism is a small minority despite studies indicating otherwise (see the Pew study in 2013), misleading analogies to Christianity despite the fact that fundamentalism in Islam is not the fringe, and accusations of racism and Islamophobia to virtually any criticism of the religion despite the fact that Islam isn't a race. President Obama has made statements like "the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" and "terrorism has no religion".
When you have one party trying to ignore the issue completely, that leaves the floor free for the other to say whatever they want. The GOP has been responding to the issue of radical Islam with varying degrees of hyperbole and accuracy, but at least they are trying to address the problem. Nowhere have I said that I agree with all the rhetoric of the GOP. For example, Trump's proposed temporary ban on Muslims is ridiculous for reasons discussed ad infinitum. It is, however, worrying to me when a religious maniac like Ted Cruz can correctly call out Obama for not being even able to say the words "radical Islamic terrorism".
Anyone who can look at Obama's tenure and conclude that his party has "ignore[d] the issue [of radical Islam] completely" is delusional.
The problem is defining radial Islam. Liberals define radical Islam as terrorism and define moderate Islam as non-terrorism Islam.
When, the vast majority of Islam, and it's believers are radical in belief in the context to the western world. Where majority of Islamic believers actually want Sharia law implemented.
It'd be like saying oh most KKK members are moderate, after all only a minority of KKK members have actually committed hate crimes. Which would be fucking BONKERS to say.
EPT
