Why the does the public swing right when....

[Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.]

There's a shooting or terrorist attack? Like if there's a bad one between now and then, Trump may get a huge bounce.

[Curbstomp]

The public swings right because the terrorists are Muslim.

Just ask the five year old girl raped by Muslim boys in Idaho

[Deblano]

The public swings right because the terrorists are Muslim.

Just ask the five year old girl raped by Muslim boys in Idaho

Snopes said that was a false news story.

http://www.snopes.com/three-syrian-refugees-assault-5-year-old-girl-at-knifepoint/

Nice try though.

[angus]

There's a shooting or terrorist attack? Like if there's a bad one between now and then, Trump may get a huge bounce.

For the same reason that I suck my blood when I cut myself, and for the same reason that I look around to see where my son is when I hear a loud BOOM, and for the same reason that we collectively swing left when there's a sudden economic disequilibrium.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The public swings right because the terrorists are Muslim.

In this day and age, it's because liberals project as being more concerned with protecting Muslims from backlash than anything else.  I believe that Muslims in America ought to be protected from those who would do violence to them.  But I also believe that Americans ought to experience their leaders calling out the ideology (including the religion and philosophy behind the ideology) that drives terrorist attacks.  

Here's a question:  If the whack jobs of the Neo-Confederate movement launched a terrorist attack against anyone in America, let alone a target laden with liberals and/or racial minorities, would Obama be coy as to who was responsible?  Would he not say the words, "Neo-Secessionist White Supremacists"?  I would think he would, and I would hope he would, and I realize that there are lots of folks in the closet that aren't part of such movements, but wouldn't lose sleep if someone else did the dirty work.  Would the concern be to not be overly dramatic, or would there be a strong urge to call these folks out?  

I pray we never learn the answer to this question.  But I also pray that Mr. Obama comes to his senses and recognizes that the American Public NEEDS to hear from him just who is responsible not just for the attacks, but for the current planning for future attacks.  Radical.  Islamic.  Jihadist.  Terrorists.  Americans are asking Obama to put not just his country, but the country he is President of, and has enumerated obligations to, to offend whomever will be offended, even folks in his family and close to him, and call out our enemy.  America needs to see that we come first, even when there's a cost to America coming first.

[RaphaelDLG]

Because the Republican party has long used the campaign tactic of exploiting people's fears (and capacity to be afraid) in order to get elected.  Brain scans have been done of Republicans and Democrats, and Republicans have larger fear centers on average, because they are most susceptible to fear-based campaign appeals.

Attacks like these and the subsequent news coverage make people very afraid (often irrationally so, when they are much more likely to get killed in a single-handgun attack, die in a car crash, or die of diabetes/heart attack than get shot up by an AR-15 mass shooter or killed by a terrorist).  Republicans profit from these increases in fear, regardless of whether the fears are logical or evidence-based.

[SillyAmerican]

In this day and age, it's because liberals project as being more concerned with protecting Muslims from backlash than anything else.  I believe that Muslims in America ought to be protected from those who would do violence to them.  But I also believe that Americans ought to experience their leaders calling out the ideology (including the religion and philosophy behind the ideology) that drives terrorist attacks.  

Here's a question:  If the whack jobs of the Neo-Confederate movement launched a terrorist attack against anyone in America, let alone a target laden with liberals and/or racial minorities, would Obama be coy as to who was responsible?  Would he not say the words, "Neo-Secessionist White Supremacists"?  I would think he would, and I would hope he would, and I realize that there are lots of folks in the closet that aren't part of such movements, but wouldn't lose sleep if someone else did the dirty work.  Would the concern be to not be overly dramatic, or would there be a strong urge to call these folks out?  

I pray we never learn the answer to this question.  But I also pray that Mr. Obama comes to his senses and recognizes that the American Public NEEDS to hear from him just who is responsible not just for the attacks, but for the current planning for future attacks.  Radical.  Islamic.  Jihadist.  Terrorists.  Americans are asking Obama to put not just his country, but the country he is President of, and has enumerated obligations to, to offend whomever will be offended, even folks in his family and close to him, and call out our enemy.  America needs to see that we come first, even when there's a cost to America coming first.

Agree 100%. Citizens are getting sick and tired of being treated like we don't understand what's going on, and we're definitely fed up with having to protect Islamic sensitivities over American lives.

As a result, politicians on the left are generally seen as being less effective when it comes to national security and defense considerations, at least as reflected by recent gallup polls on the subjects of foreign affairs and the military and national defense.

Attacks like these and the subsequent news coverage make people very afraid (often irrationally so, when they are much more likely to get killed in a single-handgun attack, die in a car crash, or die of diabetes/heart attack than get shot up by an AR-15 mass shooter or killed by a terrorist).  Republicans profit from these increases in fear, regardless of whether the fears are logical or evidence-based.

So tell me, why are those on the left so preoccupied with guns every time we have one of these incidents? We don't want to offend Muslims; let's instead work on taking away the rights provided by the 2nd Ammendment. Makes perfect sense, if you don't think about it.

[RaphaelDLG]

Attacks like these and the subsequent news coverage make people very afraid (often irrationally so, when they are much more likely to get killed in a single-handgun attack, die in a car crash, or die of diabetes/heart attack than get shot up by an AR-15 mass shooter or killed by a terrorist).  Republicans profit from these increases in fear, regardless of whether the fears are logical or evidence-based.

So tell me, why are those on the left so preoccupied with guns every time we have one of these incidents? We don't want to offend Muslims; let's instead work on taking away the rights provided by the 2nd Ammendment. Makes perfect sense, if you don't think about it.

The left can certainly be irrational about guns sometimes, but the facts are that
1) the vast majority of gun deaths in the United States have nothing to do with Islam and
2) the United States has an incredibly high rate of gun death compared to other rich countries that have the same level of crime, lower numbers of guns and tighter gun control.  It's simply numbers and logic.  Some people do irrationally freak out over guns or make too big of a deal about certain types of weapons, but overall the facts about the 330 million guns in the United States and their concomitant effect on public health isn't really a particularly alarmist thing to be concerned about.  It's something that is a real, well-documented problem.

In the situations where Islam IS a contributing factor in gun violence like San Bernardino and Orlando, what can you do to address it?  Muslim leaders in America, as you can see in one of the threads below, have been fairly active in reporting suspected extremists.  And ISIS is losing ground and getting their ass kicked in Syria/Iraq (and as a response, is desperately trying to reach out to citizens of foreign countries to get them to inflict pain on the allies in a gamble to get allied countries to stop attacking).  We also have very tight immigration controls compared to, say, the EU. 

But can we really prevent AMERICAN CITIZENS from radicalizing, and if we can't, can we prevent them from committing crimes?  It seems to me that the only way you can do it is by keeping the deadly weapons out of their hands in the first place.  It's not like we can go inside of their minds and wipe out all of the depression, anger, hatred, and radical Islamic ideology.  So tightening access to certain types of guns (handguns in my opinion are a much bigger problem than the AR-15) and making it harder for people with a history of issues to get guns (like the Orlando guy, who had a problem with domestic violence and anger issues) seems like an obvious best bet.

[Santander]

Because it's the right thing to do.

[Enduro]

Because it's the right thing to do.

Great pun.