Trump is against the government compiling lists of Muslims? Well heck I’m against all government lists!
You want to send brownshirts on to the streets and smash windows? Well heck I’m against all uniforms! Also, the government shouldn’t be breaking glass I say. End materials testing!
Want to close religious places of worship? Well heck I’m against all building codes! The federal government shouldn’t be involved in that!
Want to initiate a tactical nuclear exchange with Russia? Well heck I think nuclear weapons should be privatized!
If someone came along and said, “We need to have a big list of all Muslims in the U.S.,” and someone else came along and said, “I don’t think that’s a good idea right now,” I can’t figure what’s wrong with the second guy’s opinion. I share it. This isn’t the time for that kind of singling-out of a group of people. It is too reminiscent of a list of Japanese-Americans in 1942.
I don’t see why opposing such a list is cowardly. At very least, I’d want to know what the purpose of the list is supposed to be.
I apologize for arousing your suspicion: it’s completely warranted if I’m stupidly overlooking some elementary thing. But please treat me as ignorant, not trolling. I don’t grok why opposing such a list is a bad thing.
Then I apologize for my snark. I appreciate your explanation.
They are saying they oppose keeping lists of Muslims because they oppose the government keeping any lists of citizens. One would have hoped they would have added, “and besides, it is wrong to target any religious group like that. Not only is it racist, it is unconstitutional”.
But they never touched on the racist unconstitutional part for fear of alienating all their racist supporters. And that makes them cowards.
Trump generated a proposal on the fly: it was both bigoted and an attack on civil liberties. Some candidates noted this implicitly or explicitly. Others attacked Trump for proposing a governmental list, something that is both wacky (lists are necessary for certain purposes) and evasive (since vaguely putting forth privacy concerns is really off the point).
Now let’s get to the quotes, from the NYT. Jennifer Horn, the chairwoman of the New Hampshire Republican Party, grasps the concept: “The idea of a national database that tracks people just because of their religion is beyond ludicrous.” She also called that “Unamerican”. Hillary called for all candidates to denounce this proposal. Senator Bernie Sanders called it “an outrageous and bigoted statement,” adding, “We will not destroy ISIS by undermining the Constitution and our religious freedoms.”
Jeb Bush did alright: “You talk about closing mosques, you talk about registering people — that’s just wrong.”
Cruz fails: he says he is “a big fan of Donald Trump’s, but I’m not a fan of government registries.”
Charitably, Rand Paul might be preparing his remarks: “In an email, a spokesman for Senator Rand Paul, a vocal proponent of protecting privacy, said the Kentucky legislator is opposed to a government registry.”
Ah! Click! Okay! The light bulb finally came on. I was missing out on an important part of the context. (I also liked your Herr Reichsminister metaphor, which helped me get the point.)
Anyway, I’m also relieved because I detest Cruz and Rand, and it was making me really fucking uncomfortable to think I had to defend them!
How did the cesspool of Republican candidates become so polluted? These lowlifes make me nostalgic for the good ol’ days where they were just your usual dumbasses like Romney and McCain running for the top spot.
IMHO, certain-minded people are sopping-up every word of these shit-stains not to necessarily agree with their content, but it’s like they are looking over their shoulder at the Trump or Carson rally to see how apocalyptic the left gets when they say stupid shit. The worse the reaction from the left, the louder the cheering, and the higher these skid-marks climb in their polls. As long as it irritates the left, that is all that matters.
Trump and Carson, yes and Cruz may not agree with you on how to interpret the Constitution, but he did clerk for Rehnquist, so I suspect he has a pretty good idea of what it says.
Cruz may speak to the camera as if he were talking to an addled 4 year old, but analytic skills are prerequisite for Supreme Court clerkships. I have never seen Cruz display any kind of intelligence either orally or in print.[1] And his person to person skills are hilariously awful: his Republican colleagues in the Senate mostly hate his guts. Nonetheless, I say he is a bright man: it’s just that all of the evidence (that I’ve seen so far) is indirect.
[1] To be clear it exists: Cruz was Solicitor General of Texas and argued cases before the Supreme Court.
I give Cruz more credit for intelligence than most of the GOP clown car. He is a calculating, political opportunist who will say anything to achieve his objective. He knows his constituency and how manipulate them, and he knows they will overlook hypocrisy and inconsistency if he feeds them enough fear and hatred. Unlike guys like Huckabee and Santorum who are true believers, I don’t for a second think he actually believes what he is saying. He just knows it will work on low information voters who respond to jingoistic dog whistles. He would gladly burn the country to the ground if he could be President of the ashes.
Ok fine then. Here’s what I don’t get. Most of us have bullshit detectors and they invariably go off when a politician opens his mouth. This is because politicians need a filter: otherwise they might make a gaffe. This is doubly so at the Presidential level, when diplomatic incidents and misunderstandings (willful and otherwise) can occur. So politicians are always on guard and usually it shows. Part of the business.
The premise here is that Cruz is conning his supporters. I’d be pretty concerned if a Democratic politician was doing that to me, unless I had a decent working hypothesis about what he was doing. So… where are the intra-party attacks on Cruz’s transparent lack of sincerity? I’m including the conservative media in “Intraparty”. Like I said, his fellow congressfolk hate his guts. Boehner did his best to slip in the shiv more than once. But nobody seems to either a) try to suss his real position or b) denounce his phoniness. If this were a Dem, I sure as heck would want to do one or the other. Maybe both.
More generally, there’s a distinct whiff of 3 card monte and intra-group scamming in conservativeland. On one of my email addresses, I’ve subscribed to 2 conservative groups that forward me ads for overpriced survivalist gear, miracle prostrate treatments and political fundraising that pretty clearly benefits mostly the fundraisers. There’s some of that on the left, but frankly I don’t see it, at least to this extent. And given my number of lefty subscriptions over the years, I really should.
Brad DeLong figures that modern conservatives lack working bullshit detectors. Given their prominence in business I have difficulty wrapping my head around that.
ETA:
Aw, c’mon: quips in the pit are permitted even if they occasionally misfire.