If the terrorist attacks where carried out by followers of another religion...

It's sensible to do a lot of things. Its sensible not to help anyone who couldn't ever offer you anything comparable in return. Liberals argue on a moral basis about this type of stuff.

I don't identify as a liberal or a conservative but I definitely think this is one thing both parties do a poor job of understand about the opposing side.

It doesn't come down to logic, because both sides have fairly sound logic given their VALUES. There are hundreds of millions of people who identify with both ideologies, so the idea that one side is drastically flawed compared to another is a bit naive. Both sides are full of highly educated people who have given this stuff a lot of thought, done math, and worked out flaws over generations. It comes down to values.

Left generally believes to take the bad with the good, and accept the good at all costs.

Right generally believes it is more sensible to increase good by reducing bad. And to reduce bad at all costs.

I hope you're asking this question not rhetorically, because a lot of people would say that all of your situations proposed would not be an appropriate reason to shut out certain demographics. They simply possess values that are difficult for you to identify with

/r/The_Donald Thread