In light of Trump’s speech, bumped.
He’s refined his Muslim ban to make it legal at least.
That is different than a blanket ban of Muslims (which is wrong); it IS smart to lower immigration from countries where Islamist political ideas are popular. Problem is that even for as much as I agree with that, Trump’s tainted because of his initial ban, and the rest of his plans are pretty bad. But given that he’s polling well on terror and ISIS, Hillary not triangulating on Syrian refugees could cost her the election.
seeing Trump’s convention bounce, along with his increased lead on terrorism issues, and the recent suicide bombing by a Syrian refugee in Germany, bumping this thread.
Not worried. Hillary will gain it all back, and more, after the DNC.
Devolving into bigotry and hatred will not help the Democratic party.
If the contest is between protecting:
-people currently here in America who would suffer if Trump wins bc HRC is seen as soft on terror, as well as allied nations with Trump’s Putin-love and NATO gutting, which directly threatens our national security
or
-some Syrian refugees not currently here who would suffer if HRC triangulates on this
which one should people choose?
What you suggest would further endanger Americans and weaken America. I think people should choose nuanced and intelligent policies that will strengthen us and weaken the terrorists, not weaken us and strengthen terrorists, as Trump’s and your suggested policies would.
Anyone notice that Bill Maher made almost my exact proposal on his most recent Real Time show? He said he was all for taking in Syrian refugees, but “women and children, not men.”
He also BTW pointed out that Hillary and Donald both went on cable news (CNN and FOX, respectively) to talk about Nice, and Hillary was all “in consultation with our NATO partners, blah blah blah…” (to which Bill added exaggerated snoring sounds) while Trump was adamant and direct: “This is WAR!” Hillary needs to say “this is war”. She spent years trying to burnish her hawkish bonafides, giving herself trouble on her left flank, and now she may as well use them! C’mon, Hill.
I like Maher, but he’s kind of an idiot on this issue.
Perhaps, but not on the second part of his argument. Directness is better than diplomatic gobbledygook. Maher’s been making this argument about Democrats vs. Republicans since the Bush years. Straight answers always beat flimflam.
Not when the straight answers are idiocy.
EVEN when the straight answers are idiocy, which is the point Maher’s been making. Although usually the answers aren’t idiocy, just simplistic.
The problem with a lot of politicospeak such as “consulting with our allies” is that it is a deception. It’s a way to appear to be taking the situation seriously and doing something about it when the plan is actually to not do anything at all. “So, Monsieur President, we are agreed, we will do nothing?” “Oui, nothing sounds good.” “Excellent, I will tell my people that we have had serious discussions on this vital issue.”
I disagree.
Sometimes it actually is a good idea to consult with allies. And sometimes saying something vague is much wiser than jumping feet first without looking where you’re going.
The problem here is that we actually are at war with ISIS. And the consulting was actually about nothing in particular. If France wanted to invade Syria, would the US join them? Fat chance. It is actually a way to look like you’re taking a situation seriously. The appearance of doing something rather than actually doing something.
I think you’re both missing the point. “In consultation with our NATO allies, blah blah blah” sounded like her droning on, the way someone might at a seminar at an insurance conference (sorry to go with the cliche there, if anyone reading this *likes *insurance conferences). I don’t necessarily think it’s a deception; it’s just boring, uninspiring, and therefore impolitic.
Yeah, that too. We had this discussion with Kerry-Bush.
If we wiped out ISIS in Syria, would the ISIS terrorism in Western countries stop?
Right. Kerry was great in the debates, but he could drone on in speeches sometimes. This has always been a Democratic weakness: Dukakis was the ne plus ultra exemplar of the style when he responded to the capital punishment question.
It would go down a lot, for the same reason it went up. These folks think they are aiding a cause. If the cause is defeated in the Middle East, there’s no reason for Europeans to throw their lives away. Might as well do a suicide bombing in support of Mussolini.