Well that has nothing to do with the general election. Not sure what kind of primary system NJ has, but here you have to be a registered member of a party in order to vote in the primary. This means voters aren't choosing between Trump and Sanders. It's different in the open primary system compared to the closed one, where you can vote for anyone but there are still more primaries that are closed.
Because there is something in the constitution about "innocent until proven guilty" while I understand your rhetoric about security you also have to consider that the proposal already assumes otherwise about innocence, since they are made suspect. Obviously, I doubt anybody would be pleased at any insinuation thrown at them, given how serious it may be, especially when the Islamic community in your country is already doing what they can to divorce themselves from such attacks.
It doesn't have to be one or the other, the notion is idiotic, racist and would certainly fail in its objective. The vast majority of people at those neighborhoods are likely just normal people doing normal things... One of ISIS methods to recruit people is by convincing them that the west and the US in general as hostile against them and a threat. You'd think proving them right is first on the list of things to avoid.
Cruz is a horrible person, and anyone who agrees with him or Trump on how to deal with Muslims is trash. It makes no sense to do this because not only does it target innocent Muslims, but it also increases fear of them for no reason. If people really cared about safety, why not go after right wings, Christians, white people, and gun owners? These people are more likely to be (and have been) violent in America than Muslims.
It's not one or the other... For the majority of the country, what you list doesn't put forth an existential threat. It's obvious why people focus on foreign-influenced terrorism. I don't agree with fear-mongering or anything though. I don't see how what either Cruz or Trump says about muslim neighborhoods makes any sense. Last I check, we don't really have the large "enclaves" that some European countries have. I know a place like Dearborn, Michigan has a huge muslim population, but other than that, nothing really stands out to me offhand.
They can't really, due to the Schengen agreement. A country like Germany decides that they'll have an open-door policy, and then the rest of the nations in the EU are kinda fucked as a result.
How do we know they don't put forth an existential threat? Who knows? What if a radical Christian decides that no other religion deserves to live and starts gatherin followers to kill anyone who's not Christian? What if a right winger decides to go after anything left? I'm just saying, the US have more important things to focus on than nearly non-existential threat from Muslim refugees who are vetted so stringently.
What's the point of saying that they might? They don't at the moment. Islamism on the other hand does. Don't see the point in "what ifs" here. How radical are Christians even allowed to be in the west? Not to the point where they blow themselves up to kill innocents en masse. The main problem is that supposed "progressives" make excuses and try to act like jihad has nothing to do with Islam, when it clearly does and is openly preached among some members of the faith. Nothing like that is going on here with Christians or Jews or anyone else. Speaking the truth doesn't mean all critics are trying to foster hate and fear regarding Muslims, but many progressives make so many excuses regarding this and are so afraid of saying the wrong thing that they're doing a massive disservice to the actual problem and any solution it could have.
I don't know about it making things worse. I think that's a false narrative put forth by people on the left. I just think it'd be a waste of time and resources. They do these kind of things in enclaves in Europe apparently, and what does that really prevent? Social integration here is a bit more successful.
Countries in the Schengen area don't have stops between their borders. So a refugee could enter into Germany and then go to Belgium without incident. At least, that's how I understand it.
Different beliefs and ways of Islamist radicals and Christian radicals doing things. Islamist radicals twist the Qu'ran into making it look like suicide attacks gain the favor of Allah, I don't recall the Bible saying that or the leaders saying suicidal attacks are good. Shooting is nearly just as bad as suicide bombing, if not as bad.
Well, going online does suggest that over the years there have been acts labelled as terrorist by the FBI and other such groups that were carried out by Christians, white supremacists and whatever other variety of extremist. In the end as far as statistics show I doubt the paris and belgium attacks would even put a dent in them. Now, that is not to say ISIS and their fanatics aren't a threat, thing is they aren't the only threat around. Of course, in the context of europe right now they have to deal with other issues, such as the circumstances which have allowed for two attacks to be carried out so close to one another. Alienating Muslims and rounding them up would most likely result in more violence in the end.
Who are these christian radicals you're talking about really? Even if a case of domestic terrorism isn't influenced by Islam, how influenced is it by christianity and the bible? They usually aren't. The motivations are typically political before anything else. I don't see how Islamists twist the Qu'ran in any way. They're literalists. It's more that the majority of the Muslim population ignores the passages that condone violence and extremists don't. The same could be said about Christians and Jews and the Bible, but they don't have a portion of their community interpreting scripture literally and using it as an excuse to commit mass-murder as a means to an end.
I understand the fear of alienation, but that shouldn't overrule common sense. How would we go about doing that then? I don't see it having an easy, practical solution. But I do know that acting like terrorism and Islam have no link between one another is disingenuous and counter-productive. And this is something many progressives are all too eager to do.
My point was that I don't even understand how such a thing would be done. So it's a false narrative to say it'll make things worse when I don't think these politicians even understand what they're suggesting. Good police work can cover any of these things. It isn't like muslim communities are being ignored here.
I'm not a fan of Cruz or Trump, but they weren't suggesting "rounding" them up, last I checked.
Because Milly brought up right wingers, Christians, white people, and gun owners as something that people should go after more than islamic extremists. This isn't a matter of having to choose between one or the other as far as preventing these sorts of incidents goes. Discounting the threat of islamic extremism just because domestic terrorism exists as well is a bit nonsensical.
