Presidential Race 2016

[Teiman]

Maybe not. I mean, Donald Trump has all these votes… somebody from the republican party will get these votes when Trump quit or burn or whatever. So maybe they are paying lip service to that type of voters, but will not follow it.

A bit like Obama, that promised a lot of things, but ended being Bush 2.0.

[Scuzz]

No, Obama is not Bush 2.0, under any definition of the term.

[Oghier]

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

Wow. I feel like I should be beyond surprise at how far to the right the GOP has slid, but this shocks me. Particularly since so many party ‘leaders’ condemned Trump’s proposal.

[Telefrog]

Well, the methodology of that poll is a little vague. They polled 605 people online, but they didn’t mention how they targeted those folks. They’re just “general election voters” which doesn’t really tell us much.

That said, their results seem to fall in line with the general trend of this cycle.

[Nesrie]

A bit like Obama, that promised a lot of things, but ended being Bush 2.0.

I too would like you to know how you came to this conclusion. In what ways is Obama Bush 2.0?

[Timex]

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.

That seems ridiculous to me, because it draws a false equivalence.

It’s not like the acts of terror we’re seeing are folks committing acts who simply happen to be muslims. The people who we’re talking about are committing terrorist acts as a direct result of their messed up interpretation of their faith.

I think it’s messed up to try and pretend like the two are not related at all, or to suggest that pointing out that fact somehow means you are attacking all muslims, because it absolutely does not meant that at all.

You don’t say “radical Asian-American shooter” because the fact that the guy at Virginia Tech happened to be Asian played absolutely no role in his action. It was immaterial. But that guy who shot up the planned parenthood facility? I think it’d be totally appropriate to describe that as a radical Christian terrorist act, since he committed it as part of some kind of messed up interpretation of his faith.

[Miramon]

Well if you ignore things like healthcare and Obama’s reluctance to invade Iran, from a filtered European perspective you might perhaps see:

• continued involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan
• continued failure in Israel, Palestine, Syria, etc.
• Guantanamo is still open
• no one prosecuted from Wall Street despite obvious gross malfeasance
• no action on mass murder in the US
• no action on police crime in the US

… among other disappointing similarities between Bush and Obama. But of course there are many significant differences, as well as Obama accomplishments that Bush would never have attempted. And of course a lot of Obama’s failure over his presidency is not his fault but due to malice and incompetence from Congress. Even so they are more similar than one would ever have expected before Obama’s election.

[Pyperkub]

No, Obama is not Bush 2.0, under any definition of the term.

He is with regards to spying on Americans and the Surveillance State, as well as Drone strikes abroad - killing people, including Americans, w/o due process.

[Miramon]

He is with regards to spying on Americans and the Surveillance State, as well as Drone strikes abroad - killing people, including Americans, w/o due process.

Yeah, I should have added those two. Also Obama is harder on government whistleblowers even than Bush. It’s as if he feels the need to cultivate affection from his praetorian guard by ignoring any non-, mis- or malfeasance committed by anyone connected with the executive branch.

[Telefrog]

It’s not like the acts of terror we’re seeing are folks committing acts who simply happen to be muslims. The people who we’re talking about are committing terrorist acts as a direct result of their messed up interpretation of their faith.

I think it’s messed up to try and pretend like the two are not related at all, or to suggest that pointing out that fact somehow means you are attacking all muslims, because it absolutely does not meant that at all.

You don’t say “radical Asian-American shooter” because the fact that the guy at Virginia Tech happened to be Asian played absolutely no role in his action. It was immaterial. But that guy who shot up the planned parenthood facility? I think it’d be totally appropriate to describe that as a radical Christian terrorist act, since he committed it as part of some kind of messed up interpretation of his faith.

So we agree? Because If we’re going to call them “radical Islamic terrorists” I’m all for the media and GOP using “radical Christian terrorists” when someone shoots up a place based on some messed up interpretation of the Bible. Unfortunately, that’s not how we label these people. We gloss over the Christian part of their motivation and just talk about how they’re unhinged or mentally unstable, but throw the Koran into it and it’s instantly radical Muslim and radical Islam.

[Scuzz]

I think under a Bush regime we would have never left Iraq. I think under a Bush regime we would be much more militarily involved in the middle east. While I doubt it will resolve anything you would have never seen a treaty with Iran. I will admit he has not done many things he said he would.

I think domestically they are nothing alike. I am not sold on the ACA (I hope it ends up working but I have no faith in it working) but under a BUsh regime you don’t even get that.

[Scuzz]

So we agree? Because If we’re going to call them “radical Islamic terrorists” I’m all for the media and GOP using “radical Christian terrorists” when someone shoots up a place based on some messed up interpretation of the Bible. Unfortunately, that’s not how we label these people. We gloss over the Christian part of their motivation and just talk about how they’re unhinged or mentally unstable, but throw the Koran into it and it’s instantly radical Muslim and radical Islam.

off subject here but what was the DC snipers reason for killing? Did we ever learn it?

And I have no problem with calling out anyone who does something in the name of mythical being.

[Timex]

So we agree? Because If we’re going to call them “radical Islamic terrorists” I’m all for the media and GOP using “radical Christian terrorists” when someone shoots up a place based on some messed up interpretation of the Bible. Unfortunately, that’s not how we label these people. We gloss over the Christian part of their motivation and just talk about how they’re unhinged or mentally unstable, but throw the Koran into it and it’s instantly radical Muslim and radical Islam.

I dunno man, we totally label things like hate based crimes as such. If some nazi guy murdered a ton of folks, you’d definitely draw reference to the fact that he was a white supremecist, right? We specifically categorize ethnic violence, and don’t just say “violence”, right? Right-wing terrorism is categorized as such.

Like I said, if someone commits some horrific act as a result of their christian faith, you can totally call them on it.

But it seems like you’re going out of your way to intentionally ignore the cause of their terrorist act, and I’m not sure why.

[Pyperkub]

I think under a Bush regime we would have never left Iraq. I think under a Bush regime we would be much more militarily involved in the middle east. While I doubt it will resolve anything you would have never seen a treaty with Iran. I will admit he has not done many things he said he would.

I think domestically they are nothing alike. I am not sold on the ACA (I hope it ends up working but I have no faith in it working) but under a BUsh regime you don’t even get that.

Well, I do think that Bush 2.0 really happened in 2006, when he really stopped blindly following Cheney’s (and the hard-core neocons’) international lead, and started listening more to Condi Rice and others, but overall Obama is very much a not-Bush. He would be much more not-Bush if he weren’t dealing with a completely dysfunctional GOP in Congress, IMHO.

[Telefrog]

off subject here but what was the DC snipers reason for killing? Did we ever learn it?

Well, “crazy” obviously, like every one of these goobers, but he also claimed to be Muslim, but not affiliated with any particular group.

At the 2006 trial of Muhammad, Malvo testified that the aim of the killing spree was to kidnap children for the purpose of extorting money from the government and to “set up a camp to train children how to terrorize cities”, with the ultimate goal being to “shut things down” across the United States.

[Scuzz]

Well, “crazy” obviously, like every one of these goobers, but he also claimed to be Muslim, but not affiliated with any particular group.

Okay, I remembered part of that but forget part also. I thought he was a little wacko as well but knew there was “more” to it than that.

[Pyperkub]

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…

I think this articlefrom a few weeks back really goes into some of the non-racist despair that is driving the GOP base (and most white, non-college educated working class folks):

In eastern Kentucky and other former Democratic bastions that have swung Republican in the past several decades, the people who most rely on the safety-net programs secured by Democrats are, by and large, not voting against their own interests by electing Republicans. Rather, they are not voting, period. They have, as voting data, surveys and my own reporting suggest, become profoundly disconnected from the political process…

…The people in these communities who are voting Republican in larger proportions are those who are a notch or two up the economic ladder — the sheriff’s deputy, the teacher, the highway worker, the motel clerk, the gas station owner and the coal miner. And their growing allegiance to the Republicans is, in part, a reaction against what they perceive, among those below them on the economic ladder, as a growing dependency on the safety net, the most visible manifestation of downward mobility in their declining towns.

The thing is - banning Mexicans and Muslims won’t create better jobs for people without a college education, but a chunk of the population sees them and thinks that they should do and be better. Good manufacturing and other union-type jobs are shrinking and all but dead in the US (or will be - look at supermarket checkers and the self-checkout lanes, or the mcdonalds robots) - you’re either in the knowledge economy or the service economy, and the service economy requires ever more education nowadays for jobs which won’t be obsolete in 25 years.

The thing is, people aren’t worse off than they were 7 years ago, but they don’t see much chance of improving their status for themselves or their progeny.

[Scuzz]

So the right wing media is now (at least locally and I have seen others bring it up) trying to compare Pres. Carter’s banning of Iranians in 1979 after the embassy takeover to Trump’s call for a ban of Muslims. No, they are not the same thing.

[Dan_Theman]

Right-wing terrorism is categorized as such.

It may be by you or me, but the public at large and the media don’t usually call it that. For instance, abortion provider attackers are “anti-abortion” if that, not “Christian extremists” even though it’s normally their messed up view of their faith that they feel gives them license to become mass murderers.

edit - to be fair, I normally don’t watch Fox, so perhaps they call them radical Christian extremists.

[Telefrog]

It may be by you or me, but the public at large and the media don’t usually call it that. For instance, abortion provider attackers are “anti-abortion” if that, not “Christian extremists” even though it’s normally their messed up view of their faith that they feel gives them license to become mass murderers.

edit - to be fair, I normally don’t watch Fox, so perhaps they call them radical Christian extremists.

AFAIK, the only person on the GOP side to come close to saying this about Robert Lewis Dear was Huckabee.

“What he did is domestic terrorism, and what he did is absolutely abominable - especially to us in the pro-life movement, because there’s nothing about any of us that would condone or in any way look the other way on something like this.”

Unfortunately, he stopped short of "Christian terrorist’ and instead used the more generic “domestic terrorist.”