Presidential Race 2016

[strummer]

My desire is driven by the fact that I know some of these people, for years. I have a good idea of what their struggles are, and while I don’t fully understand what they see in Trump, I know the rest of the circus that is this upcoming election seems to be pretty dismissive of their fears and concerns. It’s pretty hard to get someone to care about what’s going on in the Middle East when they honestly believe they’re going to be homeless, sick and without help in less than ten years. They feel the government betrayed them. And despite all the qualities someone like Sanders has, he’s been part of that government and has been for years.

The funny thing is that if they took even a cursory look at Sanders’ history they’d see where he always has been an outsider, despite currently being an elected official. He’s an independent that has been fighting the powers that be for so long he should have a damn grandfather clock hanging from his neck.

[Nesrie]

The funny thing is that if they took even a cursory look at Sanders’ history they’d see where he always has been an outsider, despite currently being an elected official. He’s an independent that has been fighting the powers that be for so long he should have a damn grandfather clock hanging from his neck.

I don’t disagree. Sanders has a lot to offer, but I don’t think he resonates with a lot of people. Trump’s say it like it is, unfiltered approach seems to play well on the screen. I fear Sanders talks at too high a level for some, and I am still not sure he can stand up to Hillary.

[Scuzz]

But I don’t see Trump’s message as hopeful at all.

Regan and Obama both had a similar tone, in that they inspired hope and optimism. But trump is all fear.

100% agree. There is no “hopeful” in Trump’s message. He is merely echoing the fears people try to keep to themselves. Saying we need to build a wall or eliminate Muslim immigration or kill terrorists families are not “hopeful” messages.

[Telefrog]

Her statement that using the term “radical islamic terrorism” somehow drives the narrative that we’re at war with Islam? That doesn’t even make sense. How is using that term in any way wrong? I think her statement here is nonsensical.

I mean, we ARE at war with radical Islamic terrorism, right?

We certainly aren’t at war with Islam… but we ARE at war with the radical elements of Islam. Are we supposed to pretend like they aren’t Islamic? Why? I think that’s kind of absurd. And quite frankly, trying to pretend that isn’t the case actually fuels the islamophic segment of society, because it gives this impression that people aren’t really dealing with the issue, or even admitting what the issue is.

This has come up a couple of times here already, but the phrase “radical Islamic terror” is a bit of a dog-whistle. On the surface, it’s not incorrect, but the specific calling out of Islam is an issue. We don’t say mass shooters are “radical Christian shooters” or “radical Caucasian shooters” or “radical Asian-American shooters.” We tend not to call out these details unless we’re specifically making an issue out of that aspect of the perpetrators’ story.

People say “radical Islamic terror” and everyone just nods and sighs because we think we all know what’s being said. Oh, of course! It’s that kind of terror! Not the other kind! It goes back to the xenophobic tribalism we were talking about earlier. People aren’t really concerned about the “terror” part. That just goes with any violent mass-murder or killing spree. What they’re really concerned about is the “Islamic” part of the phrase. It’s an attempt to cement the association that Islamic = terrorism in people’s minds, and it’s kind of working.

[inactive_user]

The funny thing is that if they took even a cursory look at Sanders’ history they’d see where he always has been an outsider, despite currently being an elected official. He’s an independent that has been fighting the powers that be for so long he should have a damn grandfather clock hanging from his neck.

Could play well with the Run-DMC crowd.

[Scuzz]

I’m not them, but at the risk of you demanding that I defend them, I will say I don’t think they hear it. And let’s not mistake something here. Trump has the racists and the bigots and the white is losing everything crowd too. I am not surprised at all they found someone to give the mic to and get the response. What I am saying… that’s not the only group he has.

Your father (it was your father, right?) is one of those people who see illegal immigration as a means to lose a job, to make it hard for his kids to get a job. I am all in favor of immigration and I do believe they do jobs Americans won’t do, but, they also hold jobs Americans would do, in construction, in manufacturing, in ag plants around the country. They see foreign workers coming in and taking over jobs, they see American companies sending jobs overseas to foreign workers. There is more to it than just a racist rant against those foreigners and illegals, there is a definite economic loss.

I think Trump attracts that group. I also think that if Trump was in manufacturing he would use foreign workers to make a profit.

But there is no doubt there is a racist anti-Obama faction that has found a home with Trump. He has also attracted the “why are we pussy footing around with the terrorists and the middle east” crowd. That crowd loves his tough “war” talk. I don’t necessarily see that group as racist, they are just tired of what has become the status quo, which has become a holding action instead of a an attempt to win or end anything…

[Scuzz]

This has come up a couple of times here already, but the phrase “radical Islamic terror” is a bit of a dog-whistle. On the surface, it’s not incorrect, but the specific calling out of Islam is an issue. We don’t say mass shooters are “radical Christian shooters” or “radical Caucasian shooters” or “radical Asian-American shooters.” We tend not to call out these details unless we’re specifically making an issue out of that aspect of the perpetrators’ story.

People say “radical Islamic terror” and everyone just nods and sighs because we think we all know what’s being said. Oh, of course! It’s that kind of terror! Not the other kind! It goes back to the xenophobic tribalism we were talking about earlier. People aren’t really concerned about the “terror” part. That just goes with any violent mass-murder or killing spree. What they’re really concerned about is the “Islamic” part of the phrase. It’s an attempt to cement the association that Islamic = terrorism in people’s minds, and it’s kind of working.

Are we truly at risk from some other sort of “radical terrorists” I am unaware of. Labeling them for what they are, and then saying no that isn’t nice seems like you are drawing a fine line that doesn’t need drawing. If Buddists started shooting us wouldn’t we label them “radical bhuddist terrorists” to differentiate them?

[CraigM]

This has come up a couple of times here already, but the phrase “radical Islamic terror” is a bit of a dog-whistle. On the surface, it’s not incorrect, but the specific calling out of Islam is an issue. We don’t say mass shooters are “radical Christian terrorists” or “radical Caucasian terrorists” or “radical Asian-American terrorists.” We tend not to call out these details unless we’re specifically making an issue out of that aspect of the perpetrators’ story.

People say “radical Islamic terror” and everyone just nods and sighs because we think we all know what’s being said. Oh, of course! It’s that kind of terror! Not the other kind! It goes back to the xenophobic tribalism we were talking about earlier. People aren’t really concerned about the “terror” part. That just goes with any violent mass-murder or killing spree. What they’re really concerned about is the “Islamic” part of the phrase.

Did Dylan Roof ever get labeled a terrorist by any major outlet or politician?

You’re absolutely right this is a dog whistle. The phrasing and placement of that term is typically used to blur the distinction, muddy the conversation. To conflate your average mosque with a terrorist breeding ground.

It’s not about closing down mosques. It’s about closing down any place — whether it’s a cafe, a diner, an internet site — any place where radicals are being inspired

This is not an accident, not at the frequency and consistency with which radicallism is paired with any reference to Muslim. It is as if they are incapable of mentioning anything Islamic or Muslim without appending some reference to radical terrorism. It is speaking very clearly to two specific groups. It communicates to the Fox News crowd that all Muslims are radicals, and it communicates to Muslims that they are not welcome in America.

That is the message that is being delivered to those two audiences. It is not a mistake either.

[Telefrog]

Are we truly at risk from some other sort of “radical terrorists” I am unaware of. Labeling them for what they are, and then saying no that isn’t nice seems like you are drawing a fine line that doesn’t need drawing. If Buddists started shooting us wouldn’t we label them “radical bhuddist terrorists” to differentiate them?

Like you said, are we at risk from some other radicalized group? Can we not just say “terrorist” and know what we’re talking about?

The reason some people want the “Islamic” identifier in that phrase isn’t due to some attempt to understand or dissect the issue. They want that there as a label to freely associate the idea that Islam is terror.

[Scuzz]

Like you said, are we at risk from some other radicalized group? Can we not just say “terrorist” and know what we’re talking about?

The reason some people want the “Islamic” identifier in that phrase isn’t due to some attempt to understand or dissect the issue. They want that there as a label to freely associate the idea that Islam is terror.

You know, I see it as a correct description of what they are. Nothing more, nothing less. Just like the hated “illegal aliens” term. We can micro-aggression this country into political correctness if we want, but it doesn’t change reality.

[Telefrog]

You know, I see it as a correct description of what they are. Nothing more, nothing less. Just like the hated “illegal aliens” term. We can micro-aggression this country into political correctness if we want, but it doesn’t change reality.

That’s not a micro-aggression. Believe me when I say I despise that kind of stuff.

It’s a clear agenda-based turn of phrase.

[Kemper_Boyd]

Jihadist seems like to most applicable term to me. It very clearly states who the group is and excludes all others.

[Dan_Theman]

Jihadist seems like to most applicable term to me. It very clearly states who the group is and excludes all others.

I’d agree that’s functional in the US for most purposes, but falls apart elsewhere and when applied to historical contexts.

Terrorist is a general term. By definition, they’re extremists/radicalized so adding that part is not needed. Including their identity makes some sense when talking about the politics and addressing the growth of such movements, although not really when talking about safety; a bomb or bullet from a Muslim kills the same as from a Christian, Buddhist, Jew, Sikh, Atheist, or whomever. Still, the context of the terror is important for the sake of discussion. For instance, I would like to see abortion provider attackers and white supremacists labeled Christian terrorists when their twisted view of their faiths is used to fuel such actions. Until that catches hold, seeing “Radical Islamic Terrorist” as the only such descriptive in the news and around the water cooler absolutely strikes me as the result of a dog whistle even if not actively being used that way by any given speaker.

[legowarrior]

Are we truly at risk from some other sort of “radical terrorists” I am unaware of. Labeling them for what they are, and then saying no that isn’t nice seems like you are drawing a fine line that doesn’t need drawing. If Buddists started shooting us wouldn’t we label them “radical bhuddist terrorists” to differentiate them?

Well, we got that guy who shot a church, and we have the attack on Plan Parenthood.

[Nesrie]

Your father (it was your father, right?) is one of those people who see illegal immigration as a means to lose a job, to make it hard for his kids to get a job. I am all in favor of immigration and I do believe they do jobs Americans won’t do, but, they also hold jobs Americans would do, in construction, in manufacturing, in ag plants around the country. They see foreign workers coming in and taking over jobs, they see American companies sending jobs overseas to foreign workers. There is more to it than just a racist rant against those foreigners and illegals, there is a definite economic loss.

I think Trump attracts that group. I also think that if Trump was in manufacturing he would use foreign workers to make a profit.

But there is no doubt there is a racist anti-Obama faction that has found a home with Trump. He has also attracted the “why are we pussy footing around with the terrorists and the middle east” crowd. That crowd loves his tough “war” talk. I don’t necessarily see that group as racist, they are just tired of what has become the status quo, which has become a holding action instead of a an attempt to win or end anything…

Yep it was my father. And he’s worried about illegal immigrants, working visas (that’s more about my job than his), and outsourcing of jobs. Now some people would label that racism, but I don’t think that’s accurate at all. It’s not about race. It’s about wages and employment stability. He only said India because he knows their workforce has some focus on software and my sister literally told him that her company expects her job to go overseas to… India within a few years.

I don’t think this group, my dad and his friends, are focused much on the terrorism piece at all, but I haven’t spoken to him in-depth since the last attack in CA.

[Scuzz]

Well, we got that guy who shot a church, and we have the attack on Plan Parenthood.

Well, wasn’t the PP guy a nut. And the kid who shot up the church…a “white supremacist terrorist”. But let’s face it, most of the home grown mass murderers are nuts. “Crazy White Terrorists”.

[CraigM]

Well, we got that guy who shot a church, and we have the attack on Plan Parenthood.

And they weren’t referred to as terrorists by mainstream media or politicians.

[Alstein]

It’s hard to not be nativist when your job is likely to be lost next year, and you’ll be competing in a horrible job market with the deck stacked against you, and your savings start to dwindle…

You want change and money at any price when you’re in that boat.

[Aleck]

Well, wasn’t the PP guy a nut. And the kid who shot up the church…a “white supremacist terrorist”. But let’s face it, most of the home grown mass murderers are nuts. “Crazy White Terrorists”.

I think you could make an argument that anyone willing to commit mass murder is nuts, regardless of their religious, ethnic, or political background. Shooting up schools, holiday parties, medical providers, public events, etc. is something only crazy people would do. They may be inspired by crazy beliefs – be those radical Islam, fundamentalist Christian, Anarchist, etc. – but that doesn’t make them any less crazy. It’s a little odd that we single out loons taking inspiration from Islam as terrorists but don’t do the same for folks from the other groups.

[Wallapuctus]

66% of Republicans agree with Donald Trump on banning Muslims.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-12-09/bloomberg-politics-poll-trump-muslim-ban-proposal

So, yeah, this is the Republican Party. Donald Trump is their avatar. Stop denying it. If you don’t agree with him, stop calling yourself Republican because this is what you stand for when you use that label.