Democrats need to get ahead of the Syrian refugee issue and triangulate

tortured because he refuses to alienate us?

Which ones?

some do but the Ibn Saud are merely hyper conservative. So what does calling them names achieve for you as a State? Or is the magical effect of the mean words?

Iraq?

Ah radical actually means “some people I do not like.” Very good.

but then you wish to send the Muslims back to the camps, except for the small number who pass a test invented to keep them out.

Funny, this was done before, in the 20th century. The suspect minority associated in the bigoted mind with a terrible ideology (the bolshevism) of course is now on a pedestal beause so many died because the Exceptional Americans refused the refugees, to keep out the suspect minority, the unassimlatable minority…

funny the logics and the discourse basically remains the same

It’s awkwardy phrased. He means someone who is against American Exceptionalism. That is, the belief that the USA is uniquely perfect & can do no wrong–beyond waving the flag, watching fireworks on the 4th of July & enjoying Hamilton. I’ve studied the Revolution & the Early Republic; the Founders did some good work but they were far from perfect. Our country continues to do some excellent things–and some not-so-excellent.

“American Exceptionalism” used without without irony is like saying “SJW”–hallmarks of the Far Right Wing.

So you are going for the pendantic route. You say to-ma-toh, I say toe-may-to - same deal.

IIRC a poll taken about this late last year actually asked the question, a temporary ban on Muslim immigration, first in general then as Trump’s idea and the support was noticeably lower as Trump’s idea. But both figures were near 50% and a plurality, as it is in the recent poll you cited. I oppose the idea, and I don’t think it would be wise for Clinton to support it as a practical political matter either. That would be much too flip floppy even aside from the merits.

However it’s doubtful to classify the Trump proposal as unpopular. And it serves, Trump in general has often served, as an expression of frustration with certain bipartisan elite agreements. I think many of the 50%-ish people (against less than that opposing) saying they agree would instead accept very rigorous background checks of people from countries seriously infected with Islamic radicalism. Some would argue it’s already the case, but this gets back to a whole theme of this election and not limited to Trump or the GOP, lack of voter confidence in public institutions when they say stuff like that.

Also a lot of people have the basic question, what positive good does it do the US to take people from any particular part of the world? It’s really not answered by ‘that’s who we are’, that’s just a slogan. OK if the US only took people from one part of the world, it might be denying itself the diverse talents and outlooks typical of other parts, etc. However taking people from all except one part, why exactly not?

Again if the form were actually a religious test, that sends a bad message in broader terms, if even possible practically. But if, aside from or post-Trump, it’s just case by case, fact based screening that’s practically speaking very hard to get past for people from the ME other than non-Muslim religious refugees, then I think you have to answer the question where exactly the obligation comes from to avoid ‘disparate impact’ when speaking of people who are not Americans, as of now.

And to say the fear of Islamic radicalization among some Muslims in the US is unfounded is ridiculous. There’s obviously some risk, which by common sense increases as you let more in. It might be relatively small, but I think those in favor of ‘nothing to see here, move along’ have a hard time actually establishing the specific benefit to overwhelm that cost in terms of risk, even if it is fairly small.

“SJW” is another bullshit term.

How do stand on “rightwing nutjob” and “gun nut”?

Sound terms that actually refer to something real, but are susceptible to misuse by overbroad application.

Well golly gee, your “bullshit term” switch unexplainably turned to off and you got all nuanced.

As a pejorative, anyway. I view people who dislike people who actually support social justice as just slightly suspect, myself.

Likening Radical Islam to the “Jewish Bolshevism” myth is wrong for two reasons: Bolshevism was never about expressly and overtly promoting Jewry and Judaism, nor were a majority of Bolsheviks of Jewish origin. The Jewish Bolshevism myth was also based in conspiracy theory that the Jews were using Bolshevism and capitalism (if you actually read up about it) to achieve world domination in secret with secret cabals, with the Protocols as its basis. Thats why proponents of the lie made hay of the idea that so many Bolshevik leaders, tho not members, might have had Jewish origin. Not too surprisingly, many Jews who did get into communism, like Karl Marx, were self-loathers.

Radical Islam is indisputably about Islam and Islamdom (the analogue to Christendom and Jewry), and obviously, nearly a totality of Islamists are Muslims. You need only to watch the speeches and beheading videos, read the manifestos and internet posts, etc. to see this.

Muslims are not the new Jews, ever. Muslims are not as risk of going extinct; Hitler and his allies across the continent wiped out a third of the world’s Jews, and two thirds of Europes.

Jews on a pedestal? Sorry the Jews are winners who achieve things and don’t blow themselves up all around the world. Sorry the Jews never got into bed with the Nazis, like the Iraqis and the Palestinians during WWII, or the Soviets during the Cold War, as both of those groups, as well as Syria and Egypt did. And sorry Israel doesn’t imprison, lash, hang, or defenestration gays. Or punish women for not wearing hijab. Etc.

[QUOTE=Human Action]
You’re mistaken; ISIS persecutes Shia Muslims, and various Shiite militias persecute Sunni Muslims.

[/QUOTE]

Yazidis and Iraqi/Syrian Christians have few places to go where they could culturally fit in. Shia Iraqis would be more than welcome in Iran, and the Sunni Arabs in nearly all the neighboring countries. How about those empty refugee camps the Saudis have that they don’t admit anyone to?

Seriously. It is more than enough to reduce the tendency toward ghettoization found in Europe. Yes, it is reassuring with regard to the point we were talking about.

Sorry… did you just claim that the Soviets collaborated with the Nazis during the Cold War?

no, I was referring to the Arab/Muslim countries who were their proxies against Israel during the Cold War. Nasser a “Hero of the Soviet Union,” the different Syrian regimes too, the Soviets being the PLO’s chief patron in the diplomatic field, etc.

I am amused that you dare to pretend to tell anyone a point is wrong with your history of serial wrongness and assertions of false facts, but I think the term ***The Gish Gallop ***was invented for this kind of discourse.

This is irrelevant - the early 20th century discourse of the hateful bigots spread lies and distortions in no way distinguishable from the claims you repeat endlessly - Bolshevism and Anarchism as specifically the Jewish diseas

Yes indeed a minority of Muslims fall into the broad category of the Islamist, and then a much smaller minority to the category of the Salafiste, and then an even smaller minority into the category of the violent Takfiri fringes like the Al Qaeda and the DAESH.

But you use their thousands to smear viscoiiusly hundreds of millions… the structure of the hatefuness and smearing is the same.

I will skip over your bizarre and disturbing fetishisation of our cousins the Jews, it has the smell of the inverted prejudice.

Of course you play the game of the gross religious smear in the other comments, confllating national groups with all muslims, conflating the secular states with Islamic religion.

But then you are the person who shameless execused the atomic bombings of the Japanese cities for saving them from the Communists - because American Exceptoinalism - being ignorant that is was the very Americans who invitted in and indeed insisted on and pressured the Soviets attacking the Japan…

Ad hoc pretend morality to justify.

The fine example of the disgusting smear - both factually incorrent (the small group of anti-british leadership of the Palestinians - not even the principal leaders does not = The Palestinians

This is exactly the example of the type of thinking that elides “some Jewish anarachists / communists” into “The Jews = Bolsheviks”

It dresses itself up in new clothes and now fetishizes the people it once sought to exterminate but the logic, the dialogue, the smears, they are the same.

Edward Said, a man revered as the voice of the Palestinians, referred to Al-Husseini as the Palestinian consensus. He also mentioned the clout the guy had in the Muslim world. Edward Said is highly revered among Palestinians and fellow Arabs/Muslims, and post-colonial types alike.

Can’t find any serious people who thinks Lenin and Trotsky represented Jewish consensus.

Oh wait, you mean to tell me this didn’t happen, with respect to Iraq?

People should be judged for their religion - not because it is a religion, but because religiously-inspired thought and action is no different from secular thought and action. If 80% of Afghans are openly in favour of exterminating a religious minority (See pages 15 and 55), then we should absolutely use our right to deny them entry as a matter of course.

By that rationale, Christians should be judged for the Westboro Baptist Church and abortion-clinic terrorists.

“Sorry, you folks have to go. We can’t have possible terrorists among us.”

why do you conveniently ignore the poll that Grumman cited? An infintesimally small percent of Christians support bombing abortion clinics.

If the worst Islam could come up with is a single family of professional trolls and a few assholes who murder people who make a career out of killing unborn children, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.