Trump's Republican primary campaign

[DigitalC]

DARTH TRUMP - Auralnauts

[Fiveyearlurker]

Would Trump’s campaign look appreciably different if it was a conspiracy with the Clinton’s to bring down the Republicans.

(Note, I’m not suggesting this is what is happening! Nor am I JAQing. Just wondering if it is the functional equivalent.)

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@T.M

Jesus asks Christians to tell people the good news, we are then told to allow them to make their own mind up, we are told to love them not to threaten them. A massive difference between Christianity and Islam

Have you read the Quran so that you can make a true comparssion

Have you bothered reading the posts where people pointed out that you’re wrong?

[Barkis_is_Willin]

@Snarky_Kong

Trump has already said Muslims should have special identification.

I’d really rather not defend Trump, but he did not say that.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

No, but he can’t very well complain about it when his response to how his plans were different from Nazi plans for the Jews was “you tell me.”

[SlackerInc]

@coremelt

Yes, all religions that don’t proselytize. Eg Judaism, Hindusim, Sikhism, Jainism. Buddhism is also pretty tolerant although some dominations do seek converts.

Judaism?!? LMAO. I guess you somehow missed the Deuteronomy cites just upthread.

@Fiveyearlurker

Would Trump’s campaign look appreciably different if it was a conspiracy with the Clinton’s to bring down the Republicans.

(Note, I’m not suggesting this is what is happening! Nor am I JAQing. Just wondering if it is the functional equivalent.)

He did have that long convo with Bill just before entering the race…

[Bridget_Burke]

@adaher

I think that most mainstream politicians speak fluent bullshit. Especially when it comes to immigration and visa issues. I think that what most of them would like to say is, “Our current policies are adequate,should even be more liberal” but what we actually get is a lot of hemming and hawing and promises to maybe enforce the law a little better in unspecified ways. And that’s because most Americans would probably not characterize our current visa or immigration policies as adequate or not liberal enough.

Given a choice between bullshit and extreme no-nonsense, a large portion of voters will go for the extreme no-nonsense. And those of us who embrace the bullshit only do it because we’ve made the effort to try to translate it and decide that it means something we can accept. And then only because there are no better alternatives.

Yes, there are lot of idiotic voters. I’m a Texan.

What about the Immigration Reform Bill of 2015? Paul Ryan speaks fluent bullshit–but he *wasn’t *critiquing the bill:

U.S. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, on his first full day as the head of the people’s chamber Friday, told reporters that he won’t consider bringing any comprehensive immigration reform bills to the floor while President Barack Obama is in office. The new Republican speaker said the idea of bringing up such legislation under Obama is “ridiculous,” according to the Washington Examiner.

This line isn’t completely new for Ryan, whose rise to speaker hinged on his willingness to prevent reforms from making it to the House floor. In a closed-door meeting with House Freedom Caucus members – a group of about 40 ultra-conservative Republican lawmakers who played an important part in pushing former Speaker John Boehner to retire – before his election, the Wisconsin native promised he would not bring up reforms under Obama’s presidency.

No, the Republicans wanted to use immigration as red meat for the racist & xenophobic base. Well, Trump is* really* appealing to those folks…

[iiandyiiii]

@SlackerInc

Judaism?!? LMAO. I guess you somehow missed the Deuteronomy cites just upthread.

Judaism today generally does not proselytize. In fact, in the last several hundred years, Judaism has not done much proselytizing at all (if any). Have you ever heard of a Jewish missionary?

[SlackerInc]

@iiandyiiii

Judaism today generally does not proselytize. In fact, in the last several hundred years, Judaism has not done much proselytizing at all (if any). Have you ever heard of a Jewish missionary?

But that wasn’t the question. It was “Is there any religious book that encourages its followers to tolerate any religion other than the one it espouses?”

The idea that this would be true of religions that don’t proselytize is actually completely backwards. If you don’t get converts, you have to be very vigilant to keep from losing your own followers to those religions that do proselytize. And so that is just what we see repeatedly in the Old Testament/Torah. Admonitions against following the “false idols” and “detestable practices” of other religions under penalty of death, and exhortations to “utterly destroy” any neighboring people, including children, who have different faiths.

[iiandyiiii]

@SlackerInc

But that wasn’t the question. It was “Is there any religious book that encourages its followers to tolerate any religion other than the one it espouses?”

Okay, I must have missed that.

[SlackerInc]

Fair enough.

[Voyager]

@T.M

Jesus asks Christians to tell people the good news, we are then told to allow them to make their own mind up, we are told to love them not to threaten them. A massive difference between Christianity and Islam

Have you read the Quran so that you can make a true comparssion

Does the Spanish Inquisition ring a bell? The expulsion of Jews from England? The pogroms in Russia? Forced conversions?

Back then Jews were welcome in Islamic countries.
Yeah, Christians have been so loving historically. :rolleyes:

[SlackerInc]

Absolutely true–historically.

In 2015, no significant portion of the Christian world is in the “Spanish Inquisition” phase, while a significant portion of the Islamic world still is. They are behind the times, simple as that.

[iiandyiiii]

@SlackerInc

Absolutely true–historically.

In 2015, no significant portion of the Christian world is in the “Spanish Inquisition” phase, while a significant portion of the Islamic world still is. They are behind the times, simple as that.

This seems like a pretty good sign that any problem isn’t intrinsic to Islam, but rather something that all religions (or most, or all religions that proselytize/expand) go through for significant periods in their history.

[Bridget_Burke]

@Voyager

Does the Spanish Inquisition ring a bell? The expulsion of Jews from England? The pogroms in Russia? Forced conversions?

Back then Jews were welcome in Islamic countries.
Yeah, Christians have been so loving historically. :rolleyes:

You’re replying to a Brit. Whose own country has a history of executing people for being Christian–if it wasn’t the flavor of Christianity favored by the monarch of the moment.

[SlackerInc]

@iiandyiiii

This seems like a pretty good sign that any problem isn’t intrinsic to Islam, but rather something that all religions (or most, or all religions that proselytize/expand) go through for significant periods in their history.

I think that’s likely true, but also academic. In the timeframe we all inhabit, we don’t have the luxury to wait around for a few hundred years while they moderate.

[Rick_Kitchen]

There are large stretches of the Christian world which have no wish for gay people to exist, let alone allow them into their country/state/county/world.

[adaher]

That’s a pretty awful thing, but I bet that you live to see that change. You will not live to see the Islamic world moderate absent a cataclysmic event. Such processes take many generations. Getting a religion to change ONE aspect of its faith is a much easier haul. Islam has to reform how it treats women, how it treats non-believers, how it treats apostates, how it treats gays, and whether it can accept free and open debate. It’s about where the Christian world was in the 1200s.

I’d also note that ONLY CHristian nations recognize gay marriage. And it’s not as if there aren’t wealthy, fairly liberal non-Christian nations that could have by now.

[Bridget_Burke]

@adaher

That’s a pretty awful thing, but I bet that you live to see that change. You will not live to see the Islamic world moderate absent a cataclysmic event. Such processes take many generations. Getting a religion to change ONE aspect of its faith is a much easier haul. Islam has to reform how it treats women, how it treats non-believers, how it treats apostates, how it treats gays, and whether it can accept free and open debate. It’s about where the Christian world was in the 1200s.

I’d also note that ONLY CHristian nations recognize gay marriage. And it’s not as if there aren’t wealthy, fairly liberal non-Christian nations that could have by now.

So, do you advocate waging war on the entire “Islamic world”–rather than just ISIL? Do you actually know any Muslims? (Shock: They live among us. Unless we live in stagnant backwaters.)

[adaher]

I don’t advocate war with Islam, no. War with Islam, if it comes, will happen because of a cataclysmic series of events that no one has the ability, or will, to control. In other words, it’ll happen the same way all cataclysmic wars happen.

But assuming that terrorism remains a fairly low level threat, we’ll be fighting low level wars targeting terrorists and the states they try to set up for the next 200 years.