Blindly accepting Muslim immigrants is anti-liberal

[cow451]

Please tell me specifically how you disagree with them. I hope it's not because they are atheists.

The notion that Islam is the problem puts the emphasis on the less-meaningful aspect of terrorism. Therefore, it aids recruiting and minimizes the underpinnings of terrorism in general. It also oversimplifies the landscape. The typical "Islam is the problem" argument overlooks the conflicts among the various Islamic sects and the historical contexts. For example, Iraq was put together by the West after WWI with no recognition that it more naturally should be three countries.

Islam, like Christianity, like Judaism cannot be "wiped out". So, it is blatantly silly to construct a campaign based on that notion. Even Maajid Nawaz admits it. But it is as disingenuous to argue that ISIS has “nothing to do with Islam” as it is to argue that “they are Islam.” ISIS has something to do with Islam.

Where I am at odds with the idea that Clinton has to out-Trump Trump is that Trump is doing the very thing that feeds the problem. What sense is there for Clinton to aid terrorists recruiting in order to appeal to the lowest denominator? She cannot be Trump. She has to be Clinton and she can only do so by calling out Trump's stupidity for what it is. She is not going to beat Trump by being an even bigger liar on the immigration issue.

 

[Yoder777]

Where I am at odds with the idea that Clinton has to out-Trump Trump is that Trump is doing the very thing that feeds the problem. What sense is there for Clinton to aid terrorists recruiting in order to appeal to the lowest denominator? She cannot be Trump. She has to be Clinton and she can only do so by calling out Trump's stupidity for what it is. She is not going to beat Trump by being an even bigger liar on the immigration issue.

How is it appealing to the lowest common denominator to name a problem for what it is?

The ex-radical Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz calls “The Voldemort Effect”: failing to name the problem makes it harder to fight it, and worse — this is key — fails to differentiate peaceful American moderate Muslims from radical jihadists. This is dangerous. If liberals had taken on this problem honestly and channeled the anxiety of the post-Paris/San Bernardino public from a position of moral strength, Trump would’ve been less able to jump in and channel it from a position of xenophobic bigotry.
https://richarddawkins.net/2015/12/the-real-reason-donald-trump-will-win-the-republican-nomination/

I do not and have never supported Trump's immigration ban on Muslims, especially since I see no realistic way of how it can be enforced.

 

[cow451]

How is it appealing to the lowest common denominator to name a problem for what it is?

Because he is stating it in such a manner that it appeals to the voters that have the most simplistic way of thinking about the problem. Few people that look a a problem in a "big picture" way seem to find Trump's ideas palatable.

I do not and have never supported Trump's immigration ban on Muslims, especially since I see no realistic way of how it can be enforced.

Sorry for misreading your comments as support. My bad.

 

[Yoder777]

Because he is stating it in such a manner that it appeals to the voters that have the most simplistic way of thinking about the problem. Few people that look a a problem in a "big picture" way seem to find Trump's ideas palatable.

That's not the point.

Of course, Trump is appealing to the lowest common denominator for personal gain. But in failing to name Islamic extremism for what it is, Obama and Clinton concede to Trump the moral high ground, something he doesn't deserve to have, while at the same time failing to differentiate extremist Muslims from moderates.

Why give Trump the chance to say that Hillary or Obama is a disgrace for not denouncing the attack as Islamic extremism?

 

[Yoder777]

For now on, I simply don't care if Trump or Clinton win. They are both corrupt and Americans deserve a third choice.

 

[cow451]

That's not the point.

Of course, Trump is appealing to the lowest common denominator for personal gain. But in failing to name Islamic extremism for what it is, Obama and Clinton concede to Trump the moral high ground, something he doesn't deserve to have, while at the same time failing to differentiate extremist Muslims from moderates.

Why give Trump the chance to say that Hillary or Obama is a disgrace for not denouncing the attack as Islamic extremism?

That assumes anyone undecided cares about the semantics on this issue. Trump's military strategy is based on harsh language. In fact, nearly all of his strategies are harsh language without any known substance. I think you and I disagree on whether Clinton can talk tougher in a manner that would influence significant numbers of voters.

Undecideds are more interested in the economy, IMHO. But I see where you are coming from.

 

[Yoder777]

That assumes anyone undecided cares about the semantics on this issue. Trump's military strategy is based on harsh language. In fact, nearly all of his strategies are harsh language without any known substance. I think you and I disagree on whether Clinton can talk tougher in a manner that would influence significant numbers of voters.

Undecideds are more interested in the economy, IMHO. But I see where you are coming from.

An argument could be made that Trump is the less interventionist between the two candidates, and therefore less likely to create blowback from the Middle East.

 

[TLK Valentine]

An argument could be made that Trump is the less interventionist between the two candidates, and therefore less likely to create blowback from the Middle East.

Such an argument would require consuming copious amounts of psychedelic mushrooms to believe, let alone formulate.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Such an argument would require consuming copious amounts of psychedelic mushrooms to believe, let alone formulate.

Hillary Clinton must have consumed copious amounts of psychedelic mushrooms before her speech on Trump's foreign policy.

This is someone who has threatened to abandon our allies in NATO – the countries that work with us to root out terrorists abroad before they strike us at home.

He praises dictators like Vladimir Putin and picks fights with our friends – including the British prime minister, the mayor of London, the German chancellor, the president of Mexico and the Pope.

That’s why it is no small thing when he talks about leaving NATO, or says he’ll stay neutral on Israel’s security.

And it’s no small thing when he suggests that America should withdraw our military support for Japan,

 

[TLK Valentine]

Hillary Clinton must have consumed copious amounts of psychedelic mushrooms before her speech on Trump's foreign policy.

None of which has anything to do with the topic at hand... have any mushrooms gone missing?

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

None of which has anything to do with the topic at hand... have any mushrooms gone missing?

If the topic at hand is whether Clinton or Trump is more interventionist, it has everything to do with it - Clinton has criticized Trump for not being interventionist enough.

 

[nightflight]

Someone's taken the red pill I see.

 

[Yoder777]

Such an argument would require consuming copious amounts of psychedelic mushrooms to believe, let alone formulate.

Clinton supported the disastrous intervention in Libya, and supports taking al-Assad out of power, which would leave a power vacuum for groups like ISIS.

 

[Yoder777]

I know that we live in an age of multiculturalism, and that's a good thing. I wouldn't be a white Buddhist if not for the influence of multiculturalism.

There is a difference, however, between multiculturalism and cultural relativism, and from an objective standpoint, I would say that Western civilization is preferable to Islamic civilization. This is why so many moderate Muslims are happier in the West than they were in their home countries.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Clinton supported the disastrous intervention in Libya, and supports taking al-Assad out of power, which would leave a power vacuum for groups like ISIS.

Or the rebels. it's a 3-way dance.

If you want to support Assad because he's the best choice to fight off ISIS, I can't argue there -- but let's not pretend that our best choice is necessarily a good choice.

 

[Yoder777]

Or the rebels. it's a 3-way dance.

If you want to support Assad because he's the best choice to fight off ISIS, I can't argue there -- but let's not pretend that our best choice is necessarily a good choice.

As far as I know, Clinton wants to remove him from power.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-islamic-state-syria-223399

 

[Yoder777]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-buddhist-monks-love-muslim-hating-trump.html

If you knew the history of Islamic violence against Buddhists, you'd understand why Burmese Buddhists might be supporting Trump. India, for example, was once a Buddhist-majority country, until the Muslim invaders took over. I could go on an on with more examples, throughout history, of Islamic aggression against Buddhists.

 

[TLK Valentine]

As far as I know, Clinton wants to remove him from power.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-islamic-state-syria-223399

And considering that he's a despot who imprisons and brutally tortures his own people, that would be commendable, all other things being equal.

ISIS' presence, however, complicates things. Would someone else in charge be a better leader for Syria and still be able to hold them off?

 

[Yoder777]

And considering that he's a despot who imprisons and brutally tortures his own people, that would be commendable, all other things being equal.

No, it would be a disaster, leaving Syria as a haven for terrorists. Didn't we learn anything from Iraq and Libya? Sometimes it's better to let a strongman stay in power, if he's the only thing keeping the terrorists at bay.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No, it would be a disaster, leaving Syria as a haven for terrorists. Didn't we learn anything from Iraq and Libya? Sometimes it's better to let a strongman stay in power, if he's the only thing keeping the terrorists at bay.

We never do... why start now?

Besides, you'll note I added the qualifier "all other things being equal," which is clearly not the case here. Taking out Assad is the wrong choice... for now. We need him where he is as long as ISIS is a credible threat. After that...