Why “trot out” that attack when you could trot out the 9/11 attacks. People have short memories. Unless there is an attack within a few months of the election, it’s unlikely to make a difference.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. We recognize that other nations have the right to varying degrees of religious freedom. Just because you can’t build a church in say Iran (I don’t know if you can or not, but assume you can’t for this argument) doesn’t mean that the US shouldn’t allow the building of mosques. We don’t want to aspire to the lowest common denominator when it comes to freedom.
No, it’s saying that “what are the Muslim nations doing?” is not and should not be the standard by which we set our own behavior.
But you are.
Lke Kevin Drum, I believe the electoral risk extends into populations that otherwise have no problem with people of various skin complexions immigrating to the U.S.
[/QUOTE]
Why should any of us care what Kevin Drum thinks?
I suggest that the earlier poster who suggested that a terror attack could shift the election to the Republicans is correct. I would further suggest that the predictable effect might also be the desired one because a Republican president is likelier to engage in the kind of military action that helps terrorist groups recruit additional members.
Remember the 2004 election? The Kerry and Bush voter trend lines were converging right up to the minute before Bin Laden dropped another taped message. And then, bango, it was like they bounced off each other.
I didn’t state this as my personal opinion. I said this is how the West thinks and likes to portray itself for propaganda purposes. Religious persecution like banning mosques would run counter to this.
You could apply that to many pro-immigration and humanitarian arguments, including your own.
The only people I saw you attack in the OP were Republicans and their supporters. Libs and independents can be nativists. You’re worried about them voting Republican because they’re afraid of immigrants. Is that not textbook nativism? I personally don’t attach many negative connotations to the word. If you have a better one feel free to share.
The Venn Diagram circles of SDMB regulars and 4channers probably just barely touches.
Because 9/11 and ObL’s al-Qaeda are ancient history and the Paris attacks involve ISIS and seems, from what I can tell, to have hit a nerve with a lot of people, including people who rarely follow news or politics. Guess we’ll see.
Yes, but I don’t claim all cultures and ideological paradigms are morally equivalent, or worse, like Chomskyites, that the West is morally below everyone else. I believe that modern Western progressive democratic culture is more enlightened than any other the world has ever seen–except for, ironically and paradoxically, its masochistic tendencies toward cultural relativism which I am bemoaning right now.
I worry that you keep citing things without reading them. Would you like some help?
IOW, this article counsels Democrats to dissemble. We shouldn’t say what we’re really thinking and what’s really true–that this is an unfounded fear, since screening is already pretty tight. We should act–we should pretend, we should lie–that this is a legitimate thing to be concerned about.
Not because it’s actually a legit concern, but because people lash out when their silliness is pointed out.
Now, this may or may not be good advice. Maybe those of us speaking bluntly about the foolishness of the fears are being tactless and poor strategists. But nothing in that article suggests that we’re wrong on the facts.
There you go: you illustrated my point beautifully with this “lowest common denominator” comment.
It seems clear to me that what most liberals are saying, even if they don’t consciously realize it, is that they really wouldn’t want to live among a majority Muslim population. But they feel that as long as Muslims are a distinct minority in the West, they can be tolerated and patronizingly embraced while being expected to eventually join the modern civilized world.
But Western Europeans are having babies at below replacement rates, while Muslim immigrants are hghi fertility reproducers and so far show little sign of embracing secular progressive values…
I have seen liberals get concerned about the “quiverfull” evangelicals having far more children than liberals, children who will become future voters. But if the same concern is raised about conservative Muslims, that is taboo because it is seen as bigoted. Sigh.
I think you are somewhat wrong on the facts, but that is not my primary concern. If I can get you and others like you to at least understand that you are indeed being poor strategists, that is a great start. After all, do any of you really believe that it’s more important to take an uncompromising and unpopular stand on refugees than it is to control appointments to the Supreme Court, or to protect Medicaid, food stamps, and the environment?
Oh, I agree absolutely. It DOES seem clear to you what most liberals are saying. Now, that’s very different from what most liberals are ACTUALLY saying, and certainly your belief makes it much easier to dismiss most liberals as foolish. Listening to what most liberals are actually saying would be a lot more trouble, and respecting them as serious conversationalists would be more trouble still. But I won’t speculate as to your actual motives for replacing liberals’ actual words with your imaginary words and calling those imaginary words “clear.”
ayyy
Sorry far-left, the center/sensible-left has come awake.
Schumer’s always cucked for Wall Street and the pearl-clutching neocons.
lmao?
I believe that it’s important to do what we believe is right. If compromising that is the only way to get elected, then we shouldn’t get elected.
So be very careful and screen/vet the refugees? Sounds good to me. And all the other Democrats.
Yes, yes, you’re able to cherry pick statements and pretend they represent some sort of movement.
I anticipate you’ll continue to do so, never looking back to acknowledge how the cite doesn’t really support you.
Meanwhile, Slacker, I’m so glad you’re concerned about people being patronizing. Now, remind me again about how men are scary dangerous, but little ol’ women cain’t hardly harm nobody, so we can pat their heads and let them in the country no problem?
Well educated, mostly white liberals have been making the perfect the enemy of the good for forever and a day. If they were just throwing away their own half-loaf for want of a full one, I would write it off as simply being being petulant and shortsighted.
Problem is, they aren’t the ones who really need the half loaf they turn their noses up at. Which is why, to their neverending consternation, the candidates they back never get any traction with low income POC who do need every half loaf they can get. (Bernie Sanders being the latest and greatest example.)
The vulnerable populations who depend on progressive programs and institutions can’t afford your holier-than-thou intransigence. Neither can the environment, for that matter.
Given the completely nonpersuasive nature of your argument, why do you think it qualifies as half a loaf, rather than as a moldy flyblown loaf?