patrick.net

MrMagic says

Wages... gee, they're neck and neck...

These numbers more impressive for Trump as he didn't take office near the trough of a recession.

Aphroman says

Look you lost, get over it. Stop destroying America and the lives of Americans

Uh, my preferred party controls all 3 branches of government. Try Again.

LeonDurham says

lol--again with the "it's the House's fault when Dems control the House, and the President's fault when Dems control the Presidency"? Give it a break

Opposite of what I said. Democrats ramped up the deficit. It was the Republican take back that saw them pass a Budget Act that greatly slowed down deficit spending. I cited the exact spending bill and gave the date: citing chapter and verse.

LeonDurham says

Trump is creating FEWER jobs. The only change from one 20 month period to the next is the President. Jobs created has gone down.

Again, you're comparing a few quarters after the worse recession since WW2 to 10 years after it. Considering that, Trump's job creation numbers are about as strong, which is very, very impressive, and Obama's numbers are actually quite sluggish given the depth of the decline.

Aphroman says

why would any of that lead to support for Republicans? Heritage Foundation Care is a Republican legislation, which is why even after whinging about it 24/7 for years, and constantly campaigning to do away with it, once in power nothing changed

Republicans repealed the mandate, so that was change.

Also, in a polarized 2-party environment, Obamneycare (FKA Hillary's Plan) depressed Democrats and angered and motivated Republicans, thus putting Democrats at a disadvantage. After enacting that legislation, Democrats suffered the worst midterm loss of any party in more than 70 years, and have never recovered.

Also, from a fundraising POV, the tsunami of Obamneycare (FKA Hillary's Plan) money favors the party in power, and tends to favor Republicans. Sometimes a party shoots itself in the foot, but Obamneycare is a cannon with which the DNC shot off its own legs.

Aphroman says

Wrt muslims, the Republicans are over in Saudi Barbaria on the knee, kissing the princes ass. The country responsible for 9/11 gets left off the travel ban list?

That was Pence. Pence claimed (falsely) that Trump's proposed Muslim ban would be unconstitutional. They compromised on a territory ban, which allowed KSA to remain in Petrodollar grace despite obvious connections to Islamic terror attacks worldwide including in the USA.

LeonDurham says

But as further background, you should be aware that the Federal Government cannot restrict said travel based on one's religion.

That was Pence's view, so you agree with him there. In the context of non-resident aliens, it is false. A billion foreign Muslims do not have a right to travel here and kill disbelievers, even though their religion commands them to do that. They do not have a right to immigrate here, either. If Trump had proceeded with the ban that he suggested, we would have had an opportunity to see a definitive decision on that point, but meanwhile you and Pence can continue to claim something that has no support in the Constitution nor precedent. Bizarrely, Democrats (and ONLY Democrats) on SCOTUS did appear to agree with you and Pence in the most recent decision on this point, which is another reason why many people think Democrats have gone bonkers about Islam and are demanding to spread it.

BTW, you keep calling Islam the "underdog," which is ridiculous. I wonder if the people whose heads got cut off by Jihadi John thought, gee, it's the underdog, that makes it OK. It is more like a wolf than a dog. By your pattern of cheering the "underdog," Democrats would cheer the election of a Nazi, since the Nazis lost and are now rare and thus the underdog, and besides the founding Nazis agreed with the leading Muslims of their day that their beliefs were very similar. Your "underdog" nonsense gives rise to the "cultural Marxism" argument, i.e. if Muslims/Nazis are the "underdog" then you want to elevate them without considering why or thinking through the consequences.

LeonDurham says

complete lie

No JoeyJoeJoeJr/Tatupu70/LeonDurham, I linked facts and names to prove Democrats were demanding to spread Islam, and you are the one who has lied, which is why you keep changing names: your lies destroy the credibility of each name, so you move on to another, until that name is also ruined. When you are proven wrong, you accuse everyone else of lying and dishonest arguments when instead you should apologize. That is trolling.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Again, you're comparing a few quarters after the worse recession since WW2 to 10 years after it. Considering that, Trump's job creation numbers are about as strong, which is very, very impressive, and Obama's numbers are actually quite sluggish given the depth of the decline.

huh? I'm comparing the 20 months before Trump's election with the 20 months after it. You are factually incorrect again.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Opposite of what I said. Democrats ramped up the deficit. It was the Republican take back that saw them pass a Budget Act that greatly slowed down deficit spending. I cited the exact spending bill and gave the date: citing chapter and verse.

No, it's exactly what you said. Obama negotiated and signed the bill yet you somehow give the credit to the House. That's dishonest and wrong.

LeonDurham says

And, fwiw, I'm not saying Trump has caused the economy to create fewer jobs (although his tax plan almost certainly is a cause), I'm just trying to educate the Trump cultists that the economy has actually gotten worse under Trump.

Totally ridiculous claim.
Low unemployment not seen since 2000, tied for the best since 1969.
Best Youth Unemployment numbers in half a century.
Minority Unemployment hits record lows.
Stock Market near all time highs.
4% Qtrly GDP growth NOT linked to the expected recovery from a recession.
Small Biz and Consumer Confidence approaching or surpassing all time highs.

The only thing sluggish is wages, but those have been largely disassociated from productivity gains since the 1970s. Greatly restricting immigration will help with that.

In Contrast, back when Obama was bragging about an anemic 90,000 jobs per month coming out of a recession (which lagged behind population growth), Trump is creating more than double that far from the last recession.

LeonDurham says

Obama negotiated and signed the bill yet you somehow give the credit to the House. That's dishonest and wrong.

I just want to preserve this.

Previously, when I pointed out that sequestration devastated medical research (thus protecting entrenched PhRMA revenue from disruptive innovation), Democrats blamed Congressional Republicans. (iwog and cabron even went so far as to blame the Republicans for Obamacare, which Democrats enacted on a party line vote against unanimous Republican opposition.)

Now, you call iwog and cabron dishonest and wrong.

curious2 says

That was Pence's view, so you agree with him there. In the context of non-resident aliens, it is false. A billion foreign Muslims do not have a right to travel here and kill disbelievers, even though their religion commands them to do that. They do not have a right to immigrate here, either.

I think you are arguing another strawman. Nobody is saying anyone has a right to immigrate here. Banning based on religion would violate the First Amendment and probably the 5th Amendment, however, and would be illegal. That's why the ban eventually got written as it did, banning people from certain countries. Unfortunately, Trump was already on record with the intent so it's been a mess in the courts.

curious2 says

which is another reason why many people think Democrats have gone bonkers about Islam and are demanding to spread it.

Many people? You're the only one I've ever seen state that lie.
curious2 says

, I linked facts and names to prove Democrats were demanding to spread Islam, and you are the one who has lied, which is why you keep changing names: your lies destroy the credibility of each name, so you move on to another, until that name is also ruined. When you are proven wrong, you accuse everyone else of lying and dishonest arguments when instead you should apologize. That is trolling.

lol--you did nothing of the sort. You posted some links, NONE of them said anything about Dems demanding to spread Islam. Which is why you didn't simply provide a quote from any of them making such a statement. More lies.

curious2 says

BTW, you keep calling Islam then "underdog," which is ridiculous.

And another lie. I did nothing of the sort. Can you not tell the difference between a person and a religion?

Continuing to post lies and strawman arguments like you do is trolling. It is much worse than calling someone a name.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Totally ridiculous claim.
Low unemployment not seen since 2000, tied for the best since 1969.
Best Youth Unemployment numbers in half a century.
Minority Unemployment hits record lows.
Stock Market near all time highs.
4% Qtrly GDP growth NOT linked to the expected recovery from a recession.
Small Biz and Consumer Confidence approaching or surpassing all time highs.

The only thing sluggish is wages, but those have been largely disassociated from productivity gains since the 1970s. Greatly restricting immigration will help with that.

In Contrast, back when Obama was bragging about an anemic 90,000 jobs per month coming out of a recession (which lagged behind population growth), Trump is creating more than double that far from the last recession.

Again--the economy has simply followed the same trend lines that were established under Obama, except they've gotten slightly worse under Trump. Jobs created is worse. Real wages are worse.

And Obama's consecutive quarters averaging 5% growth were years after the recession ended. They weren't linked to the recovery.

LeonDurham says

No, it's exactly what you said. Obama negotiated and signed the bill yet you somehow give the credit to the House. That's dishonest and wrong.

Right, he just happened to do that after the Dems lost the House. He HAD to sign the bill because it was popular and the Republicans cleaned up in the elections on a wave of popularity.

Again, a new Republican House initiative, not the President's.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Right, he just happened to do that after the Dems lost the House. He HAD to sign the bill because it was popular and the Republicans cleaned up in the elections on a wave of popularity.

Again, a new Republican House initiative, not the President's.

That's complete BS. Here's what the GOP says:

https://www.gop.gov/fact-its-president-obamas-sequester/





(mic drop)

WOW, that's totally incorrect.

Obama was desperate to prevent the House Initiated Plan and did everything possible to weaken it. Eventually a compromise was reached after many threats of shutting the government down.

In 2011 the Republicans grudging raised the Debt Ceiling but only if there would be deficit cuts going forward.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/174925-boehner-i-got-98-percent-of-what-i-wanted-in-debt-deal

If the Obama White House was so in favor of the Sequester, why did they issue Press Releases demonizing it like this?
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2013/02/22/what-sequester

Fact: Obama was pressured into agreeing to the Sequester, he finally went along with a compromise plan to save face. The push for the sequester came from the House Republicans, NOT the Obama WH.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

WOW, that's totally incorrect.

Talk to the GOP. It's their website. You're not suggesting they are dishonest?? Are you??

Truth is Obama probably did suggest the sequester to force the GOP to get serious on negotiations, but the Republicans overplayed their hand so Obama was forced into accepting the sequester. Neither side really wanted it. There was no push from either side.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

In 2011 the Republicans grudging raised the Debt Ceiling but only if there would be deficit cuts going forward.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/174925-boehner-i-got-98-percent-of-what-i-wanted-in-debt-deal

This is pretty hilarious though and shows plainly what a bunch of dishonest hypocrites the GOP has become. They only care about debt and deficits when there is a Dem President. How anyone can support these clowns is beyond me.

P.S. This 2015 Politico article describes the split within the Democratic party with regard to spreading Islam into NATO. The pro-Islamic faction prevailed, overruling the concerns and objections that other Democrats (including from CA and NY) had expressed. Hillary Clinton campaigned on increasing the spread of Islam in emulation of Angela Merkel, and John Conyers and other Democrats demanded even more, and Democrats lost.

In the context of Syrians, some Republicans suggested bringing in Christians but not Muslims, and President Obama got offended. (I didn't see him call it unconstitutional, merely "offensive.") In practice, the "Syrians" (or migrants from elsewhere who bought Syrian documents from ISIL) were 97% Sunni; the Christian and Shia Syrians were sheltering with Assad, partly because Muslim migrants were murdering Christians in transit. The ISIL videos showing Islamic decapitations of Christians on the north shore of Africa provided further evidence of what Muslims were doing to Christians in transit, and dissuaded many Christians from attempting the journey.

The website iSideWith presented Democrats vs Republicans regarding Syria specifically, though in practice most of the migrants were single Muslim men and not necessarily Syrian, contrary to what the iSideWith questions might lead one to believe. Even with that, any voter considering the major parties' positions on spreading Islam would likely know of Hillary Clinton's demands to increase the spread of Islam on behalf of her Saudi clients (indeed, Hillary's War was the major factor driving Muslims into NATO at that time) vs Donald Trump's suggestion to stop it. It was a clear choice, and the Democrats who expressed concern based on polls were overruled, and we saw the results.

I haven't seen Democrats acknowledge any need to change the platform in order to win. To the contrary, Democrats seem to follow the pattern of JoeyJoeJoeJr/Tatupu70/LeonDurham: call everyone liars, claim Russia stole the election, and double down on the same things that lost last time. So, I don't foresee a blue wave, but time will tell. I did hope Democrats might get tired of losing and consider changing the agenda, but I don't see that happening yet. Maybe another midterm loss might do it, otherwise 2020.

curious2 says

Hillary Clinton campaigned on increasing the spread of Islam in emulation of Angela Merkel, and John Conyers and other Democrats demanded even more, and Democrats lost.

Nope. Taking refugees does not equal increasing the spreading of Islam. That is another lie.

Spreading Islam implies actively encouraging people to convert to Islam. That is most certainly not part of the Dem platform and nothing that Clinton campaigned on.

curious2 says

I haven't seen Democrats acknowledge any need to change the platform in order to win. To the contrary, Democrats seem to follow the pattern of JoeyJoeJoeJr/Tatupu70/LeonDurham: call everyone liars, claim Russia stole the election, and double down on the same things that lost last time. So, I don't foresee a blue wave, but time will tell. I did hope Democrats might get tired of losing and consider changing the agenda, but I don't see that happening yet. Maybe another midterm loss might do it, otherwise 2020.

I don't call everyone liars, just those that lie. Unfortunately, that does cover Trump and a lot of his cultists.

Actually Dems learned the most important lesson of 2016--don't nominate bad candidates that don't represent the party.

I do agree with Patrick's point from a different thread that Dems need to highlight their platform that they are the party of labor, however. That has been a winning strategy.

LeonDurham says

Taking refugees does not equal increasing the spreading of Islam.

Actually, it does.

Islam spreads when Muslims infect other people with these ideas:

1. Muslims have been wronged throughout history and should feel resentment. Resentment is the sole mood of the Koran.
2. Muslims then have the right, just because they are Muslims, to murder non-Muslims men, take their property, and enslave and rape the women and children.
3. Islam is a just and fair religion because it allows select non-Muslims (Christians and Jews) to bow and submit and pay an annual ransom to keep their lives and property.

I am not exaggerating or misrepresenting anything. That is Islam in a nutshell, officially documented and easily discovered with a little searching, and it has been a very successful algorithm for those who wish to justify robbery, rape, and murder just like Mohammed did.

Islam is the opposite of all Western values. It does not belong here. It is violently intolerant of all other religions.

LeonDurham says

Spreading Islam implies

No, that is a lie. Spreading it can be and is usually accomplished by migration, i.e. Hijrah. Read about the original Islamic "refugees," and what happened to the people of Yathrib, who made the horrible mistake of importing them. Within 5 years of the "perfect" and exemplary Mohamad's arrival, he and his followers had killed, exiled, or enslaved the entire original population. That is actually the Islamic history, though "justified" with Mohamad hearing imaginary voices from Gabriel, and other lies.

BTW, today, Medina (FKA Yathrib) is off limits to non-Muslims. Why don't you demand a right to immigrate to KSA, or at least to visit Medina? You might learn something about your lies.

cali says

Actually, it does.

Not sure how anyone can say that taking in persecuted refugees = spreading Islam. I think the real argument that needs to be made is that Islam is not a religion that the US recognizes due to its violent nature. It would make all the decisions much easier. Not sure why that is never discussed.

LeonDurham says

that is never discussed.

It is discussed, including on PatNet, so that is another lie from you. As candidate Trump said, Islam hates us. It is a totalitarian doctrine that commands the violent overthrow of our government, and hides behind the beard of a religion.

LeonDurham says

refugees

When you attempt to visit Medina, please ask KSA why they don't take in the allegedly persecuted Muslim refugees. If you recall, KSA's "contribution" was to offer "charitably" to build Wahabi mosques for them, in NATO countries. Meanwhile, Hillary's War on behalf of her Saudi and corporate clients was the very force driving many of those Muslims into those Muslim countries, thus spreading Islam, which she campaigned on escalating.

curious2 says

BTW, today, Medina (FKA Yathrib) is off limits to non-Muslims. Why don't you demand a right to immigrate to KSA, or at least visit Medina? You might learn something about your lies.

No, it's no lie. There are already Muslims in the US so adding more is not spreading anything.


curious2 says

BTW, today, Medina (FKA Yathrib) is off limits to non-Muslims. Why don't you demand a right to immigrate to KSA, or at least visit Medina? You might learn something about your lies.

Not sure what you are even trying to say here. I'm not pro-Muslim. I'm pro--US staying true to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. See my previous post--declare that Islam is not a recognized religion due to its violent nature.

curious2 says

visit Medina?

www.youtube.com/embed/63ZIf2H9S0E

Leon do you understand a difference between some Muslims and too many? Few are a minority which has to immerse. Too many and they change the country.

LeonDurham says

curious2 says

BTW, today, Medina (FKA Yathrib) is off limits to non-Muslims. Why don't you demand a right to immigrate to KSA, or at least visit Medina? You might learn something about your lies.

No, it's no lie. There are already Muslims in the US so adding more is not spreading anything.


curious2 says

BTW, today, Medina (FKA Yathrib) is off limits to non-Muslims. Why don't you demand a right to immigrate to KSA, or at least visit Medina? You might learn something about your lies.

Not sure what you are even trying to say here. I'm not pro-Muslim. I'm pro--US staying true to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. See my previous post--declare that Islam is not a recognized religion due to its violent nature.

LeonDurham says

See my previous post--declare that Islam is not a recognized religion due to its violent nature.

Did you flunk out of law school or something?

Here's the Establishment Clause ...

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

Excerpt: "The Establishment Clause is a limitation placed upon the United States Congress preventing it from passing legislation respecting an establishment of religion. The second half of the Establishment Clause inherently prohibits the government from preferring any one religion over another. While the Establishment Clause does prohibit Congress from preferring or elevating one religion over another, it does not prohibit the government's entry into the religious domain to make accommodations for religious observances and practices in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause. "

In other words, society needs to realize that Islam is in fact, a religion, derived from ancient Arabia, today, known as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Unless some anthropologist can prove this wrong, it stands as a fact.

And since the 1965 Immigration Act, the US govt stopped discriminating against race & skin color during immigration procedures, unlike before. So in order to protect the Cambodian & Vietnamese Buddhists, the Indian & Nepalese Hindus, along with the South American Catholics, the US needs to vet out migration from nation-states, known to harbor Islamists, a.k.a Muslim majority nations.

Is this so difficult to figure out?

Rin says

Establishment Clause

...does not really apply in the context of non-resident aliens outside the USA. Nothing in the establishment clause gives foreign Muslims a right to immigrate or even visit, much less a right to subsidies as "refugees." Islam commands believers to go to Mecca, in KSA; a travel ban against entering the USA does not prohibit that.

The place for Muslim migrants to go would be KSA, since they are commanded to go there anyway. KSA, being already Islamic, doesn't need more Muslims, so KSA uses Clinton & Merkel to send them into NATO instead.

curious2 says

...does not really apply in the context of non-resident aliens. Nothing in the establishment clause gives foreign Muslims a right to immigrate or even visit, much less a right to subsidies as "refugees." A travel ban does not prevent foreign Muslims from exercising their religion, which BTW commands them to go to Mecca, which is in KSA.

My point was that LeonDurham wanted the US govt to officially declare that "Islam not a recognized religion" when in fact, the US govt does not have that authority. Plus, zero anthropologists would even attempt such a trite argument.

Instead, the only hope the US has is to prevent entrants from Muslim majority nation-states into the US which does a couple of things, one, minimize the Orlando Shooter repeaters, and two, allow the entrance of Chileans, Vietnamese, & Koreans, since it's not about race/color but instead, a propensity for exporting violent ideologies like Islam.

Rin says

violent ideologies like Islam.

That's the key, IMO. US law has long excluded advocates of a totalitarian doctrine, and people who advocate the violent overthrow of our government. Islam fits both categories. Whether it's a religion is irrelevant. A Muslim does not have a right to cut off your head, even though his religion commands him to do it. The USA has every right to stop totalitarians and advocates of violence at the border, even a duty to do so, regardless of whether the foreigners' motives are religious or secular.

Even domestically, governments can prohibit murder, even though that prohibits part of Islam. The establishment clause does not preclude laws of general application. It would be interesting to see Muslims argue that the law against murder prohibits them from exercising their religion, e.g. honor killings. They would probably get support from some on PatNet.

curious2 says

Even domestically, governments can prohibit murder, even though that prohibits part of Islam. The establishment clause does not preclude laws of general application. It would be interesting to see Muslims argue that the law against murder prohibits them from exercising their religion, e.g. honor killings.

And that's fine because domestically ... murder, extortion, & kidnapping are already on the books so in effect, it's a matter of local & federal agencies doing their job and not kowtowing to some idiot Imam cult leaders, who feel that they can advocate mass violence at their mosques w/o being picked up by the police. Realize, the same goes for PatNet, if someone here tells anyone to knock someone off, that person can be charged for a crime.

curious2 says

The USA has every right to stop totalitarians and advocates of violence at the border, even a duty to do so, regardless of whether the foreigners' motives are religious or secular.

Yes, which is why Leon's argument that this was racism was a Straw Man. So far, I'm yet to hear of Cambodian Buddhists immigrating to the US to blow up buses and shopping centers.

curious2 says

It is discussed, including on PatNet, so that is another lie from you. As candidate Trump said, Islam hates us. It is a totalitarian doctrine that commands the violent overthrow of our government, and hides behind the beard of a religion.

OK--point me to a discussion of declaring that Islam a=is not a religion. Perhaps I missed it.

Rin says

Did you flunk out of law school or something?

lol. I referenced the Establishment Clause earlier in my posts so obviously not. Perhaps you need a primer on reading comprehension.


Rin says

Excerpt: "The Establishment Clause is a limitation placed upon the United States Congress preventing it from passing legislation respecting an establishment of religion. The second half of the Establishment Clause inherently prohibits the government from preferring any one religion over another. While the Establishment Clause does prohibit Congress from preferring or elevating one religion over another, it does not prohibit the government's entry into the religious domain to make accommodations for religious observances and practices in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause. "

In other words, society needs to realize that Islam is in fact, a religion, derived from ancient Arabia, today, known as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Unless some anthropologist can prove this wrong, it stands as a fact.

No, your "in other words" is not at all a summation of the prior clause. If one declares that Islam is NOT a religion, clearly one is not preferring one religion over another. That should be obvious. That is the entire purpose behind declaring that it's not a religion.

Rin says

My point was that LeonDurham wanted the US govt to officially declare that "Islam not a recognized religion" when in fact, the US govt does not have that authority.

OK-that may be true, but what is the law that defines the requirements for an established religion that the US must recognize?

Rin says

Yes, which is why Leon's argument that this was racism was a Straw Man. So far, I'm yet to hear of Cambodian Buddhists immigrating to the US to blow up buses and shopping centers.

And that's why I would NEVER and did NEVER make such an argument. Please do not put words in my mouth (or post in this case).


#1--we're talking about religion, not race. Why in the world you would think I ever said anything about racism is beyond me.
#2--I've simply commented on the law

LeonDurham says

That is the entire purpose behind declaring that it's not a religion.

So an expert panel (pick any of the universities a/o think tanks of the globe) of anthropologists, historians, and political scientists are going to say that 'Islam is NOT a religion of the ppls of Arabia'? So who was the First Caliphate, Abu Bakr, aside from being a believer in the visions of the prophet Mohamed? If that's not a religion, which really is little more than an oversized cult, then what is?

Wasn't that essentially Paul of Tarsas's role, when he spread the stories of Jesus throughout the ethnic Greek majority Anatolia and the rest of the Roman Empire? And at least the first Caliphate knew Mohamed in person whereas Paul only saw Jesus in a vision, while he was having a nervous breakdown near Damascus.

This is basically the Ignatius Loyola technique of the middle ages ...

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Loyola

Iggy said: "what I see as white is black, if the hierarchic Church defines it thus."

Sorry, that doesn't fly in the modern world. That's called denial.

Today, the definition is clear ... Islam is a religion but a religion of cultural [ see Arabic culture ] expansion & violence. Hence, not being Arabians, we (meaning the west) do not want their values and customs in our society.

So yes, the US govt can restrict immigration from Islamic majority countries, and domestically, toss Imams in jail for advocating violence on the local populations.

Rin says

So yes, the US govt can restrict immigration from Islamic majority countries, and domestically, toss Imams in jail for advocating violence on the local populations.

I agree with this. Unfortunately, Trump opened his big mouth and declared that he was going to ban Musliims, not ban people from certain countries. Therefore, even when the directive was written to ban people from certain countries, courts have ruled that his intention is clearly to ban Muslims, which they find to be unconstitutional.

Rin says

So an expert panel (pick any of the universities a/o think tanks of the globe) of anthropologists, historians, and political scientists are going to say that 'Islam is NOT a religion of the ppls of Arabia'? So who was the First Caliphate, Abu Bakr, aside from being a believer in the visions of the prophet Mohamed? If that's not a religion, which really is little more than an oversized cult, then what is?

Is that the standard for legally recognizing a religion? A panel of experts? I've not seen anything that sets a legal standard, so that's an honest question.

Travel Ban Upheld by highest Court.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/us/politics/supreme-court-trump-travel-ban.html

LeonDurham says

Is that the standard for legally recognizing a religion? A panel of experts?

The IRS and the courts seem to determine what is a "legitimate" religion. The IRS determines tax exempt status (my opinion is this should be revoked for all religions) I would guess they have written criteria for this, but don't know. I remember years ago the Native American religion that used peyote as part of its, in my opinion, legit religious ceremony lost in court when trying to get a waiver from the law outlawing peyote's use and possession. I think there has subsequently been some accommodation. Clearly the law as it is interpreted favors established so called mainstream religions. Islam falls into that category whether you like it or not. Some countries such as Russia have "officially" recognized religions and they do not recognize others, they banned Jehovah's Witness a few years ago. I don't believe U.S. can do this due to the establishment clause.

I think that the republicans will lose a few seats in the House, but will not lose the majority. They should probably keep the majority in the Senate, as well. The economy has improved so much under Trump that people will vote their pocket books. The job gains under Obama were all part time jobs. There have been millions of full time jobs created under Trump and many part time jobs converted to full time (these are not fully reflected in the job numbers). It is not just a continuation of a trend, the full time jobs now being created mean a much better economy.

rdm says

LeonDurham says

Is that the standard for legally recognizing a religion? A panel of experts?

The IRS and the courts seem to determine what is a "legitimate" religion.

Which loops back to the main point, what is our judiciary system?... aside from being a panel of legally trained experts, albeit, over represented by places like Harvard or Yale Law Schools.

And yes, these judges will defer to the expert opinions of anthropologists, historians, and political scientists as to whether or not Islam is a religion or not. And since most would concur that it was a religion, then that pathway won't work.

Let's just hope that they reach out from beyond Harvard and Yale. That's too much Ivy league incest.