What Islamophobia?
I've been around. Islamophobia is more spoken about than real.
Printable View
What Islamophobia?
I've been around. Islamophobia is more spoken about than real.
We have roaming groups of armed wanna be militants that harass Muslim gathering centers. Does that count?
:bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
that's appalling
What? :bulb: What's your definition of Islamophobia? How much of it do you want to see before you can acknowledge its existence? What does "I've been around" mean? ::bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Do the Americans on this forum also share RB's view that Islamophobia or the like basically doesn't exist in the US?
It would be interesting to learn more about how you interpret this: http://www.vox.com/2015/12/1/9822452...mophobia-trump
Remember, saying that all Muslims are terrorists and calling for the government to monitor them and set up databases of Muslims and stop Muslims from travelling into the country while interring the ones already there in camps... it's just being prudent and enlightened and critiquing theology :o
Define what constitutes Islamophobia and what threshold needs to be met for "exists." There are over 300 million people in the country, I guarantee that pretty much everything possible exists in at least a minor level somewhere, over here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I think protesting in the streets is silly but I don't understand why liberals are all up in arms about people being armed. If they use those weapons outside of self defense then absolutely the hammer of the law should squash them like a bug, until then? They are simply exercising their constitutionally protected rights.
For the sake of discussion I guess I can agree with the definition offered on the Gallup site on Islamophobia:
That definition of Islamophobia would encompass most of the examples given in the Vox article I linked to, esp. things like believing Islam should be illegal and that Muslims should be banned from entering the country, barred from the presidency etc. In the same category I think I'd put public support for political figures who say that all Muslims should be banned from entering the US or that American Muslims should be tracked and monitored or that it may be defensible to treat Muslims Americans like Japanese Americans were treated during WWII. One poll in Iowa found that 30% of republican caucus-goers believe Islam should be illegal. I don't think it's a representative sample but even if 30% of caucus-goers in Iowa represent 10% of Iowans that would, in my view, constitute a significant prevalence of Islamophobia.Quote:
An exaggerated fear, hatred, and hostility toward Islam and Muslims that is perpetuated by negative stereotypes resulting in bias, discrimination, and the marginalization and exclusion of Muslims from social, political, and civic life.
Similarly, even if the 40% of people (polled by notorious pollsters Yougov) who support or strongly support a govt registry of Muslims only represent 10% of Americans, I would view that attitude as being an expression of Islamophobia, esp. given that far fewer seem to support the registration of members of other religious groups such as Jews and Christians.
Anecdotally, whenever I see an article that touches on Muslims without directly condemning them the comments (eg. on social media) seems (to me) to be full of vitriolic hate-filled anti-Muslim rants that often go unopposed. Obviously these anti-social and deranged assclowns are not themselves representative of normal people but I can't help but interpret their boldness and frank bigotry as a signal that anti-Muslim sentiment is widespread and tacitly approved of by a sufficiently large number that it's become socially acceptable.
Now I'm interested in learning more about your definition as well as RB's because I want to understand how it is that our views can differ so much on this matter.
We are discussing Islamophobia. The guns are present as an intimidation tactic by these people who are very obvious Islamophobes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
What about Islamaphobia-phobia?
I don't know, what about it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Well, what is an exaggerated fear in a time of conflict when strikes continue to be made across both sides of the line? Given that definition of exaggerated fear/hate/hostility and the present context I would say that Islamophobia is somewhat more overtly expressed but less pervasive overall than anti-semitism in the US right now, a comparison I make by way of example as antisemitism levels are lower in the US than in most other Western countries (the Nordic territories, as usual, being an odd exception going by ADL estimates). I think that given a context in which we strike at groups like IS, and when unaffiliated but thematically-related radicals like the Beltway snipers, the bomber of the Boston Marathon, or the shooters in San Bernardino last year make domestic attacks, a level of sentiment which might otherwise be considered Islamophobia ceases to be an exaggeration. Simmering attitudes no longer became a useful metric for looking at it, nor even necessarily calls for policies which don't go anywhere. Overt action still would, as would possibly be endorsement of such policies at high levels like during a Presidential race but otherwise?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Sadly that in itself is part of a feedback cycle which generates more radicalization but the fear and hostility is no less understandable and empathizable for that negative consequence. I'm certainly not going to support the proposals for registrations or bans or concentration camps but those who make a comparison to the rounding up of the Japanese-American population neglect a salient point. There is nowhere a record of any sympathizers or spies of Japanese descent in the mainland US that would or could have been countered by that action. Here we already have a well-publicized death-toll from such local radicals. One I strongly suspect outweighs the total that might so far be placed on the Islamophobic side of the ledger, at least domestically. The victims of both sides in this quarter are unfortunately not likely to be people who were contributive to the wider perceived conflict.
Can we please get a moderator to move this off topic discussion to another thread?
Back on topic...http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...ies-republican
If you don't want to click the link vain man 10; evil man 2.
Quote:
Trump won both men and women, won the married and the unmarried, won college graduates and non-graduates, won high earners and low earners, and won both those who called themselves “conservative” and among those who called themselves “moderate/liberal.”
The few sub-groups that Trump did not win included those who called themselves evangelical or born-again: Cruz won that group with 24 percent. But his victory in that group – a core part of Cruz’s support – came by just a single percentage point. In second place, with 23 percent, was Trump.
I don't see how it's the least bit off-topic in a thread about Trump. And yes, Trump did very well. But looking at the returns, it highlighted to me that the mainstream candidates are fracturing each other's support which is what giving Trump that lead over them individually.
The mainstream candidates are splintering about 1/3 of the votes while the whackjobs are splintering about 2/3rds.
Except most of the mainstream candidates are fairly similar and one can reasonably expect most of the people voting for one to vote for another if the first wasn't in the race. It's not at all clear that Cruz' voters would go to Trump or Trump's voters would go to Cruz should one bow out so no, they are not obviously fracturing each other's support the way Jeb, Kasich, Rubio, etc. are.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
"Armed" is the first word in the title of both videos. The issue is guns, just like liberals whined about an anti-Obama demonstration that had armed attendees in an open carry state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Thank goodness we had some more drop outs after NH. I wish Jeb would give up too already. Rubio is the best shot of uniting the Republicans and presenting the best face forward in the general election.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Maybe you're much tougher than me, but I find a mob of armed men more intimidating than an unarmed mob, yes (especially if there have already been acts of violence). Generally, brandishing weapons is considered an escalation of force already. And let's be honest, if there were mobs of armed muslims protesting, there would be a massive outrage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
BTW, these seem to be the kind of people who are opposed to any gun measures and profess to love the constitution, especially the second amendment. Maybe they should look up the bit about freedom of religion, I'm pretty sure it's in there too.
Hasn't there been a direct inverse polling relationship between the two? IE if Cruz rises then Trump falls and vice versa? Seem to be fishing from similar ponds then.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
If Cruz were to drop out tomorrow I think Trump would benefit the most and vice versa.
I'd say most Americans don't know/understand our political structures, or how much processes vary by state. One can be quite "informed" in their home state, but have no idea how things work in other states. Caucuses vs primaries, open vs closed voting, voter registration requirements, etc. ARE a jumbled mess on a macro level. Delegates and Super-delegates control the nomination process....adding another layer of "process" that most people can't explain.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
It's not 'garbage' to suggest the US is not living up to its constitutional ideal as a democratic republic. When millions of people are rejecting 'conventional' political party wisdom, and want any candidate thatcanpromises to turn things around.....that's an indictment of our structures and processes. :donkey:
No. Islamophobia is in full view during the campaign to nominate the next POTUS. :( Unfortunately, there are so many people who really do believe that our problems stem from non-Christian beliefs (particularly in the Republican Party) that it's become a policy/voting issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
First off, define what a "mainstream candidate" means. Then explain why people are moving between (D) and (R) parties to vote for candidates that don't fit traditional/conventional party profiles. :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
You can protest things that are constitutionally protected... not all protests are about trying to get the government to take action.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
In addition 'right wing' protests where part of the crowd is armed tend to be incredibly safe. Almost no property damage has ever occurred when a tea party protest took place (for example). Unlike left wing protests (Occupy, BLM, WTO protests) which frequently turn violent and have police having to come out in riot gear. It has nothing to do with me being 'tough' or other nonsense but actually looking at the history of them.
Now can there be violent protests on the right? Sure. Can there be non-violent protests on the left? Sure. But generally there will be more violence at the left wing protests.
Citation needed.Quote:
But generally there will be more violence at the left wing protests.
Seriously? Left wing protests frequently end up with smashed windows, graffiti and other violence. The same can not be said in reverse.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I think that by and large they know what they need to, at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
They're not anywhere near a mess actually and the fact that there are differences would not and could not make them a jumped mess on a macro level anyway because there is no macro level. They aren't smaller parts of a larger whole, they're each completely independent contributors to something else. They don't HAVE to work together or align in any sort of way, no matter how much it would warm your clockwork little heart for them to be neatly arrayed like that.Quote:
Caucuses vs primaries, open vs closed voting, voter registration requirements, etc. ARE a jumbled mess on a macro level.
Delegates don't (not now anyway. In bygone times when the nomination process wasn't such an exercise in public democracy they did but not now, except in conditions which are not realistically imaginable). Super-delegates conceivably could. . . but in practice do not. In practice it turns out they work to support the public democracy process and reinforce the conventional result rather than in the wild-card fashion so fondly talked of in this 24-hour infotainment culture.Quote:
Delegates and Super-delegates control the nomination process....adding another layer of "process" that most people can't explain.
What does any of the structure and process have to do with "rejecting conventional party wisdom"? How is any of this a failure as a democratic republic? I see you're in one of your buzzword-controlled delusional states again.Quote:
It's not 'garbage' to suggest the US is not living up to its constitutional ideal as a democratic republic. When millions of people are rejecting 'conventional' political party wisdom, and want any candidate thatcanpromises to turn things around.....that's an indictment of our structures and processes. :donkey:
I could not begin to provide a definition that would satisfy you in your present condition. And I'm not seeing movement between the parties here. Within the parties some, sure, though it has been repeatedly pointed out how we actually see this pattern almost every time (if perhaps not to quite the extent shown by Trump's polling numbers though even those can be more than adequately explained by other factors like the relentless exaltation of Trump awareness being driven by the media) which would simply reflect what we already knew from the "Tea Party," that people are shifting in a more populist direction politically right now. It happens, particularly after an extended period of focus abroad.Quote:
First off, define what a "mainstream candidate" means. Then explain why people are moving between (D) and (R) parties to vote for candidates that don't fit traditional/conventional party profiles. :bored:
Oh wait...this is Saturday...do you love me now? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Being
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/14/10988380/donald-trump-9-11
Trump's finally gon' and done it :o
What...tell the truth?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Quote:
The strange thing is that after months of watching Trump say things that are racist, absurd, patently false, or all three at once, the Republican Party establishment decided to stomp on him for saying things that are basically true.
So, is Cruz an eligible candidate? Should he be? What would/should Cruz believe about his own eligibility?
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/18/11058038/ted-cruz-court
Of course he's eligible. He was born a citizen and never naturalised.
Quote:
When this question initially came up, the conventional wisdom among constitutional lawyers was that it was a non-issue: Cruz was obviously eligible. But as the debate has heated up among candidates (with Donald Trump, in particular, fanning the flames), it's also begun to heat up among constitutional law scholars.
The issue is actually twofold: whether Ted Cruz should be considered a natural-born citizen, and whether Cruz's own preferred school of constitutional interpretation would see it that way.
The problem: the meaning of "natural-born citizen"
Here is what the Constitution says about who can be president:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The problem is the Constitution doesn't define "natural born Citizen." Neither does any current law. And no one has ever brought a court case to decisively settle the question as a matter of US law.
There are three ways someone can be a US citizen. He can be born in the US (regardless of who his parents are). He can be born outside the US to at least one US citizen parent, as long as certain criteria are met (those criteria are set by federal law and have been changed over time). Or he can immigrate here and then successfully apply for citizenship, a process called naturalization.
Everyone agrees that the first category of people are natural-born citizens. Everyone agrees that the third category of people are not natural-born citizens (regardless of how unfair it might be that immigrants can't be president). But Ted Cruz is in the middle category, and this is where the meaning of "natural born" starts to get fuzzy.
It's not fuzzy, it's just limited people being idiots.
Has this matter already been settled, legally? Yes or no?
Would eligibility be consistent with Cruz's own approach to the constitution? Yes or no?
Yes, it has been settled. Just because there isn't an explicit SCOTUS ruiling doesn't mean the legal status of the question is actually unsettled. There are lots of things which haven't been explicitly addressed by the Supreme Court which are nonetheless not validly disputed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
natural born Citizen has not been legally defined. It's a legislative task that must ultimately be upheld by SCOTUS. Three takes on Naturalization:Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
1. Born within our boundaries -- no paperwork required (Natural Born Citizen)
2. Born outside our boundaries to a US citizen -- paperwork must be filed ( ? )
3. Born outside our boundaries to non US citizen -- paperwork must be filed (NOT a Natural Born Citizen)
Do you see the difference between 2 and 3?
That's why it's a legislative issue.