When I went to UT in 1965-69 I never dreamed this is the type of politician that my alumnae would support...but this is what this board continually supports. The Link Hook'em!!!
1. The primary system is a train wreck. We get these shitbags on both sides because the most radical 5% of each party does the deciding. When it happens in an R or D dominant district, you have a few yokels deciding who goes to congress because the general doesn't matter. 2. The republican base has dwindled to the point to where the only people that support them are people that see them as the lesser of two evils (me), or have a business interest, or are a complete redneck idiot. In areas that have more redneck idiots than the other two, you are going to get guys like this. 3. I would say that republicans need to do a better job of policing their own but I really don't know how you go about that. We can't stop them from running and we can't stop the redneck idiots from voting for them. My personal opinion is that we need to broaden the tent to lessen the influence of these types. Some of them might be pissed enough to leave the party, which we should embrace instead of being terrified of. Long term, a party that only relies on rural/some suburban people is doomed and guys like this are speeding up the process. 4. We have out own version of this guy in Dan Patrick. Full nutjob.
Unfortunately Mr. Hope and Change has polarized this country to an extent that I've never seen (and I'm a Baby Boomer). The blue states are electing extreme Leftists and the red states are electing extreme conservatives. The Left will probably win in the long run mostly because they have the mainstream media on their side. They feed the low information types just what they want them to know. The MSM will be all over this guy, like he was Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann.
Do you really think Bush's lack of popularity was due to the war? I don't buy that - I'm not saying people were excited about it or even in favor of it, but Bush had a 22 percent (or whatever) favorability rating because the economy imploded, not because of the wars that were going on even while he was relatively popular and getting re-elected to a second term. Did McCain lose because people thought he would prolong the occupation in Iraq or invade other countries? Hard to say, but considering he failed as a candidate in so many different areas, it's hard to pinpoint one thing and say "there, that's why he didn't get elected."
"We get these shitbags on both sides because the most radical 5% of each party does the deciding. When it happens in an R or D dominant district, you have a few yokels deciding who goes to congress because the general doesn't matter." I'd agree with you if it actually did go that way in blue-leaning dominant districts. You don't see viable democratic candidates espousing free abortions for everyone, 50-percent income tax rates on the rich, and single-payer health care systems. Genuinely radical (well, reactionary if you're using the political spectrum) points of view on the right are seen as patriotic and "American" when it's a red-dominated district. As stupid and corrupt as Sheila Jackson Lee and Chuck Rangel are, they're infinitely more harmless than people who actually follow through on dangerous ideology from the extreme right. And it wasn't Obama that started the trend towards ultra-partisanship... it was Newt Gingrich and the cabal of uber-rich corporation owners who were pissed that Perot cost the 1992 elections, so they orchestrated the 1994 swap.
I think the whole idea of profiling has been labeled as highly offensive, possibly extreme, when it is rooted in practicality and safety. He goes too far on Islam and Muslims but the topic needs to be addressed more than it is in my opinion. Why all feminists aren't wholly anti-Muslim/Islam due to their treatment of women is beyond me.(taking all religious overtones/undertones/threats out of it) Does anyone not think American Muslims would not impose Sha'ria if they were the majority? That in and of itself is a huge threat to freedoms of all types for all people who are subjected to it. How do you address it without being quiet totally due to fear or being too extreme like this guy mentioned? His opinion on gays doesn't reflect the free society we live in no matter what his personal views are on it. He should talk about respecting the laws while keeping his opinions that run counter to the law to himself or at least say they wouldn't be in place due to the law reflecting otherwise. He is like Ron Paul in that regard, not on gays, but not knowing how to frame what he believes within the context of reality. At least he says what he means, no matter how offensive. I wish the current Executive Branch would say what they mean instead of coating every single word in politico-speak.
How do you address it? This country was founded on religious freedom. Just like the Christians are free to practice their religion, so are the American Muslims. Neither side should be allowed to infringe on the other. Incidentally, I'd think that many women see the christian right as also infringing on their rights. Should they be more concerned with Muslims? At this point in time they don't have near the power or influence that Christians do in this country.
"Does anyone not think American Muslims would not impose Sha'ria if they were the majority?" I don't. Turkey and Albania are decent examples, considering their "European-ness" and the obvious fact that their citizens are like 95 percent Islamic. And it would take some serious swings in representation and constitutional amendments to the tune of 100+ years of precedence and court rulings, etc. in order to achieve even partial Sharia like Egypt (civil matters vs. legal matters).
I have a close friend who is a former Muslim. He said something fascinating to me recently. He said "Islam is not a religion, it is a political system charades as a religion." (that is a paraphrase). I was quite intrigued. He said, the whole goal of Islam has always been to control the world. The religious aspect is secondary.
