The New American Politics thread

[ResAlien]

I don't know that the left has ignored Islamic terrorism at all. That someone would think that speaks to the success of the word games the right has played for so long. The President doesn't speak power to "radical Islamic terrorism" so he must be soft on it? This is the same guy who has been murder-droning the middle East for years now.

Or do you mean the general left public and their refusal to vilify an entire religion for the actions of a very vocal and violent minority? Perhaps giving in to fear is the right course of action if that's the only way to make the more simple people feel you're being "strong" on something.

[corporatejay]

I think we can all agree that the far left goes out of the way to apologize for the fringe elements of Islam.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

I think we can all agree that the far left goes out of the way to apologize for the fringe elements of Islam.

Nope

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

I think we can all agree that the far left goes out of the way to apologize for the fringe elements of Islam.

The West are monstrous oppressors. Ergo anyone fighting the West* is struggling against oppression. They may go overboard sometimes, but they're fighting the good fight.

Or so the thinking goes. But when your whole ideology boils down to Bad Daddy, maybe 'thinking' gives too much credit.

* These people are typically too dim or dishonest to acknowledge that Islamic radicals are carrying out terrorism in the Phillipines, Indonesia, India, Nigeria, and other countries that have nothing to do with George W. Bush or Israel.

Edit: And by the far left, I'm talking the Chomskyite Left. The people who see the world strictly through a prism of America/Israel and the people they oppress.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

I think we can all agree that the far left goes out of the way to apologize for the fringe elements of Islam.

I think there's a dramatic difference between "apologizing for the fringe elements" and the refusal to turn millions of innocent people into villains because there are nutjobs carrying out atrocities in the name of a religion that they don't even properly follow.

I think the left is trying to remind people that this is a fight against those fringe elements, against terrorists and extremists, but not a fight against Muslims at large. The left is trying to be inclusive and supportive of those millions of peaceful people who are just as horrified by the awful things ISIS and their followers have carried out.

There is no mistaking that ISIS is a huge problem, everyone is aware of that. But America is not the world's police officer, and often when we have stepped in we've done more harm than good. Beyond that, there are plenty of nations in the region who are refusing to help in the fight against ISIS, and that has to change. We can't keep spending billions and trillions of dollars on never-ending war over there, putting our service members at risk, without support from a large coalition of other countries, especially neighboring Middle-Eastern countries.

I don't think that's the left apologizing for the fringe elements, I think it's just trying to approach the problem with a more thorough process than "Islam is bad."

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The West are monstrous oppressors. Ergo anyone fighting the West* is struggling against oppression. They may go overboard sometimes, but they're fighting the good fight.

Or so the thinking goes. But when your whole ideology boils down to Bad Daddy, maybe 'thinking' gives too much credit.

* These people are typically too dim or dishonest to acknowledge that Islamic radicals are carrying out terrorism in the Phillipines, Indonesia, India, Nigeria, and other countries that have nothing to do with George W. Bush or Israel.

Edit: And by the far left, I'm talking the Chomskyite Left. The people who see the world strictly through a prism of America/Israel and the people they oppress.

Man, you seem like an intelligent dude, but a lot of your posts on the "new left" demonstrate a clear inability to actually comprehend the central theses of many of their arguments, and you continue to hammer on strawmen that you create.

[nik-]

I don't think the left ignores Islamic terrorism either, but I do think that they underestimate this size of the "small minority"

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nik-

I don't think the left ignores Islamic terrorism either, but I do think that they underestimate this size of the "small minority"

I'd agree with that. I also think they're guilty of thinking that you can reason with extremists.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by nik-

I don't think the left ignores Islamic terrorism either, but I do think that they underestimate this size of the "small minority"

To me, it's tough to really know the true extent of the problem.

Zakaria on CNN some time ago discussed the media's role in sensationalizing ISIS's true threat to the world, noting their actual army is roughly 30,000 men or so (if I recall correctly). He reported that in contrast, the U.S. alone could, if they wanted to, easily wipe ISIS off of the face of the Earth. But we all know Islamic terrorism and extremism goes far beyond just ISIS. But how far? How organized are the other groups and what true threats do they even pose?

Is it safe to presume that this type of solution (wiping out ISIS) only adds fuel to the fire? That satellite groups, young people, or new militant jihadists are propped up by this type of aggressive response? How far reaching are the number of Islamic extremists? I just feel like I read and hear about so many of them, that the media focuses so much on them, maybe it's blown out of proportion. However then we see nightclubs shot up, attacks in airports and on the streets of Paris. Is it only sensationalized because the attacks are in western countries backyards? Why isn't Boko Haram ever reported on?

I have lots of questions and I don't think there are clear answers to any of this.

[Vulcan]

I think that some of the problems are caused by US interference over the ages with other countries internal affairs. As Obama's church Minister said "It's the chickens coming home to roost". Having said that there is a line where it devolves from theoretical thinking to a gun pointed at us. That's when it becomes real and we need to defend ourselves.

One thing I like about Obama's foreign policy is that he's trying to stay out of direct interference using American troops while making pacts with countries such as Iran and Cuba.

So what I think that in the end ISIS is the Middle East's problem and they need to solve it.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by peter12

Or if the left had not callously discarded class politics for crude identity politics.

What is this 'left' that you speak of besides some convenient canvas to paint the blame for the rise of the reductionist, nativist populism.

Try this on for a theory. The convergence toward "neo-liberalism," expanding trade and wealth without a proper release valve to compensate the losers is at the core of this movement. Is the Left responsible for this?

Sure some/many/most of the rage-filled populist right are animated by the loss of cultural standing and that identity politics is an easy donkey to pin that on. But the more base level action going on is lack of opportunity in these communities. Lack of the sense that they're getting a share of the benefits which they aren't and that's a product of supply-side politics. It's no coincidence that the first public executions were the vulnerable right wing politicians who embodied the grift of low taxes and other right-wing economic parables.

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Do you really think Obama (leader of the Dems for 8 years) is such a driver? Or that there is a counterpoint on the "left" to institutions like the NRA?

He is certainly not innocent. I believe it was 2007, when he talked about white rural Americans "clinging to their guns and religion...."

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

He is certainly not innocent. I believe it was 2007, when he talked about white rural Americans "clinging to their guns and religion...."

My favourite part of quotes is context

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Another great example of the Fox News sound bite having more power than reality.

[Looch City]

U.S. officials say American Muslims do report extremist threats
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-fl...-idUSKCN0Z213U

Muslim-Americans have repeatedly informed authorities of fellow Muslims they fear might be turning to extremism, law enforcement officials say, contrary to a claim by presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump this week.

But FBI director James Comey said, "They do not want people committing violence, either in their community or in the name of their faith, and so some of our most productive relationships are with people who see things and tell us things who happen to be Muslim.

“I personally have been called by community members about several things, very significant things,” Downing told Reuters. “What we say to communities is that we don’t want you to profile humans, we want you to profile behavior.”

What's that? Trump caught lying again?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

What's that? Trump caught lying again?

A) Is it a lie if you believe it to be true?

B) Does it matter?

[Flash Walken]

The american political system long ago entered a realm where truth and facts are meaningless, lies don't matter and misrepresenting your opponent's position is the best way to demonize them.

This is a result of the US lacking any serious journalism. That pillar fell to media deregulation and the democracy it supported fell with it.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

He is certainly not innocent. I believe it was 2007, when he talked about white rural Americans "clinging to their guns and religion...."

Palin, "clutching our god and guns and constitution"

maybe both.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

One thing I like about Obama's foreign policy is that he's trying to stay out of direct interference using American troops while making pacts with countries such as Iran and Cuba.

So what I think that in the end ISIS is the Middle East's problem and they need to solve it.

Bush invaded Iraq and look at the ME now.
I think Obamas, policy of letting them figure it out for themselves is brilliant. How long has it taken Iraq to start fighting back against ISIS? They have some help from the US, but not a ground invasion like the Republicans want to do.
Countries fighting each other in the ME may go on forever, but hopefully there can be a coalition of some of these groups, Kurds etc. that fight terrorist groups like ISIS. Maybe even lead to a more effective diversified government.

[AltaGuy]

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Weird. That sounds... prescient. But yeah, let's blame both left and right equally, because that's just fair.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Man, you seem like an intelligent dude, but a lot of your posts on the "new left" demonstrate a clear inability to actually comprehend the central theses of many of their arguments, and you continue to hammer on strawmen that you create.

Have you ever actually listened to Noam Chomsky speak, or read one of his books? He makes no bones of the fact that he's only interested in bad things the U.S. and its lackeys like Israel do on the world stage. If you haven't encountered the kind of dogmatic leftist who will trace back any crime perpetrated by any regime in the world to the sinister influence of the U.S., then you've led a pretty sheltered life.