monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

But enough that there is a big problem within Islam that needs to be addressed by the civilized world.

The problem is that B Sanders promotes socialism

What is the difference in Trump and Hillary’s stance on immigration?

Hillary: Stop immigrants; stop xenophobia.

Are you going to completely ignore the fact that the democratic voters (mostly) wanted Mr. Sanders to be the DNC candidate...

Clinton herself says that the rise of Trump and her own defeat were linked to emigration worries. So Lash's question is fair, for once.

I don’t think refugees would have appreciated your distinction when Trump and Hillary’s actions toward them would be the same.

...calling on the continent’s leaders to send out a stronger signal showing they are “not going to be able to continue to provide refuge and support”.

I don't think any of us who is commenting on this board have any immediate solution for this global problems that was accelerated with multitude of really terrible decisions committed by politicians on both sides. But this train has long left the station. What requires now is very sober, tolerant, patient approach to very complex global dilemma, and most of all thinking and decent politicians who can legislate with compassion and tolerance, which is rarity in this day and age. The world need to come together to reach the most acceptable solutions that wouldn't undermine the countries best aspirations in resolving this grave and overwhelming conflict. So far, no one has any constructive ideas. Non-ideological global think tank should be formed to bring common sense solutions to a very complicated predicament ...no easy answers here.

[...]
“I think Europe needs to get a handle on migration because that is what lit the flame,” she said. “I admire the very generous and compassionate approaches that were taken particularly by leaders like Angela Merkel, but I think it is fair to say Europe has done its part, and must send a very clear message – ‘we are not going to be able to continue provide refuge and support’ – because if we don’t deal with the migration issue it will continue to roil the body politic.”

There is a fundamental error in this thinking. It assumes the results of populist politicking are in fact its sources. Clinton believes she is on to something, but it is offering nothing new. In the past two years accepting the populist version of events and painting the left as out of touch has become a genre of its own, a strain of thought that holds that the success of the immigration rhetoric of populists is organic, inevitable and a “backlash” of some sort, rather than one of several ways that populist politicians build grievance. National populism is thus “unstoppable”, it is the revolt of the “somewheres” against the “anywheres”, “white self-interest”, a “whiteshift”. Clinton’s “beat them at their own game” strategy is the default position on the establishment centre, a capitulation of laziness, defeatism and gullibility.

It also doesn’t work. It is one of the enduring perplexities of centrist politics, one whose adherents attack the left for being unrealistic and unconcerned with electoral victory, that on immigration it has stuck to pandering to xenophobia despite the benefit of that never materialising at the ballot box. It did not work for Ed Miliband and his “Controls on immigration” mug, and it certainly has not worked for the immigration hawks in his party such as Yvette Cooper who have yet to reap the electoral spoils of propping up the hostile environment. You cannot outflank the right by adopting its promises, that way you only end up as its handmaiden.
... ... ...