The point is you have to get into a position where you win by default, first.

Yes I want the Muslims gone and I want the Christians gone too.

Unfortunately only one of those two are immigrating, otherwise I'd vote for you Oh_Man.

Point of interest regarding the differences between Islam and Christianity. We get our word "religion" from the Latin religio, which basically means worship.

The word for religion in Arabic is dīn, which means "way of life". So one could argue that for (many) Muslims their religion informs and influences all aspects of their life, not just in prayer in the mosque or elsewhere.

If Islam is so deeply rooted in people's everyday lives then I suppose you could refer to it as having some features of an ideology. However it is most definitely not a race. Islam has adherents from many different ethnic groups. South Asians (Indians etc.), Arabs, West Africans, East Africans, Chinese, Malays and Indonesians being probably the largest groups.

It would be crazy though to remove any rights/privileges given to religions from Islam. It's one of the Abrahamic religions - it would be like removing rights/privileges from Judaism.

Hopefully the infighting between the different groups will be enough to turn everyone off the whole enterprise, like canceling each other out.

Judaism is both a religion and an ethnic group, and Islam tends towards the arab ethnicity.

One of the issues is profiling. There are certain clothing choices and obvious genetic markers such as skin and hair color that can help people identify where a person is from, and thus their religious beliefs. Unfortunately it's fairly easy to misjudge people on the base of their outward markers, much like the difference between Sikhs and Muslims, or the difference between Koreans and Chinese. We have such systemic racism in this country that it's hard for a lot of us to comprehend what exactly that is. Squabbling about race/gender/sexual preference/religion semantics doesn't help us move towards equality for all, which is what SWJs want.

More direct to the question, it's silly to accept Scientology as a religion and deny Islam as a religion. While the basis of Islam can be interpreted in disgusting and horrific terms, such as amputation of the hand and the death penalty for various offenses, they are often interpreted in a different way or are simply not followed anymore by understanding the meaning behind the words. We do this with virtually all religions, and there are some crazy people out there who refuse to abandon their old beliefs, no matter how archaic. Scientology on the other hand is life ruining, and preys upon thousands of people using cult-like persuasion tactics and virtually infinite supplies of money extorted from their members. While physical harm is rare in Scientology, the psychological harm is immense. You don't see any of that in Islam, as it is a mostly peaceful religion with a devotion to a higher power. Any religiously motivated violence is more than likely economic or power related rather than ideologically motivated.

That being said, the ideology of daesh is not protected by the religion bubble, much like I can't condone a pedophile for their sexual preferences.

To reinforce my assessment: Hillary had more votes than Trump.

While I agree with pretty much all of what you said (except the peaceful part), it does not address the current state of affairs. For example in Mosques the communities at times take upon their own rule system and law system which supercede the laws of the US. Topics like honor killing comes up. It sounds like the definitions and boundary lines of what it means to be a religion need to be revised in some sense, and people are freaking out since many believe Islam to cross a lot of lines that Scientology does not. For example here.

Conceptually I'm sure anyone could practice Islam peacefully, much like Scientology largely practices within the laws of the US. However current state of affairs by and large is very far from peaceful. This is the motivation. It's not so much about religion, but the current violent reality and how to address it. Entire countries that subscribe to Islam are very violent. This is not the case with Christianity due to massive reforms, and is not the case with Scientology.

The United States is the most violent 1st world country, and one of the most Christian. So yeah.

The death penalty for apostasy (and really any penalty) is not listed in the Qur'an. Much of the violent/unfair laws are directly from the Hadith, which are based off Muhammad's actions and example, which are also idiotic to follow because we no longer live in the first millennium.

We shouldn't condemn all Christians for actions of the Westboro Baptist Church or the Klan, just as we shouldn't condemn all Muslims for actions of daesh and other terrorist groups. Tolerance is key.

As idiotic as it is, it still happens in reality. Suadi Arabia is a prime example.

Reminder for those in a tizzy:

Trump has never made a point of social issues, he repeatedly stated he wants to bring Americans together and not divide them. His attacks have been reserved for media, illegal aliens, criminals, and Islamic terrorists (e.g. promising to protect LGBT from Islam.)

Trump is to the left of the democrats on all economic issues (e.g. Affordable Care Act may even simply be amended rather than repealed, the point isn't to get rid of the concept, its to do the same thing but better.)

Trump isn't the type to let his enemies fester... expect him to follow through on cleaning out corruption in the Government, on both sides of the aisle. The Democrats aren't going to win another election for decades.

addendum:

your addendum straight up ignores Pence being his VP and his transition team being members of literal hate groups or supporting debunked practices. Republicans have control of House, Senate, POTUS, VPOTUS, and soon will have more say in the Supreme Court.

They have a lot of power to undo abortion rights and anti-discrimination efforts.

Some more on being angry at general liberal and social justice attitudes/conduct: Sargon of Akkad. Seems I'm not the only one angry at all the despicable racism and regressive intolerance (read Kiwi jjf and Kame in shoutbox -- calling me idiot, racist, ignorant, bigoted, privileged all because I didn't agree with their liberal/SJW opinions). To me Trump represents a direct and factual denial that regressive left-wing intolerance works politically or culturally in the US.

If all you got out of this is "Wow, people sure are racist/sexist" then it's not gonna be just 4 years.

This doesn't make sense to me because Donald Trump didn't get significantly more votes than Romney in 2012. The lack of voter turnout was caused by (surprise, surprise) the two most hated figures in politics.

Donald Trump isn't socially liberal: he's appointed a highly conservative swamp for his cabinet, including climate change deniers and pro life politicians. I suppose that "clearing the swamp" was a good opening argument that he didn't plan on following through on, just like building a wall with Mexico's money.

If we want real change in the US, then we'll switch from first past the post to instant runoff in order to make 3rd party candidates viable.

I'm guessing the idea is that the proportions are what mattered, not necessarily the overall voter count. Also there was a whole lot of factually incorrect infographics being thrown around right as Donald was announced the winner, and many votes had yet to be counted (millions). Just pointing that out in case someone here was not aware.

I can't really tell what you're saying. First past the post to instant runoff? What is that?

Methods of conducting elections.

My point is that people stayed at home rather than going to vote. Look at Colin Kaepernick as an example.

McCain/Palin grabbed 59,948,323 in 2008. Romney/Ryan grabbed 60,933,500 in 2012. Trump/Pence grabbed around 61 million in 2016, but as you say the final vote hasn't come out yet. Just going by popular vote, this is about the same. My point is not the proportions but the overall count. People don't give a shit about the 2018 elections because there's no president, and voter turnout will be depressingly low (somewhere around 20% of the population is my guess). When people don't care which crooked liar is in office, they don't vote, or they throw their vote away to a third party.

Many of those who did vote for Trump did so a la Ted Cruz and because of #NeverHillary. That's because they see Hillary as the ultimate evil who will destroy America and will gladly vote for a pathological narcissistic liar who will literally say whatever to get elected over the devil herself.


First past the post naturally leads to 2 party systems. What happened to the Whigs anyway? You end up voting for the lesser of two evils rather than who should be president. Instant runoff means you vote for 3 candidates in a particular order. If your first choice doesn't get enough first choice votes, you vote instead for your second choice. This way you can vote for a write in candidate or a libertarian without throwing your vote away.

Hillary Clinton won 61,839,563, compared to Trump's 60,860,162 votes. I believe they're still counting votes.

About Hillary Clinton's defeat, democrats can't really blame themselves, blame people who didn't vote, or blame people who voted third party. Technically, it's all about the electoral college.