U.S. Elections: American Hitler 2016

[BloodRider]

32 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

Undoubtedly, Newt Gingrich is a terrible person. And I'm obviously opposed to testing and then deporting US Muslims based upon their answers to various questions about Shariah law.

But, to play devil's advocate explicitly, would there be a principled objection to the idea of a universally-administered survey to all people seeking admission to the US, potentially as part of the visa process or maybe just as part of the citizenship process, that asked a number of questions that we might want to know the answer to before offering them entrance or citizenship?

Do you believe that there are circumstances under which it is acceptable to perform an Honor Killing of a woman?

Do you believe that adulterers should be stoned to death?

Do you believe that girls should have their clitorises removed? 

Do you believe that homosexuality should be punishable by death?

Do you think that women should be forbidden from driving cars?

Etc. and so on. I'm sure that we could, with some effort, come up with a consensus list of questions, and identify some of such importance that an answer in the affirmative should be grounds for denial of entry into the United States. I don't think there's any particular reason that we need to accept people in the country whose views on women, gays, etc. are so objectively odious. 

Do you believe that most black people represent an inherent danger to your life?

Oh sorry - I was thinking of the EMT no police force questionnaire.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

It's not targeting a specific religion. Presumably, you could get an ultra-Orthodox Jew or fundamentalist Christian that believes that homosexuals should be stoned to death. The questions are targeted against specific types of regressive political beliefs, not religions generally. Lots of liberal Muslims don't agree with honor killings or female genital mutilation. They're welcome to be here. But why the fuck should we allow anyone to become a citizen who thinks that little girls should have their clitorises cut off or that homosexuals should be stoned to death? 

Ok, let me phrase it in a different way. Would it be unconstitutional to coerce people into renouncing a portion of their religion, even if said part is illegal in some places in the U.S.? Because no matter how you'd word the questions, it would inevitably touch upon some tenants of one or more religions. 

Also, has the constitutionality of anti-Sharia Law bills ever been brought to the Supreme Court? 

 

[Jaxom 1974]

14 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

It's not targeting a specific religion. Presumably, you could get an ultra-Orthodox Jew or fundamentalist Christian that believes that homosexuals should be stoned to death. The questions are targeted against specific types of regressive political beliefs, not religions generally. Lots of liberal Muslims don't agree with honor killings or female genital mutilation. They're welcome to be here. But why the fuck should we allow anyone to become a citizen who thinks that little girls should have their clitorises cut off or that homosexuals should be stoned to death? 

As to whether or not it only excludes the stupid or the unreasonably honest - maybe. But I'm not sure that's enough reason for us not to do it. If we can exclude a small number of absurdly regressive but stupid and/or unreasonably honest people who hold terrible beliefs - why shouldn't we? Perhaps more importantly - it's "norm setting" and lets people know exactly what kinds of things are not acceptable in our society. 

People adhering to such archaic views are abhorrent, on that can be agreed. But it's quite the slippery slope you propose with such an idea.  How does one join such thought police?

 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Ok, let me phrase it in a different way. Would it be unconstitutional to coerce people into renouncing a portion of their religion, even if said part is illegal in some places in the U.S.? Because no matter how you'd word the questions, it would inevitably touch upon some tenants of one or more religions. 

Also, has the constitutionality of anti-Sharia Law bills ever been brought to the Supreme Court? 

 

Nobody is being coerced to renounce anything.

The Supreme Court has affirmed in Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972) that non-citizens can be refused entry to the United States based upon their speech (what they've said or are likely to say) even if that speech would be considered to be protected by the First Amendment if that person was already a citizen of the United states. 

[butterbumps!]

44 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

Undoubtedly, Newt Gingrich is a terrible person. And I'm obviously opposed to testing and then deporting US Muslims based upon their answers to various questions about Shariah law.

But, to play devil's advocate explicitly, would there be a principled objection to the idea of a universally-administered survey to all people seeking admission to the US, potentially as part of the visa process or maybe just as part of the citizenship process, that asked a number of questions that we might want to know the answer to before offering them entrance or citizenship?

Do you believe that there are circumstances under which it is acceptable to perform an Honor Killing of a woman?

Do you believe that adulterers should be stoned to death?

Do you believe that girls should have their clitorises removed? 

Do you believe that homosexuality should be punishable by death?

Do you think that women should be forbidden from driving cars?

Etc. and so on. I'm sure that we could, with some effort, come up with a consensus list of questions, and identify some of such importance that an answer in the affirmative should be grounds for denial of entry into the United States. I don't think there's any particular reason that we need to accept people in the country whose views on women, gays, etc. are so objectively odious. 

It seems really ludicrous to suggest something like this when almost half the country has shown itself to be avowedly racist, misogynistic, bathroom-bill-passing homophobic pieces of shit.    surely this admirable screening process you're proposing includes deporting Trump-supporters to some Walled-off hell?

[TrackerNeil]

29 minutes ago, The Fallen said:

Like Nestor commented, I can't believe how you, Kal, Shryke and others get so bent out of shape at criticism of Hillary. I mean, she is a flawed candidate. I've always viewed you as way more left than a Hillary.

Oh, stop it. Nobody here is getting upset about fair criticism of any politician. Some of us object to right-wing talking points or top-of-the-head observations passed off as fact, but that's an entirely different matter.

Am I more left than Clinton? Sure, but given that I am left of most people that's not saying much. (I can't speak for Shryke or Kalbear in this regard.) My being pretty damned liberal doesn't mean I can't support a more centrist candidate, or eschew an even more leftist one.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

12 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

People adhering to such archaic views are abhorrent, on that can be agreed. But it's quite the slippery slope you propose with such an idea.  How does one join such thought police?

 

I'm not sure what the slippery slope is. Once you're here and once you're a citizen, you can hold pretty much any odious beliefs you want because they are protected by the First Amendment. 

But before you're hear and before you're a citizen, we don't have an obligation to let anyone in for any reason, and we can take care to exclude people who are willing to state that they hold beliefs and advocate policies and actions which involve stoning gay people to death, cutting off the clitorises of young women, and stoning women to death for adultery.

It really doesn't seem that complicated. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

8 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

It seems really ludicrous to suggest something like this when almost half the country has shown itself to be avowedly racist, misogynistic, bathroom-bill-passing homophobic pieces of shit.    surely this admirable screening process you're proposing includes deporting Trump-supporters to some Walled-off hell?

Well first, as reiterated above, the First Amendment protects odious political beliefs of citizens and residents, but it does not prevent us from refusing to allow people with exceptionally barbaric beliefs into the country in the first place. The fact that we may ALREADY have a number of people here with horrendously retrograde views on women, gays, etc. certainly does NOT seem to me to be any argument for not adding to their numbers. In fact, just the opposite. Since the more of them there are, the worse off women, gays, etc. are it makes even MORE sense to weed such people out.

Second, as retrograde as I find the views of many conservatives, there's a world of difference between say, believing that your own personal gender identity should not be the determinant of which bathroom you choose and say... believing that transgendered individuals are free game for being raped and murdered. Most people who support retrograde bathroom bills do not also support the stoning to death of transgendered people. I don't think we could achieve a consensus on the former, but I think we could on the latter. 

[Kalbear]

Once you have a test based on beliefs for citizenship it's not particularly hard to imagine that as a restriction for other non rights based things. You could have the same test for driving licenses, as an example. 

And while it doesn't name a religion it is specifically toward beliefs. Imagine something like this in the 30s as an example. 

[butterbumps!]

19 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

Well first, as reiterated above, the First Amendment protects odious political beliefs of citizens and residents, but it does not prevent us from refusing to allow people with exceptionally barbaric beliefs into the country in the first place. The fact that we may ALREADY have a number of people here with horrendously retrograde views on women, gays, etc. certainly does NOT seem to me to be any argument for not adding to their numbers. In fact, just the opposite. Since the more of them there are, the worse off women, gays, etc. are it makes even MORE sense to weed such people out.

Second, as retrograde as I find the views of many conservatives, there's a world of difference between say, believing that your own personal gender identity should not be the determinant of which bathroom you choose and say... believing that transgendered individuals are free game for being raped and murdered. Most people who support retrograde bathroom bills do not also support the stoning to death of transgendered people. I don't think we could achieve a consensus on the former, but I think we could on the latter. 

I understand the technical legal argument you're making in favor of this.   But there's something really bizare to me in being a nation where almost half hold such avowedly odious beliefs, yet blocking newcomers who hold certain of these beliefs under the auspices that those beliefs are un American.

As a second issue, how many first gen immigrants actually go on to commit these acts on their adopted countries in the first place?    Haven't the vast majority of these been carried out by second or third generation citizens, radicalized via (essentially) webinars and the like that Isis puts out?    What would this questionnaire even really accomplish? 

Moreover what use is it to make distinctions about a more "garden variety" homophobia or misogyny versus people who believe that women and homosexuals should be stoned?    Are there that many instances of women and homosexuals being stoned by first gen immigrants here?    I'm not aware of any (has it happened?) but I do know that hate crimes against gays, trans  men and women, and violence against women are Very much happening, very much by people holding these "garden variety" levels of -phobia/ -geny.   Im not convinced that there's a correlation between the questions you're proposing and reducing hate crimes or terror.

 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

9 minutes ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

Once you have a test based on beliefs for citizenship it's not particularly hard to imagine that as a restriction for other non rights based things. You could have the same test for driving licenses, as an example. 

And while it doesn't name a religion it is specifically toward beliefs. Imagine something like this in the 30s as an example. 

People still have First Amendment rights when applying for a driver's license. Those first amendment rights just get tested against a more compelling state interest. See, for example, the sliding scale of what you can wear in your driver's license photograph. Although you are generally supposed to have your head uncovered, Jews can wear a yarmulke. Muslims in most places can wear a headscarf that doesn't obscure the face. Unfortunately, the niqab is out because it covers the face. As I understand it, it's still undecided whether or not pastafarians will be allowed to wear collanders for their photos. Maybe we'll be lucky enough to get a Circuit Court split on this issue and have it decided by the Supreme Court. If it happens, I will lament that Scalia will not be around to hear it. 

[Kalbear]

45 minutes ago, The Fallen said:

Like Nestor commented, I can't believe how you, Kal, Shryke and others get so bent out of shape at criticism of Hillary. I mean, she is a flawed candidate. I've always viewed you as way more left than a Hillary. Yet the belittling of Bernie supporters is baffling. Especially when those voters will be needed by Hillary. That's clearly not the best way to go about recruiting folks to your side. (And it isn't just on this board. I see it in every comments section .)

Personally, I agree with you that feelings should be aside when ultimately voting for someone. But I'm not going to demonize people who feel that Hillary (or anyone else) is too and they couldn't vote for her with a clean conscience. I probably need to give the Green party a serious look.

 

When you are going to lie about things it bugs me. I get that you specifically want to believe certain things in order to justify your anger at her, but me criticizing you for saying lies does not make it getting bent out of shape.

I've already mentioned several times what flaws Clinton has. I am not claiming that she is a perfect candidate. No candidate is. I am going to fight the perception that she is this incredibly centrist or Republican candidate, because it is not correct. I am going to fight the idea that she has no deeply held values and only changes her mind based on political value, because that is a lie. 

You might be right that this isn't the best tactic to gain her support from you. That is fair but misleading; it assumes that I'm trying to convince you. Sometimes it isn't about that. That being said, what would be a good argument? So far things like fear of trump don't work. Rationally pointing out her policies doesn't work. Pointing out her voting record doesn't work. Pointing out her success in building a coalition doesn't work. When she changes her platform to be more progressive you dismiss it as either pandering or not actually going to happen. When she includes Sanders in the Democratic party plank in the first move of its type ever you say it isn't enough.

So what would sway you? What sways a racist to actually like ethnic minorities?

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

People still have First Amendment rights when applying for a driver's license. Those first amendment rights just get tested against a more compelling state interest. See, for example, the sliding scale of what you can wear in your driver's license photograph. Although you are generally supposed to have your head uncovered, Jews can wear a yarmulke. Muslims in most places can wear a headscarf that doesn't obscure the face. Unfortunately, the niqab is out because it covers the face. As I understand it, it's still undecided whether or not pastafarians will be allowed to wear collanders for their photos. Maybe we'll be lucky enough to get a Circuit Court split on this issue and have it decided by the Supreme Court. If it happens, I will lament that Scalia will not be around to hear it. 

Like I said, non rights based things can already do it for some things based on state interest. How is it not a state interest to restrict licensing of motor vehicles away from folks with violent views? Given Nice I would think this is an obvious place to start. Same with plane travel. Professional licensing such as explosives. Sports.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

At the end of the day Nestor, you have to ask yourself if it's a good idea to appropriate funds for a program that will probably not be a very effective deterrent for preventing likely terrorists from entering the country, but will absolutely send a bad message to both our allies and our enemies, likely be used as a recruitment tool for terrorist organization both at home and abroad and legitimize racists views in the U.S. 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

56 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

It seems really ludicrous to suggest something like this when almost half the country has shown itself to be avowedly racist, misogynistic, bathroom-bill-passing homophobic pieces of shit.    surely this admirable screening process you're proposing includes deporting Trump-supporters to some Walled-off hell?

 Sure, the mainstream right wing in America may not want to cater pizza for gay weddings, or not be completely on board with Trans acceptance, or have some distasteful views on abortion and promiscuity and slut shaming, but to imply that it's even close to the same level as what Islamic conservatives (and not just the tiny minority that decides to join ISIS) believes is just ridiculous. It pisses me off every time people on the left treat them as remotely in the same ballpark.

And that questionnaire wouldn't just block radical Muslims, but also those Christians from Uganda and other places who want to execute gays.

[Jaxom 1974]

55 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

I'm not sure what the slippery slope is. Once you're here and once you're a citizen, you can hold pretty much any odious beliefs you want because they are protected by the First Amendment. 

But before you're hear and before you're a citizen, we don't have an obligation to let anyone in for any reason, and we can take care to exclude people who are willing to state that they hold beliefs and advocate policies and actions which involve stoning gay people to death, cutting off the clitorises of young women, and stoning women to death for adultery.

It really doesn't seem that complicated. 

I will not claim expertise, but this seems to be a precursor to the general erosion of the 14th Amendment.

[butterbumps!]

16 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

 Sure, the mainstream right wing in America may not want to cater pizza for gay weddings, or not be completely on board with Trans acceptance, or have some distasteful views on abortion and promiscuity and slut shaming, but to imply that it's even close to the same level as what Islamic conservatives (and not just the tiny minority that decides to join ISIS) believes is just ridiculous. It pisses me off every time people on the left treat them as remotely in the same ballpark.

And that questionnaire wouldn't just block radical Muslims, but also those Christians from Uganda and other places who want to execute gays.

I remarked on this somewhat in the next post I made--   Are there that many new immigrants to the states who hold these more egregious beliefs who then go on to commit those crimes?     

It was my understanding that the majority of these more recent attacks have been carried out by second or third gen citizens.   Which would not be captured in this questionnaire.    

And that more "garden variety" misogyny, racism, homophobia and general hate you are distinguishing as less egregious (which yes, seems reasonable to do) seems to be responsible for a lot more tragedy over here-- fully homegrown-- than these more egregious beliefs being isolated from best I can tell.   

[Swordfish]

19 hours ago, Altherion said:

15 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

 

 

[BloodRider]

1 hour ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

 And that questionnaire wouldn't just block radical Muslims, but also those Christians from Uganda and other places who want to execute gays.

You mean the ones funded and taught by US Christians?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/scott-lively-anti-gay-law-uganda

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/how-uganda-was-seduced-by-anti-gay-conservative-evangelicals-9193593.html

https://www.thenation.com/article/its-not-just-uganda-behind-christian-rights-onslaught-africa/

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-kaoma-uganda-gays-american-ministers-20140323-story.html

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

1 minute ago, BloodRider said:

You mean the ones funded and taught by US Christians?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/scott-lively-anti-gay-law-uganda

Yes, of course. Why wouldn't you want to exclude them?