You go and prove me wrong. I shouldn't be surprised, having read your diatribes against Palestinians and in favor of apartheid, but you sure can take it up a notch.

had the election there happened afterwards, the result may have been different, or definitely Liberal's majority might have been much smaller.

Public opinion polling in Canada has since turned south on refugees.

site. Canadians have welcomed the refugees with open arms. Here is how Canadians really feel:

http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/open-arms/

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2016/0310/Why-Canada-embraces-Syrian-refugees-while-US-is-still-wary

Your post is very misleading as to how Canadians feel about accepting Syrian refugees.

in a CNN interview, which I was very happy about, and it was politically very smart. It's far harder for anyone to claim "she won't call the enemy by its name."

we shouldn't take precautions that the situation merits. Given how the information infrastructure (backgrounds of people, legal and life records of people, employment/education records, etc.) of Syria is hard to decipher now that ISIS controls much of Syria and Iraq, Comey has a point about vetting those refugees and the difficulties it could encounter.

Did I not say I don't condone the harsh rhetoric from the GOP towards Muslims as a whole?

Seeing as "triangulating" on the Syrian refugees does not demonize a whole group, as my OP mentions, there are too many things at stake that shouldn't be risked over this. A good example is Scalia's replacement, and many MANY others.

Is Islam is "bad" to the OP that does not make every refugee a terrorist. We can at least attempt to tell the difference.

sometimes it is just hard to have a discussion in this country. Being an immigrant, even if not Muslim, such thought process makes me nervous. However, this is the kind of thinking going through many people in this country, and these range in spectrum to extremely liberal to extremely conservative. If we shut down any thoughts or discussions about it, then how can we make sense of it?

Also, the other side of the coin is that terrorism is not new to the world. It is relatively new to western world. The western world terrorized a lot of countries with wars and colonization for centuries, not treating every human being as a human being. At this point ISIS has been able to effectively capitalize on the anger of so many, while ISIS itself is a power hungry, islam hijacking group of maniacs. But obviously we don't want to talk about since we are the "good" people and they are the "bad".

LGBT is also newly accepted in USA and that too in liberal circles only. Just because USA evolved in the last 20 or so years, should the rest of the world follow the same time table?

In my opinion, this monster cannot be resolved quickly, or by wars. It has to resolved by peace and strategy - very cunning strategy perhaps, which uses force as one of the tools in the toolkit.

people no matter where they are. Do you have some 'timetable' that says 'they are allowed to murder X number before we make then stop' or something?

This, in particular:

Im really curious.

is some sort of evil wrong, at least from the far-left.

And deliberately targeting and killing civilians is actually a violation of International Law and the Geneva Conventions. Even when done in "THE WAR ON TERROR".

Nice attempt at deflection.

Let alone the Geneva Convetions. Here is a small tidbit for you.

Security Council Resolution 1373  acknowledges that any act of international terrorism gives rise to a right to self-defense and calls upon UN member states to “work together to prevent and suppress terrorist acts” and “take the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts.”

Secondly, the US has permission for drone strike in Pakistan. Pakistani government gets to use the US doubley. First the drone strikes take out radicals keeping the Pajistanis out of it. Secondly they get to blame the US as the big ol meany so the radicals do t overthrow the government.

And those whom the US kills are called terrorists, or suspected terrorists, but defining every casualty as a terrorist is a way of covering up the targeting of civilians.

When the US bombed the MSF hospital that was also part of the war on terror. The same when the US bombed a wedding party in Pakistan.

And this targeting and interference is a prime reason for the rise of these groups.

It was an honest question.

Just to "win" then what's the fucking point???

that she should stick with, like the environment, min wage, racial healing and justice, upholding Obergefell and Roe,etc. Quite frankly, if its between winning and getting the right track on those issues by moving to the center on Syrian refugees, or throwing it all away for the Syrian refugees, the choice is obvious. This election is, after all, about Americans and the American electorate, right?

Your concern is duly noted though.

n/t

To ensure a very strict vetting process. The American people have no appetite for it, especially in lieu of all the recent attacks.

About the issues we face now doing it. This issue is to potentially toxic to risk the $15 min wage, affordable education, Roe, marriage equality, and others on.

He has no chance in hell!

And everything you just said is wrong and bigoted

I think maybe you meant to post on Islamophobic Underground.

but isn't protecting LGBT advances, pushing a min wage increase, stopping the assault on abortion rights, and protecting the environment a lot more important than refugees?

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/07/17/rel8a.-.2016.pdf

Are you suggesting we go down the path that Germany did - just open the doors - no vetting, investigating? Not only would we lose the election, women would become nothing but targets. No - absolutely not.

is a massive electoral liability that can decide the outcome of an election.

but from the general electorate, see the terrorism/ISIS numbers at the bottom of the OP body.

The world's Muslims are not collectively responsible for jihadis and ISIS.

"Radical Islam," using the term doesn't imply any collective guilt; it simply points out the name of the ideology that motivates the terrorists.

None of the people who committed the acts groups like ISIS or AQ committed ONLY did so in the name of Islam. They were people with vindictive, murderous impulses and they would have found some reason to kill no matter what. if Islam had never existed, acts of large-scale violence against human beings would have gone on anyway.

It's really important to you to paint the Muslim world as "the enemy".

but using the correct term clearly was important politically, given that Hillary ultimately came around to it. It also matters because the Muslim world at large needs to know that the West won't tolerate violent radicals who invoke their religion.

And that that world could make it stop by itself, if only it tried hard enough.

Given that a large percentage of the victims ARE Muslims, it can't possibly be that simple.

And nothing good can come of any policy that in any way implicates Muslim people as a group in terror, or that implies that no Muslim can truly be trusted.

I don't think so.

of the sort about Muslims? Nowhere. Nor did anyone say she should ever promote the idiot idea that lack of a wall on the Rio Grande helps terrorists.

Is Jon Bel Edwards a bigot, even tho he came out against Syrian refugees coming to LA when he ran? Or the 47 Dems (one of whom is my Congressman, Steve Israel (D) of NY-3) who voted against Obama on the issue last November? Or Maggie Hassan?

they've moved to the center on the issue. How about the 47 House Dems listed here?

It never works for them to go GOP lite.

It's pandering to fearmongering against a large population. Your 'center' is bigoted.

So she either pandered to bigotry or is a bigot. IMHO not much difference there.

a LOT more bigotry and against a lot more people CURRENTLY HERE.

I care about the people currently here that would suffer under Trump than the refugees not currently here who might suffer if Hillary triangulated on the Syrian refugee issue but won. If that's what it takes for her to beat Trump, so fucking be it.

unless you're pining for the Donald J. Trump inaugural.

other day it's another bullshit OP from you asking for this party to be more like Republicans.

or Christian or Muslim, we should watch them die because they belong to a religion that is patriarchal and hetero normative? Or just watch Muslims die, and feed the Jews and Christians?

especially when space is limited; that limited space should probably be there for groups in danger of genocide.

It may HAVE to be Obama - as only Obama can get the megaphone on everything and because he is very good at explaining things. Hillary has the moral high ground here and very few refugees have been shown to have done anything evil.

Consider that Hillary still is attacked for shifting positions to the left when challenged by Bernie. If she suddenly changed her position here - ESPECIALLY AFTER the Trump speech, she goes from a sensible, moral high ground position to what will be seen as a politically motivated position -- and implicitly she will have "proved" Trump right -- he will say on the issue -- and leave it to others to add this as another sign of lack of character.

I agree this is not an easy issue -- Trump is making a case for FORTRESS AMERICA. How does the US deal with the refugee crisis that the Civil War in Syria caused and is causing? The US is spending millions subsidizing temporary camps in neighboring countries. The number of refugees is staggering. Leaving them in these temporary camps while their is little hope that they have a home to return to is a nightmare. You write often about Israel. Yet a parallel to this could be the many Palestinian camps that still exist after 50 years.

Obviously, if there are no wars or civil wars, no environmental disasters, etc there would not be millions of refugees. However, these people exist. Where do you think they should go? The US is already doing LESS than most EU countries and that has made it hard for the US to appeal to others to give money or accept refugees. Europe has the same tensions about accepting the refugees that we do -- yet they accepted proportionately more.

The vetted refugees are the innocents who are paying the price for the mess that the Middle East is. They need people to respond with love and acceptance and welcome them. Do you really want to join the people who want to close the door -- when they are in great need? (I can think of a WWII parallel and I would rather not be among the populace that would send a "boat" back.)

By the way, my city, Burlington VT, is a refugee resettlement city for people from many countries .. and Rutland, an hour's drive from here will house many Syrian refugees. The largest synagogue in Burlington hosts English language courses and it's thrift store gives coupons for merchandise to refugees (and homeless people). Some time last month or the month before, a Burlington church hosted a benefit for the Syrian refugees that included Syrian music , poetry, art, and stories. These are people who have lost a country they loved, their homes, and most devastating - family and friends.

This IS a moral issue and Hillary is on the right side. Beyond being a moral issue, how can we lead as a country if we fail to be part of the solution here?


.

GOP senate majority.

...but the bottom line is, I can't support EVERY competitive House and Senate race, so at a minimum I focus on the ones that are in play AND where I don't have a fundamental issue with the candidate. My wife and I were in Syria just before the war, and we have special sensitivity here, particularly given the fact that there are already solid vetting protocols in place.

feel that way about refugees. Just because Donald is trumping something up for the bigoted, does not mean the majority feel that way.

Seriously, this is a humanitarian issue. There is no Left or Right.

is a whole different story.

Also, stopping Trump is a humanitarian issue too. Just ask 12 million hardworking immigrants from Mexico who he would deport, or the families of terrorists who are unrelated to terror activity. Or Americans overall whose economy would go south of his new wall.

Making it one is craven. Standing on principle and explaining why will gain votes, not lose them.

Make your choice.

...

And it has already become a political issue.

in its wake.

fact is no one is going to let lives here be lost as some sort of penance for our foreign policy mistakes.

and this post is about the former, not the latter.

We should have taken in a lot more from Iraq than we have as well.

Keep repeating the same, simplistic lines and eventually you might convince a few people?

The GOP uses the same tactics. If you also talked about radical Christianity, or radical atheistic regimes, or a radical Jewish country I might see some consistency but unless or until I do see these posts I can only come to one conclusion.

And in reality universe, Syrian refugees generally undergo a review process that can take up to two years.

Canada has admitted over 25,000 Syrian refugees in the last year.

Germany admitted 105,000.

France has admitted 30,000.

I could go on, but the point has been made that this type of fear-mongering merely helps the GOP heighten the climate of fear that enables fascists like Trump.

but judging by the responses here many people at DU are tired of this type of post.

Drive Daesh out of their strongholds in Syria and Iraq, and end the Syrian civil war.

I oppose leaving human beings to suffer in hellish misery, even if some of them are agents of our enemies. Freedom is Dangerous.

given Trump's convention bounce and his continued terrorism lead, I don't think that dog will hunt.

What's more important: stopping human misery at home by yea letting a few Syrians not come here but stopping Trump, or letting a few come and and causing misery at home for far more people if Trump wins?

Anf later discover that solace was shit,
We sold our souls for an ounce of shit.

Do thrive thing,
Our mirrors will thank us every morning.

to detonate a bomb in Grand Central Terminal, Penn Station, LAX, O'Hare, etc. Or a place like the Pulse nightclub or some parade.

Both in moral terms, but especially electoral terms, the broader public isn't willing to risk that so easily, at least when the flow of potential people who can do that can be controlled.

The one who used a suicide vest in Germany today (thankfully, the only one who died was him) - was a Syrian refugee who had been denied asylum last year but because of the war, he was not sent back to Syria. We on the left HAVE to face reality or we will not only lose the election, we will deserve to lose it just to give a nod to political correctness.

Last edited Mon Jul 25, 2016, 05:11 PM - Edit history (1)

and as I updated to the OP, his terror lead has increased, her FP lead evaporated.

From Trump's twitter:
:large

If there was a de-recommendation button.....................this post might be a winner.

EVERYONE can see what's happened in Europe due to unfettered immigration and an open door policy to refugees. Those that want to whine about racism being the problem completely ignore and show their disdain for every single woman in Europe who has to put up with assaults and actual battery due to these ridiculous and short sighted policies. Your complaining about the racism you pretend is the problem is getting seriously old.

Your habit of calling anyone who disagrees with unfettered immigration a racist loses its punch with every single crime committed by an immigrant or refugee. Better use up those cards while you still can.

or ethnicity is another. Nice try at deflecting, but looking at the responses here it seems that many at DU agree with me.

brings less and less defense from those who whine racism whenever a Muslim is the culprit in Europe - never when it's a Christian. Every single time. Better use up those racism charges while they still pack a punch because you're losing your defenders day by day.

Most disagree with your position. The vocal few who recommend this type of divisive post are losing to the majority who recognize dog-whistle speech.

And I'm done having this conversation with you. Everyone already knows where you stand and you're boring me.

No pandering to right-wing racists.

n/t

Should Hillary move to the "center" on gun control?

Should she move to the "center" on abortion?

How about climate change and clean energy initiatives? More to the "center?"

There are numerous issues where Dems could try to placate Republicans in an attempt to secure the presidency, but compromising values and integrity has tremendous meaning to many voters as well.

Now, we'll cue your constant refrain of: "If you don't agree with me on this, you're inviting worse travesties under a Trump administration."