** SDMB live coverage thread, 2nd POTUS debate, 10/09/2016 **

Bah. I have books by him which prove he believed in the neuro-linguistic programming crap back in the 1990s; in fact, they’re how I was introduced to the concept. He also has a mish-mash of bizarre ideas about luck and quantum physics (always with the quantum woo-woo, these nutballs…) which I’ll let this page at insolitology.com summarize for me; in summary, he’s not nearly as smart as he thinks he is, and it prevents him from thinking he’s wrong, which leads him to rabbit down all kinds of nonsensical trails.

I knew he was a Trump supporter back a while ago. Happily, it isn’t 1996 anymore, so Dilbert is no longer relevant and neither is he.

Apparently likening Hillary to the devil is fairly common among certain of his followers; a couple of days ago I saw this in a photo of a Trump rally being carried as a sign by a Trump supporter.

It does seem unhinged.

Back to the radical Islam question and why it can’t be said, this is why:

Because the Saudis and Qataris are radical Islamists and they support radical Islamists. This isn’t about average Muslims or impugning Islam, it’s about keeping our allies on board by treating them with kid gloves even though they are funding people who want to kill us.

That would imply a level of juvenile light-heartedness and a certain endearing quality. Neither of which Trump posesses.

Also, Scott Adams is fuckin’ weird. Like, even the guys I hang out with at hypnosis websites think that guy has lost his marbles.

The governments of the Qatar and the Saudi Arabia are not “radical islamists”, by any meaning that makes sense.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Have they stopped beheading gay people yet? Have they given equal rights to non-Muslims yet? Can women drive cars yet?

Who is they? Or have you stopped stringing together incoherencies yet and making strange bizarre political predictions that fail?

I wouldn’t waste your time - Ramira is a very fervent Islam apologist. I’ve never seen him/her ever concede even the most rudimentary and obvious point as it relates to anything remotely Islamic.

adaher, I’m repeating this post again because you either missed it or are fleeing from it. Care to respond?

By “rudimentary and obvious point” do you mean broad-brushing that blames the actions of a relative few on over a billion people?

No, I mean basic obvious facts like pretending the Saudi government is not Islamist, does not do reprehensible things, and does not deliberately spread and fund Wahabism.

If so, that doesn’t have anything to do with Ramira’s criticism of adaher’s broad-brushing of Muslims.

I guess you’re in his/her camp too. Adaher specifically said he wasn’t talking about all Muslims but that the Saudi and Qatari governments supported radical Islam. I don’t know enough about Qatar to support that point, but the Saudi government undoubtedly does exactly that.

You mean I am a corrector of stupid errors and stupid lies about things Islamic, but for many persons bigotted or hateful or grossly ignorant they mistake this for “apology” and of course there is no conceding about things that are the lies or the errors or just gross ignorance and confusion.

As in the melange of strung together vague assertions he made.

Since we are speaking to the two states, the Saudi Arabia and the Qatar, it is more than obvious that all he has done, adaher, is blindly repeat attacks.

The state of Qatar, for example, it is perfectly legal and has always been for the women to drive and the men and the women both got the right to vote at the same time when the absolute monarchy was changed to a constitutional one. For most of the matters of the civil law there is the male and the female equality before the law. In the Qatar there is no requirements to be veiled and there are numerous highly visible women executives. the law in Qatar is essentially the civil code and neutral for religion outside of the family law, ETC - so it is quite clear adaher as the usual habit here is making a confusing melange of things true about the Saudi and smearing others with it. An extremely stupid response to my note.

In any case, neither the government of the state of Qatar nor the government of the Ibn Saud are “radical islamist” - they are indeed the arch conservatives, but they are traditionalists - although the Qatar is much less so than the Ibn Saud government, and in some areas the Qatar is quite progressive within the framework of the traditionalist conservatism of their version of the Sunni.

The actual radical islamists reject the idea of the monarchies, they reject the idea of the civil code (which is the law in Qatar augmented by the islamic law in the areas of the family law), they embrace the idea of the takfir, etc.

The state of Qatar has funded both the moderate Islamist tendencies as in places like the Tunisia and provided backing to the Islamist oriented militias in the civil wars of the Syria and the Lybia. But they have never shown any deliberate inclination to the Al Qaeda or the DAESH.

the leakage of the clumsy actions of the Qataris to probably support by ricochet the very tendencies that would execute their monarches is their naive incompetence, and does not make them “radical islamist”, not more than the Americans are radical islamists from having supported by accident or by ricochet some of the precursor elements that became the Talebans and al Qaeda.

So adaher is wrong and his statement about the two governments is stupid, incorrect and naive.

Of course we know that for the Islamophobics, “radical islamist” = “the muslims who scare me” in reality.

No one “pretended” any such thing, this is your invention of a straw man.

What I said so no pretensions can be made (the emphasis added.

I stated that neither of those governments is “radical islamist” and that is indeed factual.

not once have I ever made a defense of the Ibn Saud.

In any case this is a hijack now from the main idea of the thread.

I stumbled across comments on a conservative site linked in a thread on the boards and they referred to her as Hitlery. You can hate all you want, but in what way is she like Hitler??

Funny too how he harps on how Hillary was negative about Obama during the campaign in 2008 and is now a fan of Obama. Apparently Trump donated to Hillary’s campaign in 2008 and said she would make a great president. Things change all around.

Hitlery, Killery, Hil-lie-ry…the right wing is fond of cute punny names for Democrats.

Hell, I’ve been hearing “Hitlery” since 1993. Y’all so do need to keep up! :wink:

Anyway, whenever somebody spouts that, I generally respond with a “1995 called - they want their memes back. Next time, try harder.” or “20 years and that’s what ya got, recycled 1995 insults? Really? You couldn’t even come up with ‘Her Royal Clintoness’ or something, some pun off her initials?”

When will any US administration “git tuff” with Saudi Arabia? As much as they deserve it, they’ve got oil.