Ted Cruz and Rand Paul - you fucking cowards!

Trump and Carson don’t need pitting - their statements are self-pitting. So, I will ignore them here.

But when Ted Cruz and Rand Paul go on record as saying they are against the ‘registration of Muslims’ in the US, and do so by saying that they’re against government registration in principle, because the government shouldn’t keep lists, but not because registration of members of a religious group is UN-AMERICAN and, I would imagine, just a tad unconstitutional, well, pitting is the least that should happen to them.

Neither has the courage to call Trump’s proposal for what it is - racist hate. Neither has the guts to disavow it ‘in principle’.

Fuck them both.

They don’t believe in government regulation in general either yet they believe in mighty tight borders.

Clearly, the final solution is to require all Muslims in America to wear some sort of easily identifiable symbol. Maybe, say, a red crescent moon pinned to their shirts at all time. And then we can make sure they all live in the same area of each city where we can keep an eye on them.

I think Trump would look great with a toothbrush moustache.

And Enforcement of Christmas!

That’s more like the penultimate solution. The final solution… well it’s best not to talk openly about their plans in that area…

That’s the problem with government regulated racism. It’s all so regimented.

Most people prefer the more traditional bottom-up forms of racism. A lynch mob here, a cross burning there, maybe just some random racist threats shouted out a car window when you’re not feeling ambitious - let’s keep racism spontaneous and fun.

I’m completely confused. Why is it bad to oppose the government keeping lists of people?

Some lists are necessary – Census rolls, tax records, etc. But some lists are rotten, like Nixon’s “enemies list.” The sex offender registry is a scary case, because it is being used to deny rights to people. Anti-abortion extremists have their “Nuremberg List,” of doctors they intend to prosecute when Roe v. Wade is overturned. That’s scary.

A mandatory registration of U.S. citizens on the basis of religion is extremely uncomfortable. Opposing such a list seems to be wisdom, not cowardice.

What am I misinterpreting?

Oh, they disavow it in principle, all right – just, on a different and less important and really far less defensible principle. (How is government to get along without keeping “lists”?! The DMV database of licensed drivers is a list. The county property tax rolls are a list. The database of registered voters, against which RWs demand every would-be voter’s ID be checked, is a list.)

Just in case this is not a disingenuous question, let me try to explain:

Sure, they can oppose the list on the grounds that they oppose all government-kept lists of citizens (except those, no doubt, of certain troublemakers). But, even if they (and not only you) were simply being disingenuous by opposing the proposal on anti-government list grounds, they might have hastened to add a few words to the effect of, “and, of course, all Americans have the right to practice their religion and worship their god without the government singling them out for doing so”.

D’ya follow?

I’m having trouble parsing the difference between their positions and yours. They are opposing registration of members of a religious group.

But they don’t elaborate on the principle at all in the linked article–though Cruz’s position is characterized by the writer as a religious-liberty stand.

Paul’s campaign isn’t even actually quoted.

It’s not clear that they haven’t (or wouldn’t) say what you want to hear.

The difference is that they are not opposing it in the exact manner that the OP desires. Which makes them cowards, because… well, you know!

They were cowards long before this issue. This is is just pussy frosting on the coward cake.

One bonus of having hate mongers like Trump, Carson, and Cruz around is that it makes for a nice exercise trying to anticipate how their apologists will spin their latest racist screed.

On the other hand, they are such abundant and relentless sources, you could write this off for some non-partisan Broder cred, and there would be very little loss.

And of course, Rubio:
**
Rubio Trumps Trump: Shut Down Any Place Muslims Gather To Be ‘Inspired’ — Not Just Mosques**

On the very cutting edge of improvisational Constitutional law!

… leaving the only place left for Trump to go: “We should smash the windows of every Muslim-owned business in America! All in one big night of patriotism!”

I won’t dispute that some of Trump’s supporters probably think of this as a racial issue. I expect some of them to be pig ignorant fucks that don’t understand that the correlation between the world’s second largest religion and any single race is FAR from perfect. Labeling his statements as clearly racist in any kind of objective reality takes accepting and reinforcing that thoroughly incorrect and pig ignorant stereotype to make it a racial issue. We now expect Republican candidates to display pig ignorance of reality in denouncing the plan as racist?!? Seriously? Hell none of the Democratic candidates labeled it as racist hate in denouncing it. Sanders was the closest with bigoted. Can’t we just bask in a moment that brought us Trump taking a position that has the overwhelming majority of candidates on both sides in general agreement? Can we just link arms across the aisle for a sing along for a moment before we go back to silly tribal squabbling? I promise the sing along won’t last long. My voice is horrible. Everybody will want that moment to end quickly.

Oh I can think of plenty of places he could go:

  • Muslims required to wear Golden Crescent sewn to their clothes
  • the ever popular deportation (he’ll apply management to figure out where to deport the ones who’ve never held other citizenship…trust him!)
  • careful monitoring. To be effective that will take concentrating them into religiously monocultural camps… er ghettos…neighborhoods!
  • allow them to demonstrate loyalty by “volunteering” for risky medical testing

Never underestimate the limit of Trump’s ability to find new, stupid, and un-constitutional ways to make America tyrannical again.

They’re cowards because they’re not saying that racism is wrong. That’s because both candidates don’t want to upset racist voters.

So instead they announce their opposition to this particular racist program - but they make clear they’re opposed to it on procedural grounds.

How can you call Rafael a coward? Didn’t he just recently propose a bout of fisticuffs with President Obama in the town square?