patrick.net

It's just common sense, you don't bring in refugees from a country you are actively bombing.

What we call terrorists out here, these people might call their saviors.

#politics

Confirmed by the DHS: The two Al Qaeda operatives nabbed by FBI trying to smuggle arms abroad were indeed admitted as Refugees.

Two al Qaeda terrorists who had killed American soldiers were able to enter the country as refugees, according to a report released Wednesday from the House Homeland Security committee.

Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, two Iraqi refugees settled in Bowling Green, Kentucky, after killing American soldiers, whom they bragged about having “for lunch and dinner.” In 2010, they were caught handling weapons, including included a machine gun and a missile launcher, that they planned to smuggle to insurgents in Iraq.

WAPO factchecker: Two Pinnochios to the claim not one refugee has been convicted of terrorism. Why? Relies on overly technical/legalistic definition of Refugee (vs. "Asylum" Status, for example) and "Domestic Terrorism".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/11/19/the-viral-claim-that-not-one-refugee-resettled-since-911-has-been-arrested-on-domestic-terrorism-charge

The Neolib/cons are sneaky bastards. They deliberately mislead with the Technical difference between Asylum and Refugee, with the only major difference being where you apply, knowing that the general public is not composed wholly of Immigration Lawyers who would spot the Shell Game.

YesYNot says

Do you consider the Boston bombers to be refugees and think that they are proof that the refugee program does not work?

I don't see the nepalis and ethiopian christians doing shit in Atlanta. So yes, I guess it works. But I see somalis doing shit in minneapolis and detroit. So no, I guess it doesn't work.

curious2 says

Don't pretend that you're doing "the right thing" when you conscipt other people into getting killed, simply because the statistical risk to you personally is remote.

How noble, enough to make a chicken hawk proud.

curious2 says

Fear of how Muslims will perceive you is a terrible reason to do anything. When they say they want to kill you, whether in the worst possible way or some other way, don't offer to meet them halfway. Religious charlatans don't compromise, they merely wait for the opportunity to fulfill their quest, one step at a time.

My thinking is different having spent time in India the world's largest democracy and 2nd largest muslim population in the world. Most of the comments come from people with limited exposure. Most of these people have never even had close contacts with muslims much less attempted to have a conversation about religion with someone they think is 'moderate'.

I have muslim friends but we never talk about shit like France or Benghazi or religion or anything that most non-muslims would think is stupid about the Quran. Thus my friendships are 'arms-length'.

General rule of thumb: the longer the beard the more likely to be radical.

Of course exceptions exist, but why take a risk trying to help the suicide bomber yelling 'help?'

curious2 says

A very substantial % of Muslims tend to be Muslim first

Muslims in India since the Mughal empire and before still mostly feel this way. Also largest source of insurgency in India as well. But I'm waiting for the apologists to whitewash facts.

Honor killings don't make the news in India, not because it isn't newsworthy, but because talking about it probably would lead to hair-trigger rioting if it;s a muslim. In fairness, It's also fairly common amongst illiterate North Indian hindus also.

At least since 2011, the Supreme Court in India is saying that those involved in honor killings should face the death penalty, reported by none other than the venerable BBC. Still, more than I can say about countries where people prefer Sharia law.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-30125116

Here is some fire for the muslim apologists: honor killing isn't an islamic problem but a 'universal problem'

http://www.meforum.org/3287/hindu-muslim-honor-killings

From article (as I said before reading this) Though no less gruesome, the Hindu honor killings seem largely confined to the north of India and are perpetuated by sociocultural factors largely specific to India. Translation: lower caste Illiterates.

Harry Potter actress beaten and threatened with death for dating non-Muslim...she comes from a liberal muslim family because conservative families wouldn't even support her acting career

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/20/harry-potter-actor-attacked-allegation

Most hated comments are the ones closest to the truth:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340222/Harry-Potter-actress-beaten-branded-prostitute-brother-dating-man-Muslim.html#comments

MMR says

Most hated comments are the ones closest to the truth:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340222/Harry-Potter-actress-beaten-branded-prostitute-brother-dating-man-Muslim.html#comments

Great link thanks.

Fucked By Goats Ironman says

mell says

but to say there is none is a blatant lie.

To say that there is none is to have made something up and put it in the mouth of someone else who never said it. You're lying. Please try not to do that, or at least not to do it so poorly.

Sometimes it's just better to show some grace and not argue every point.even if you think people are overreacting. This hit home for many and the last thing people need is being constantly lectured. Half of the states already made their decision and they did so very clearly, so did many European countries, what is so hard to understand about it?

curious2 says

Fine, go to Syria and help those people clean up. Don't pretend that you're doing "the right thing" when you conscipt other people into getting killed, simply because the statistical risk to you personally is remote. Killing hundreds of people isn't "nothing", especially when the murderers are trying to kill more than that.

By not letting any refugees in, you are conscripting people to die as well. It's just other people. Some of those other people might be refugees, some might be Americans 20 years from now. There are 3 year olds in the US with relatives in Syria and 3 year olds in the refugee areas who are going to be terrorists in 20 years. How many of them will be willing to attack us? Will our actions regarding their lives today make any difference? I would say yes. Paris wasn't nothing, but it was statistically insignificant, as you have already admitted. It's a war against ideology, and we need to set a positive example.

curious2 says

Fear of how Muslims will perceive you is a terrible reason to do anything. When they say they want to kill you, whether in the worst possible way or some other way, don't offer to meet them halfway. Religious charlatans don't compromise, they merely wait for the opportunity to fulfill their quest, one step at a time.

Letting refugees into the country isn't meeting terrorists half way. It is following our principles and doing what we have always done in spite of the terrorists. Shutting our borders, claiming that Islam is inherently violent and evil, and turning this into a holy war is more than meeting the terrorists halfway.

To be clear, I'd be in favor of people entering the country if they have been displaced by and have had people in their family killed by ISIS. It shouldn't be too hard to figure out who is for real by cross checking stories among the refugees. We are talking about a few thousand people out of millions. Obama wants to let in 30 people a day on average.

thunderlips11 says

They deliberately mislead with the Technical difference between Asylum and Refugee

I've already agreed that it was a misleading quote, and your and curious's arguments have clarified it a lot. Just because there haven't been any American lives lost on our soil due to refugees (the vetting system that would be used for Syrian refugees) coming in doesn't mean that there is no danger. The current rise of ISIS creates a new higher level of danger than in the past, but there is also a greater number of non-violent people who need a place to go.

YesYNot says

there is also a greater number of non-violent people who need a place to go.

Wealthy Arab Gulf States. Kuwait expelled 400,000 Palestinians in the 90s, they can put them up in Kuwait in their place.

Saudi Arabia has massive air conditioned tents for the millions for the Hadj season, they're ready to go.

Of course, none of the Gulf States want Christians, Alawites, Not-Sunni-Enough Sunnis, or filthy heretic Shi'a. They're happy to give billions to build Mosques in Germany, with handpicked Sunni Extremist Imams, though.

My understanding is that there are no official UN Syrian refugees in Saudia Arabia, b/c SA doesn't use there system to process people. But, the UN estimates that there are 1/2 million Syrians who have gone to SA. SA claims to have hosted 2.5 million since the start of the conflict.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I'm going to try to stay away from it today for the sake of productivity.

Fucked By Goats Ironman says

It's not hard at all to understand, mell, and I haven't said that people are wrong to distrust whether government can safely vet refugees or anyone for that matter. In fact, I've said accepting refugees right now would be foolish, but for some reason you don't really read what I say you just listen to what you hear.

By the way, reacting in fear is one of the least graceful things one can do. I am not concerned about nor do I fear an *invasion* of the West by ISIS. Neither do I sell short the agony they perpetrate. I fear an overreaction by people who have already forgotten how disastrous the Iraq war was. Blood lust is high right now. I don't owe it to anyone to pretend I support it, no matter how hurt we are by the deaths in Paris. And I don't plan to let you call me a liar without calling bullshit just because you're afraid.

Not sure why you internalize everything, you injected into the discussion of what I called blatant lie which I think is proven by the daily, weekly, monthly incidents, many caused by refugees/immigrants. Nobody said that you made that assertion. So what sort of overreaction have you seen? Not taking in more immigrants is not an overreaction, it's a natural reaction and common sense. Nobody is in the streets demanding the blood of resident immigrants or refugees, they are still being cared for and supported. There's propaganda that people are tired of (what backlash and repercussions?), and there is a difference between smart intake of some immigrants and giving up the roots of your country with unhinged immigration. The US is not there yet, but quite a few metropolitan areas in Europe have already arrived there.

mell says

Not taking in more immigrants is not an overreaction, it's a natural reaction and common sense.

Only take in those that are qualified to contribute something of value to the US economy. Even then it's a risky proposition. Why not simply set up a zone in Syria protected by the US military for those refugees?

The super motivated can simply sneak across the mexican border with the help of coyotes.

YesYNot says

Shutting our borders, claiming that Islam is inherently violent and evil, and turning this into a holy war is more than meeting the terrorists halfway.

Limiting them is a good strategy and spreading them apart so as to minimize the possibility of ghettoization, unlike Europe is a better strategy. Places like Dearborn, MI notwithstanding, muslims in the US are much less likely to be ghettoized as compared to Europe.

Also limiting immigration to people with capacity to work as well as women and children.

YesYNot says

Paris...was statistically insignificant, as you have already admitted.

@YesYNot, try quoting instead of paraphrasing. Otherwise, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem, specifically misreading things to support what you want to believe. For example, to support your false claim that there had been "zero arrests of refugees for terrorism in the US since 2001," you cited a source that listed three. Now, you accuse me of having "admitted" something I never said. I am guessing that you are paraphrasing badly (really mischaracterizing) the comment where I admitted that the two leading causes of death in the U.S. are and will likely remain heart disease and cancer. By your latest illogic, everything else (gun violence, car wrecks) would then be "insignificant" because they don't change the top two. For the record, I NEVER said there was anything insignificant about Paris, and I resent your false and unsourced accusation to the contrary.

YesYNot says

By not letting any refugees in, you are conscripting people to die as well.

Again you use a fallacy to mischaracterize. I never said not to let any refugees in, although I do agree with Thunderlips11 that the Saudis have plenty of space and infrastructure to support the Muslim refugees.

YesYNot says

Letting refugees into the country isn't meeting terrorists half way. It is following our principles and doing what we have always done....

Either you are incredibly ignorant of American history, believing whatever makes you feel good to believe, or you are lying again. Read some of the history around WWII to learn about "what we have always done." Each side may have its own opinion about what we should do, but not its own facts about what America has actually done. I have demonstrated already in this comment three provably false statements from you in this one page, where you were either lying deliberately or did not care enough even to check the facts on the screen in front of you; three strikes and you are out. Stop lying and start quoting.

curious2 says

even if the % murdered is not large enough to change dramatically the overall mortality statistics

I took this to mean that you were basically saying that it didn't change the mortality statistics. I didn't bother going back to look up exactly what you said, so I missed the 'dramatically' part. I figured that admitting that 100 deaths is not statistically significant was sort of obvious. In the US, some 7,000 people die each day. That is 2.6 million per year. Over the 3 years or so since the rise of ISIS, 7.5 million people have died in the US. 100 / 7.5 million is 1 in 75,000. I would call that a statistically insignificant number. Apparently you disagree, but I don't want to put words into your mouth. I would call gun deaths statistically significant, because it is 100 deaths per day in the US. Not 100 per year or per 5 years or however often these events occur (depends on how you measure.)

curious2 says

Either you are incredibly ignorant of American history, believing whatever makes you feel good to believe, or you are lying again. Read some of the history around WWII to learn about "what we have always done."

Jesus, taking things overly literally today? There is no such thing as 'what we have always done, b/c we have done different things over really long time spans. I was referring to what we have been doing over the last 10 years or so - what we have been doing in recent history. The 10 years number is out of memory from my reading on the refugee program. So, look it up if you'd like something more specific, but don't get your panties in a wad if it is a bit wrong. Note there is only one significant figure on the number. In WWII, we put Japanese in internment camps. Most people are embarrassed about that. How do you feel about it? Do you have a point, other than looking for weird interpretations to try to catch me in a lie. Are you going to go back to slavery to find examples of how we did things in the past? It is completely meaningless in the context of this discussion, because it does not reflect our morality today.

First we have this exchange. Here, I am arguing that letting some refugees in is doing the right thing. You tell me that that would be conscripting other people to die.
curious2 says

YesYNot says

We don't have to agree. But it's not about perceptions. It's about doing the right thing, and I believe in cleaning up my own mess... To me, the risk is small and worth taking.

Fine, go to Syria and help those people clean up. Don't pretend that you're doing "the right thing" when you conscipt other people into getting killed, simply because the statistical risk to you personally is remote. Killing hundreds of people isn't "nothing", especially when the murderers are trying to kill more than that.

So, I reply that you can't eliminate risk by being overly cautious regarding the refugees.
curious2 says

YesYNot says

By not letting any refugees in, you are conscripting people to die as well.

Again you use a fallacy to mischaracterize. I never said not to let any refugees in, although I do agree with Thunderlips11 ...

You told me that I would be conscripting people to die by letting in some refugees. Then, you claim that you never said you wouldn't let any in. What kind of rabbit hole is this? It might be hard to figure out what you are arguing for (if anything), because you haven't come out and stated it.

wow, i thought that was just photoshopped, but it's real: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/02/19/new-york-post-unveils-brutal-front-page-targeting-obama-islamic-terror-i-just-dont-see-it/

i'm now more impressed with the new york post than the new york times. which is sad. i loved the times until i concluded that they value PC platitudes above the truth.

i thought that was just photoshopped, but it's real

What makes you think it's real? Rupert Murdoch's NY Post has run altered photos of President Obama in the past, and there appear to be no other sources of this image besides the Post. Are you suggesting the Post used different software other than PhotoShop(tm), and you prefer whatever software was used?

I think he is referring to the text...

curious2 says

i thought that was just photoshopped, but it's real

What makes you think it's real?

SoftShell says

I think he is referring to the text...

Do you mean those letters appeared there in front of the President, magically or by divine intervention, along with the blindfold? Why would the NY Post, a paper with a long history of altering photos of the President, be favored with the sole divine revelation of this particular image?

The whole photo seems obviously altered, but Patrick says that "it's real." Some leftover mushrooms in the coffee today, methinks.

It appears to be sarcasm based on the fact at one time it was not believable that Obama did not see 'islamic terror', he only saw 'criminal behavior'.
Now it is believable.

curious2 says

The whole photo seems obviously altered, but Patrick says that "it's real."

curious2 says

What makes you think it's real?

i'm just saying that the ny post did actually run that cover.

i loved the times until....

I've given up on finding a truly objective source to report comprehensively what is happening.

All of the commercial sources have expressly a commercial agenda: they are getting paid to say what they say, and who pays the piper calls the tune. The NY Times supported the Iraq war and Obamneycare, but the Murdoch sources (Faux Noise, NY Post, etc.) drive their cult with even worse misinformation. I saw recently a surprising headline and read the article, then looked for corroboration, and found that only the Murdoch papers had the story; I searched using a witness quote, and found that the Murdoch papers had spun a story first reported in a different paper: the Murdoch version was so distorted as to be almost unrecognizable, quoting out of context to reflect a funhouse mirror opposite.

Then on the non-profit side, I saw this, not just once but deliberately repeated, so essentially the same falsehood ran on three different broadcasts and remains uncorrected on the website.

I keep trying to follow facts, but it's like looking for needles in haystacks spewed out by self-interested sources on all sides.

curious2 says

I keep trying to follow facts, but it's like looking for needles in haystacks spewed out by self-interested sources on all sides.

maybe there's an opportunity for a kind of snopes.com for the daily news every day, some service which simply correlates stories across different news sources to expose the spin and differences in reporting.

but it's a lot of work. who would do it?

i used to sort-of do that for housing news, but it was too damn much work every day.

who would do it?

Pierre Omidyar funded The Intercept, and it reports very diligently on some topics, but I think the authors tend to overestimate the risk from NSA et al. and underestimate the risk from Islam. For example, Glenn Greenwald is brilliant, but he seems more upset about people allegedly trying to read his e-mail than about people who are expressly trying to kill him.

curious2 says

Pierre Omidyar funded The Intercept, and it reports very diligently on some topics, but I think the authors tend to overestimate the risk from NSA et al. and underestimate the risk from Islam. For example, Glenn Greenwald is brilliant, but he seems more upset about people allegedly trying to read his e-mail than about people who are expressly trying to kill him.

well, i checked out The Intercept, and am disappoint. damn near violates godwin's law right on the home page:

Donald Trump’s neo-fascist campaign has been facilitated by many quarters of the U.S. media.

for those who do not know about godwin's law:

For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.[8] This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_Law

seems to be another example of ultra-PCness blinding people to how quickly islam would have them killed. Glenn Greenwald is both gay and jewish. he'd be murdered in less than 20 minutes in any islamic state.

curious2 says

Pierre Omidyar funded The Intercept, and it reports very diligently on some topics, but I think the authors tend to overestimate the risk from NSA et al. and underestimate the risk from Islam. For example, Glenn Greenwald is brilliant, but he seems more upset about people allegedly trying to read his e-mail than about people who are expressly trying to kill him.

Greenwald - and I'm a fan - also spends alot of time attacking Sam Harris, Dawkins, Ayaan, and many ex-Muslim Whistleblowers.

Of interest:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/sam-harris-the-salon-interview

The profundity of this moral blindness seems to have achieved an almost crystalline form in the person of Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald is a gay, Jewish atheist who would be murdered three times over in scores of Muslim communities for reasons that are unambiguously religious. And yet, he considers any focus on this particular brand of theocracy—even by someone who has suffered under its shadow as much as Ayaan has—to be a sign of malice toward innocent people.When cartoonists get butchered in Paris to shouts of “We have avenged the Prophet!” Greenwald races to his keyboard to castigate the dead, liberal cartoonists for their (nonexistent) bigotry. He allies himself with a group like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and works tirelessly to blur the line between legitimate civil rights concerns and theocratic bullying. These are the people who get Ayaan blacklisted from speaking at universities, and Greenwald has publicly stated that there is no group he is prouder to have collaborated with.

According to Greenwald and the rest of the regressive Left, one can criticize religion in general, but any special focus on Islam must be motivated by bigotry or “Islamophobia.” And on that assumption, many of these people think it’s fair to slander and demonize anyone who does focus on Islam—even a true Muslim reformer like Maajid Nawaz. Maajid is a former Islamist, who now runs a counter-extremist think tank in the UK. And yet for merely entering into a dialogue with me about the prospects of spreading secular, liberal values in the Muslim world, he was branded a “native informant” and a “porch monkey” by Greenwald’s colleague at The Intercept, Murtaza Hussain, and a “lapdog” by Reza Aslan’s employee, Nathan Lean. These people are simply desperate to shut down dialogue on what is fast becoming the most important political and moral question of our time. Everything they do in this area is dishonest and destructive.

thunderlips11 says

Of interest:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/sam-harris-the-salon-interview

Wow. Thanks for letting me know about that. It reminds me of an interview where Noam Chomsky was asked about supporting BDS and then getting excoriated unfairly for having questioned a particular tactic:

"One of the oddities of what’s called the BDS movement is that they can’t—many of the activists just can’t see support as support unless it becomes something like almost worship: repeat the catechism.
***
Unfortunately, the Palestinian solidarity movements have been unusual in their unwillingness to think these things through. That was pointed out recently again by Raja Shehadeh...the Palestinian leadership has tended to focus on what he called absolutes, absolute justice—this is the absolute justice that we want—and not to pay attention to pragmatic policies."

Chomsky quotes the phrase "absolute justice," but I think a more accurate phrase would be absolute submission. Islamic "justice" seems to have a different meaning compared to western expectations:

Saudi Arabia's justice system is based on Islamic Sharia law, and its judges are clerics from the kingdom's ultra-conservative Wahhabi school of Sunni Islam. In the Wahhabi interpretation of Sharia, religious crimes, including blasphemy and apostasy, incur the death penalty.
***
"Questioning the fairness of the courts is to question the justice of the Kingdom and its judicial system based on Islamic law, which guarantees rights and ensures human dignity", Al-Riyadh quoted the justice ministry source as saying.

According to the Koran, apostates, blasphemers, and infidels get "justice" from a sword smiting the neck.

PS He was also dead on about Salon, it's the Newsmax for "Regressive" Identitarian Liberals. The people who say "Outsourcing/Insourcing is Great, screw the Rust Belt Regaan Democrats" then drop tons of ink on bemoaning catcalling or microagressions or other first world problems.

indianguybayarea says

The bible which almost entirely deals with spiritualism still causes contention in american politics because it conflicts with gay rights , women's rights ...etc. now imagine , if it had everything from law and order to how to elect the president in it ?

brilliant comment.

he's talking about sharia of course.

btw, how many muslims has obama imported so far? it's still going on right now, and odds are damn high that some of the imports will massacre random americans again.

I wouldn't let any Muslim refugees in.
I'd be down for sending aid to camps that are housing them, in Muslim nations. That's the Christian thing to do, to be kind to those that mistreat you.
But God doesn't mandate that we put ourselves in danger by inviting in a bunch of people who religiously believe in our destruction.

sorry, but this is unacceptable. islam is utterly incompatible with democracy, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion.

I would argue that religion is utterly incompatible with freedom of speech and to a large extent democracy. Religions simply cannot tolerate some behaviors like abortion even if the majority of the people are in favor of legal first-trimester abortions. Religions also cannot tolerate speech that is irreverent to the religion. Think about all the anti-obscenity laws. Think about the teen arrested for offending Christians by posing for this picture. How the hell does an arrest, nonetheless a prosecution like this take place in a country that has freedom of speech and freedom of religion? The answer: it doesn't. Our country has neither freedom of speech nor freedom of religion.

True freedom of religion is utterly impossible because most religions are intolerant of other religions and cannot coexist. So why should the state favor some religions over others instead of treating them all the same, as privileges that may be tolerated but only to the extend that they do not interfere with the rights of others, or as the destructive agents they are and ban them all?

You will never have any real freedom of religion in any country including the United States. Imagine if your religious beliefs demanded that you did not register with the selective service or did not allow the police to take your photograph or fingerprints or if smoking pot or using other mind-altering drugs was a religious sacrament to you, or if paying taxes violated your religion. The state would not make any of these concessions, so why should any concessions be made for religion?

Even in principle giving religion special privileges that the rest of society does not have is a grave injustice. If a religious person could object to participating in war in any capacity, including as a cook or a janitor, because of his religion, then why shouldn't a non-religious person or an atheist be able to make the same objection on purely moral grounds that have nothing to do with religion. Why should a moral objection not related to religious doctrine carry less weight than one mandated by a religious doctrine?

All protections of religions should be removed. Having the law not apply to you as it does to everyone else because of your delusions should not be a right. Not having your delusions challenged should not be a right. Brainwashing children into believing false things should not be a right.

Islam is worse than Christianity today, but fundamentally, they are both wrong and dangerous for the exact same reasons. Neither should be tolerated, nonetheless receiving preferential treatment from the state. And ultimately, the best way for the western world to prevent an Islamic takeover, which is starting, is to make the secular world rationalist, naturalist, and atheistic.

zzyzzx says

Maybe he doesn't see it because he killed bin Laden and had his body sunk to the bottom of the ocean where sunlight doesn't reach.

This guy literally pulled a mafia hit on the lead terrorist and had him "swim with the fishes".

There are many problems with Obama. Being soft on terrorist isn't one of them.

Doesn't really matter because American Muslims are having more kids than other groups of Americans.
So the Muslim Population of America has reached Escape Velocity anyways.

msm creates muslim bogeyman, Donald "Adolf" Trump wins by by a landslide, vice president takes the reigns just after she witnesses horrific assasination... rinse repeat

watchman says

msm creates muslim bogeyman, Donald "Adolf" Trump wins by by a landslide, vice president takes the reigns just after she witnesses horrific assasination... rinse repeat

could happen that way, sort of, but the msm is not the one shooting down random people in the streets. only super-devout muslims do that. the msm just reports on it.

but yes, every massacre of random civilians by muslims helps the donald, because no one else in the race will even state the words "islamic terrorism", as bill maher so aptly noted.

kind of surprised that the donald has lived this long, since he is clearly threatening to the entrenched parties on both sides.

and yes, he's fairly likely to pick a woman vp because it's politically smart.