I'm claiming that the likes of ISIS and WBC are just as much legitimate practitioners of their faith according to their respective doctrines as the Pope is.
When people say "ISIS aren't "real" muslims" and such, I think it's wilfully ignorant, and this ignorance is pertinent to the current political situation vis-a-vis terrorism and the somewhat related issues surrounding multi-culturalism.
I think the point is a gesture more than anything. Like a parent telling their biological child that they are not their own; it's meant to cut deep.
ISIS and the WBC are symptomatic of the abrahamic religions.
So I think, to an extent, any addressing of ISIS is an address to all theistic religions.
But for example, some reported reasons for people joining ISIS is in response to western foreign policy e.g. in response to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a strictly political, rather than religious, reason for turning to ISIS.
Maybe I'm misled by the media on this, which does love its left-on-left narratives, but the people who went to the conference, the guys screaming about how they won't support a warmonger? My guess is they're from the people he attracts on the left.
I'll put up the analysis again:
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/why-does-sanders-do-better-clinton-against-trump
51,078 sample size. 47% vote Clinton over Trump (24,007) and 52% vote Sanders over Trump (26,888). Difference = 2,881.
2,927 would vote for Sanders, but not Clinton, over Trump. (Given the difference above, it stands to reason that there are a small number of people who would vote Clinton, but not Sanders, against Trump.)
Of these, 31% identify as Democrat. i.e. 907.
So the number of Democrats/left-leaning people who would vote Sanders but not Clinton is exceedingly small (907 compared to 24,007, approx 1/25 or 4%), and some of this is mitigated by those who would support Clinton but not Sanders, against Trump.
And even the small-ish number of left-leaning Sanders supporters threatening not to support Hilary, I suspect it's a threat alone. It's what I would do. Make the establishment scared and see what kind of concessions may come out of it.
It's also interesting the profile of Bern or Bust supporters. 55% claim to be moderate, with equal numbers claiming to be liberal or conservative. 90% either hate or dislike Clinton, which is near enough what Trump supporters are saying, whereas only 60% of the Bern or Bust supporters dislike or hate Trump.
In essence, Bern or Bust supporters are
On the one hand, I agree with a lot of this post.
On the other, I regard it as being full of the sentiment that is doing its bit wrecking politics in general and on the left in particular. And, no matter how sound the principles that lead to a decision, if the decision is to stand in the circular firing squad, then the decision needs urgent re-examining. There is nothing noble or good about the circular firing squad; there is virtually no excuse for going there; it is almost always a betrayal of others. And I think we may have had this argument before in various forms and right now, I am incapable of making it again in greater detail politely.
I think there is a mistaken belief amongst Labour establishment supporters that Labour can still win elections. I don't think it can. Or at least, I don't think it can unless it gets a 1997 style landslide. It would take
However, a few points in general -
Punishing the Democrats is effectively condoning the Republicans as well
The best thing that could happen for the Labour party would be for all involved to build a bridge, get over it and pull in for the big win
It is wise to judge by positives as well as negatives, rather than negatives alone[/quote]
Fundamentally, I think that this line of thinking misses the bigger picture. Smith may do better in a general election against the Tories. Benn or Jarvis even better yet. But no matter who enters the general election as leader, none will win Labour a majority. Labour is too large a house, falling apart under a diverging set of views. The party is divided economically and socially, and there are certain topics on which it is difficult for Labour to take any kind of view without upsetting a big chunk of their members. By Europhilia they upset the working classes and lose support to UKIP, by Eurosceptism they upset their multicultural, urban support, losing them probably to the Liberal Democrats and Greens. By left wing politics, they shed support to the Tories, by right wing politics they shed it any which way, annoying their grassroots and the trade unions in the process. Anti-war campaigners and interventionists both seem to exist in the party in some kind of large measure, and contentious war decisions will always haunt Labour as a result. I feel Labour has reached a breaking point where it cannot sustain itself as an electoral challenger under FPTP. Electoral reform, for me, is both prudent and desirable for the left.
Clive Lewis put out a good read on this today:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...our-could-form-pacts-with-parties-across-left
