Okay but now you are just changing what I said. There is already a database with people entering the US and that's perfectly legal. What I referred to was a database of American citizens based on their religious affiliation. THAT is what many civil rights groups are questioning. So do you think THAT is crazy?
No, I don't. What does it violate? Why, if you can show a link between a militant religious ideology would you not want to have some handle on who those people are, especially newly arrived ones or those with links to other, radical individuals. How do you track that without some form of registry?
I'm not arguing for it, just showing how easy it is for it to be reasonably argued and appealing to the general electorate.
I am part of "the left" and I make no such claim. I think you will be hard pressed to find anyone on the left (even the crazy left, but let us leave those aside) who claim that no Muslims are a threat, and there is no threat from Muslims. Can you see how that sentence is both factually false and perpetuate a false dichotomy?
You do make the claim every time you object to someone suggesting that there is a link between Islam and terrorism or that even asking if there could be a link makes someone evil.
I have tried to re-evaluate my thoughts about Hillary after the election and I have many times found that I too fell back on negative generalizations about her (like, I too knew she was somewhat involved in the PC business). I am struggling to find concrete reasons for those beliefs now in what she actually said and did and I am thinking that I too was trolled.
So given that so many of those on her side of the political spectrum struggle to come up with positive opinion of her, why is anyone surprised that she lost? Coupled with the "appealing" popular messages Trump was spewing out, the left failed spectacularly and continues to do so. They are fighting the wrong war. They are are battling over forward-ground long lost while the forces assemble on the shoreline.
Meanwhile, Donald trumps wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Comparing the two, one is saying something I obviously think is a step backwards, the other is advocating things that, if I don't read things into it, I happen to agree are good things.
And that's the point. In trying to push trivial and stupid liberal agendas the left has thrown away decades of progress which will likely take decades more to regain, if they ever are.
So while some think issues like "call me Xi" are trivial and we should all just comply, the reality is that moronic assholes like those SJWs will result in REAL deaths over REAL issues. Just not theirs, because contrary to all that they claim, they are simply selfish spoiled brats.
Well, that is not my impression from watching the presidential debates. She kept mentioning things she would do, etc. etc., and Trump kept making (often quite plainly false) statements about her with very little content. Should we go over their exchange of coal mining as an example?
Do you claim that Trump spoke more or less about specific policy steps than Clinton? Do you think that Trump mentioned Clintons unsuitability more or less often than she spoke about his? (The phrase "crooked Hillary" comes to mind, as does his call to put her in jail on public television).
To me, the "sum" of the debates is her attacking him for being silly and unsuitable, and him making claims about what he's going to do. His claims were far more memorable, she always came across as contrived and an insincere act.
Trumps lies were documented by all major newspapers through the race. That did not seem to have any effect at all. It is very hard to see what she could actually have done when the truth does not appear to matter.
Because no one reads the news, they watch the TV who occasionally read the news but typically chase sensationalism. The electorate chose to weaken the 4th estate and so get trump. Everyone who pushes for instant issues and YouTube videos of confrontation instead of proper reasoned debate contributes to this.
BLM promote shouting at people, and so who could shout the loudest became the standard for success.
No college tuition at public colleges for families making less than 125'000, maintain affordable health care, no tax increase on the middle class, limit on super PAC spendings, ...
Too complicated (tiered tax breaks), to abstract or talk of "middle class" as a segment instead of talking to real working people. Trump seemed more genuine and talking to them, Clinton always sounds like she's talking about people she read about. Her only decent policies were all stolen from Bernie.
I agree Trumps message was simpler: To make America great. Hillary Clintons goals were dull because she was bounded by what was feasible when she wrote them out...
Yes, "dream small" isn't as good a message.
America wanted change, it was clear, and the democrats chose to serve up Clinton. Heck, even Jeb! looked more fresh than that cold dead fish.