But having a president who is against Muslims would make it easier for the terrorist groups to recruit Muslims as pawns though. Isn't that one of the reasons why ISIS attacked Paris with fake Syrian passports? They want to turn the entire world against Muslims to make it easier to recruit more Muslims to carry out suicidal attacks.
Like I said, they're already doing this while Obama is in office, they don't need an excuse. Maybe the leaders think it'll be beneficial to their recruiting if Trump is elected, but it may also invite more interventionist policies to combat them as well.
Doubtful, because he'D hurt himself by that.
Doubt it, and either way, a known Muslim opposer being voted as president would be enough to make the Muslims be disenfranchised. If Trump or American citizens do unsavory things, it could very well push more Muslims into the hands of terrorist groups if they promise revenge upon the evil people.
Oh sorry, ya, in my country it's 5 years, it is 4 years in the US of course.
I think M3J is talking about ISIS recruitment tactics as a whole. The obama administration at least has taken some care in regards to the tone it takes towards islam and avoids using terms or speaking in ways which could be interpreted as there being a war between the west and Islam itself. It's the root of the whole "islamic terrorism" debate at the US. And it is worth noting that Isis does use things said by US politicians to boost their propaganda. In context this should be a "don't feed the troll" situation except that the troll is a bloodthirsty terrorist group.
It is very important because again, if the president takes an anti-Muslim stance, then Muslims abroad will think USA is hostile and won't grant them safe asylum. Same with any country, and I'm sure the Brexit thing has pissed off a lot of Muslims and immigrants. I think in one recruiting video, an ISIS used Trump's speech to tell Muslims that it's the West against the Muslimsj, and that the West hate the Muslims.
Example is using Trump's speech to let Muslims know the West/US was against them.
Yes, the odds are against it, but of course Trump can win in November. Let's set the stage with the observation that both candidates start with about 45% support. Like it or not, that's where we are right now. Republicans could nominate Donald Duck and he'd start off with 45% support. Ditto for Democrats. Toss in Trump getting a little smarter and then a few things going his way equals Trump winning here.
Could have; should have; would have; nobody cares about what younger voters want precisely because they didn't show up. What matters is the end-result and the end-result is that a slim majority of voters wanted Brexit. Why? Cultural grievances driven by the influx of immigrants over the last several years. Perhaps another referendum is put up in an attempt to overturn Brexit, but I wouldn't count on it. People have to muster up the will to put the referendum on the ballot and then encourage people, especially young people, to get out and vote. That is going to be increasingly difficult as political opinion on Brexit hardens with the EU's response of "Drop dead!" to the UK.
Trump being able to put another conservative on the court wouldn't have changed either ruling, since the abortion case was 5-3 and the gun case was 6-2. I don't understand how one could argue that people guilty of domestic violence should have zero restrictions on their right to own a gun.
People deserve a second chance to own a recreational device. People guilty of killing people while under the influence even get their licenses back after a few years.
Why are you equating vehicular manslaughter with domestic violence? There's a breadth of difference there as far as maliciousness and intent goes, so I don't know why you're comparing the two.
Are you one who believes that "once a criminal always a criminal"? Just because someone had a run in with domestic violence doesnt mean they will be domestic violence doers for the rest of their life. Im sure many have reformed, and had healthy relationships after receiving help and assistance. I dont see hoards of forever alone domestic violence doers out there. Preventing them from being able to contribute to the betterment of the American economy by purchasing recreational devices and the supplies for them, and disallowing them to participate in some of the oldest pastimes of our great country is simply outrageous.
Both can end in death so they might as well be put on the same wavelength.
Putting animal to fight animal for the sake of nothing else seems unethical.
Why would that be? Coming from your logic, that would be fine since they are much less in number than the animals we eat, and dead is dead.