US Elections - There is 'Ahead in the Polls' behind you

[all swedes are racist]

As you were, zaudunyani

[Jace, Extat]

So this guy I work with has mentioned that the lead lawyer suing the DNC for rigging the primary was found shot 4 times in the back. And also that Julian Assange credited some guy for giving wiki leaks the DNC emails and that guy was found shot twice in the back...

Now, I could get into the part where I don't think the DNC could actually be sued for 'rigging' a party election and just ask if you guys have any fucking clue what this guy is talking about. It sounds like some deep reddit conspiracy shit to me, and I don't frequent such places. 

To be clear, I'm asking if anyone has any idea where such things might have come from, not if they're true.

[all swedes are racist]

Yes, they come from bullshit sites like Zerohedge, citing even more bullshit conspiracy sites, given quote unquote credence by the fact ballcheese Assange is offering a $20k reward for information I'm fair certain he knows would be impossible to produce with any credibility.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/10/4th-mysterious-death-connected-to-the-dnc/

[mormont]

I'm disappointed to discover that 'extreme vetting' does not, in fact, consist of animal surgery performed on a clifftop while skating.

Anyway, I for one am absolutely certain that this will work and that no Islamic terrorist seeking to enter the US will think to answer 'yes' when asked if he's in favour of gay rights.

And that, Mr Trump, is sarcasm.

[LongRider]

@SkynJay yes, Colorado State is my alma matter, class of '97, so I had to give it a shout out!  

[Dr. Pepper]

Trump's ghostwriter had an interview in the New Yorker detailing how horrible it was working with Trump on the book.  Now Trump's legal counsel is sending Schwartz a cease and desist order and demanding he return all royalties for the book.

Quote

In a copy of the cease-and-desist letter obtained by The New York Times, the lawyer, Jason D. Greenblatt, demanded that Mr. Schwartz deliver “a certified check made payable to Mr. Trump” and make “written assurances that you will not generate or disseminate any misleading or inaccurate information or make any baseless accusations with respect to Mr. Trump.”

 

[TheKitttenGuard]

An article discussing the reasons, based on polling, for Trump supports.  Some of the most interesting are that there is not any real correlation with Trump supports and area that were most impacting by trade agreements.  A part I found of most interest:

Quote

I looked first at Pew’s questions regarding what specific issues Americans think should be top policy priorities. Topics are wide ranging, from climate change and the military to gun control and health care. If Trump’s support is drawn significantly from those expressing economic anxieties, it should show in terms of the top concerns that Americans express. This is not what I find in analyzing Pew’s survey. Support for Trump is not significantly associated with public concerns about “improving the job situation” nationally, “strengthening the nation’s economy,” “dealing with global trade issues,” “reducing health care costs,” “dealing with the problems of poor and needy people,” or “improving the educational system.” All of these issues relate to economics, for example the jobs lost to free trade, anxiety over growing health care costs, and concerns with under-funded schools in poor minority communities.

Looking at the concerns that do predict support for Trump, one sees that they are largely non-economic, although they remain high profile issues in Republican Party politics and are heavily covered in right-wing media such as Fox News and talk radio. I divide attitudinal predictors of Trump support into stronger and weaker predictors, statistically speaking. The strongest predictors of support include the following: interest in “dealing with gun policy,” concern with “strengthening the U.S. military,” concern that Muslims are “anti-American,” disinterest in “dealing with climate change,” and disinterest in “dealing with the problems of poor and needy people.” Weaker, although still significant predictors of Trump support, include the following concerns: “reducing the budget deficit,” “reducing crime,” “defending the country from future terrorist attacks,” and “dealing with the issue of immigration.”

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/16/donald-trump-and-the-myth-of-economic-populism-demolishing-a-false-narrative/

 

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I saw a poll while at the gym this morning that seemed rather devastating for Trump. It was a NBC/WSJ poll, and it asked who cares more about the average person. Clinton was at 45% while Trump was only at 29%. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

I'm disappointed to discover that 'extreme vetting' does not, in fact, consist of animal surgery performed on a clifftop while skating.

Anyway, I for one am absolutely certain that this will work and that no Islamic terrorist seeking to enter the US will think to answer 'yes' when asked if he's in favour of gay rights.

And that, Mr Trump, is sarcasm.

If ever there was proof that even a stopped clock is right twice a day, this would be it! 

The idea that we should be vetting all applications for citizenship and potentially work visas for their substantive positions on core American values is a sound one. We shouldn't be letting people in to the United States that believe gays should be stoned to death or thrown off buildings, that young women should have their genitals mutilated, or that married women don't have a right to decline sex with their husbands.

The idea that this is going to be some effective anti-terrorism tool is, however, I think pretty unlikely and unfounded. But the primary benefit of creating obstacles for people with retrograde views on basic human rights is that we have fewer people with retrograde views on basic human rights in our country, not that we are going to somehow prevent isolated acts of terrorism. Obviously, these questions should be asked of ALL potential immigrants - not targeted as Muslims.  

[aceluby]

12 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

If ever there was proof that even a stopped clock is right twice a day, this would be it! 

The idea that we should be vetting all applications for citizenship and potentially work visas for their substantive positions on core American values is a sound one. We shouldn't be letting people in to the United States that believe gays should be stoned to death or thrown off buildings, that young women should have their genitals mutilated, or that married women don't have a right to decline sex with their husbands.

 The idea that this is going to be some effective anti-terrorism tool is, however, I think pretty unlikely and unfounded. But the primary benefit of creating obstacles for people with retrograde views on basic human rights is that we have fewer people with retrograde views on basic human rights in our country, not that we are going to somehow prevent isolated acts of terrorism. Obviously, these questions should be asked of ALL potential immigrants - not targeted as Muslims.  

I find this path troublesome.  Believing something and actually acting upon those beliefs are two different things.  This dances awfully close to denying first amendment rights to immigrants.  Plenty of born and bred Americans believe some of those things.  Heck, one is running for President.

[mormont]

13 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

If ever there was proof that even a stopped clock is right twice a day, this would be it! 

The idea that we should be vetting all applications for citizenship and potentially work visas for their substantive positions on core American values is a sound one. We shouldn't be letting people in to the United States that believe gays should be stoned to death or thrown off buildings, that young women should have their genitals mutilated, or that married women don't have a right to decline sex with their husbands.

Except that many, many people born in the US hold these views.

And many of the people advocating for the idea that these opinions are so completely unacceptable that immigrants should be sent home if they agree with them, are also the very same people who argue passionately about free speech and the 'thought police' if a public figure is even mildly criticised for expressing these or comparable views. Not because they agree, but because the principle of free speech is, for them, so utterly sacrosanct.

If you'll defend to the the death my right to say offensive things but at the same time won't allow me to enter the country if I agree with them, how do we explain this inconsistency? It's not unreasonable to suggest that in many cases, this is a question of people seizing on a justification to do something they already want to do, that is, limit immigration from non-whites. However you slice it, it's a double standard.

13 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

The idea that this is going to be some effective anti-terrorism tool is, however, I think pretty unlikely and unfounded.

As is the idea that this is genuinely going to reduce the number of people entering the country that hold offensive views, for the same reasons. It's a ridiculous PR exercise, intended to create the impression that something is being done while not actually having any measurable effect.

[Happy Ent]

I just wanted to congratulate you on the thread title.

Trump shines.

[DanteGabriel]

I'm okay with Trump's vetting plan as long as he has to take the test, and gets waterboarded to ensure honest answers.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

36 minutes ago, aceluby said:

I find this path troublesome.  Believing something and actually acting upon those beliefs are two different things.  This dances awfully close to denying first amendment rights to immigrants.  Plenty of born and bred Americans believe some of those things.  Heck, one is running for President.

Well, to be clear - this is definitely not "dancing awfully close" to denying first amendment rights to immigrants - this is explicitly and clearly and without any question at all denying certain first amendment rights to immigrants, or at least people looking to become citizens, depending on how the law is structured. 

The Supreme Court has already ruled that non-citizens do not enjoy all of the first amendment protections that actual citizens have, and that immigrants can be denied citizenship for reasons that, if they were citizens, would be protected expressions under the first amendment.

I am completely and utterly okay with this. It doesn't offend me that citizens have greater access to Constitutional protections than non-citizens, since access to the full suite of Constitutional protections is one of those benefits of citizenship - it's one of the reasons that people become citizens in the first place. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

55 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

If ever there was proof that even a stopped clock is right twice a day, this would be it! 

The idea that we should be vetting all applications for citizenship and potentially work visas for their substantive positions on core American values is a sound one. We shouldn't be letting people in to the United States that believe gays should be stoned to death or thrown off buildings, that young women should have their genitals mutilated, or that married women don't have a right to decline sex with their husbands.

The idea that this is going to be some effective anti-terrorism tool is, however, I think pretty unlikely and unfounded. But the primary benefit of creating obstacles for people with retrograde views on basic human rights is that we have fewer people with retrograde views on basic human rights in our country, not that we are going to somehow prevent isolated acts of terrorism. Obviously, these questions should be asked of ALL potential immigrants - not targeted as Muslims.  

And you assume that any applicant will answer those questions more truthfully than an average tinder user writes his profile? 

[Boris the Blade]

7 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

Well, to be clear - this is definitely not "dancing awfully close" to denying first amendment rights to immigrants - this is explicitly and clearly and without any question at all denying certain first amendment rights to immigrants, or at least people looking to become citizens, depending on how the law is structured. 

The Supreme Court has already ruled that non-citizens do not enjoy all of the first amendment protections that actual citizens have, and that immigrants can be denied citizenship for reasons that, if they were citizens, would be protected expressions under the first amendment.

I am completely and utterly okay with this. It doesn't offend me that citizens have greater access to Constitutional protections than non-citizens, since access to the full suite of Constitutional protections is one of those benefits of citizenship - it's one of the reasons that people become citizens in the first place. 

So you're okay with xenophobic hypocrisy.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

13 minutes ago, Harakiri said:

So you're okay with xenophobic hypocrisy.

Completely useless xenophobic hypocrisy at that.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

35 minutes ago, mormont said:

Except that many, many people born in the US hold these views.

And many of the people advocating for the idea that these opinions are so completely unacceptable that immigrants should be sent home if they agree with them, are also the very same people who argue passionately about free speech and the 'thought police' if a public figure is even mildly criticised for expressing these or comparable views. Not because they agree, but because the principle of free speech is, for them, so utterly sacrosanct.

If you'll defend to the the death my right to say offensive things but at the same time won't allow me to enter the country if I agree with them, how do we explain this inconsistency? It's not unreasonable to suggest that in many cases, this is a question of people seizing on a justification to do something they already want to do, that is, limit immigration from non-whites. However you slice it, it's a double standard.

It's true that many people born in the US hold terribly retrograde views on gays, women, etc. I think it's a horrendous shame and, worse than that, a real problem because these retrograde views result in legislative and executive policies that end up hurting these marginalized and discriminated groups. 

For better or worse, however, the Constitution protects those who are already here from government retaliation for expressing these dangerous and retrograde views. However, the Supreme Court has determined that the Constitution does not prohibit the government from denying citizenship to immigrants who happen to hold those views as well. Is it a double standard? Well, yes and no. It's a standard being applied differently because of citizenship status - but citizenship status is a legally sufficient reason to treat people differently. So the fact that it happens to catch some people while excluding others isn't a concern for me.

It may very well be true that there are hypocritical white people who hold retrograde views on women, gays, etc. that will support this kind of a citizenship test just because they want to keep dark-skinned immigrants out. So what? That just makes this policy idea the perfect trojan horse for combating those retrograde views. 

For example, many political theorists (and normal people) believe that laws serve a powerful signaling function in terms of setting social norms. This has been a key part of the debate in many of the challenges to laws discriminating against the GLBT community. Anti-gay sodomy laws, while virtually never used for prosecution, sent a clear message about the "official" policy of the state in regard to homosexual conduct, which then provided pretext for the denial of equal treatment of gays in regard to other issues like marriage, adoption, etc. The acceptability of the official state expression of moral antipathy towards homosexual conduct is essentially the dividing line between Bowers v. Hardwick and then, seventeen years later, Lawrence v. Texas which declared unconstitutional all same-sex sodomy laws in the nation. It's glaringly evident, for example, in the Obergefell decision, in which Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, waxes poetic about the power of the law to recognize and validate same-sex relationships generally by offering marriage to those who want it. 

One of the values of having an official immigration policy that rejects people who believe that gays should be killed, girls should have their clitorises mutilated, and men should have the right to sexual access to their wives on demand is that we have another legal venue in which the State can formally express its opprobrium of these views. If racist, white conservatives are dumb enough to give the okay to a system in which the rights of gays are formally recognized to the point where suggesting they shouldn't be is grounds for not being allowed to become citizens - great! Let's enshrine publicly a view of morality with which those hypocritical, white racists conservatives might actually not agree. And then let's utilize this as a tool to bludgeon them further into the dustbin of history in which they belong. 

The US formally recognizing strong positions on these issues is a good in and of itself, regardless of whether or not it's an effective screening tool - which, to be clear, I don't think anybody has demonstrated that it won't be. 

Quote

As is the idea that this is genuinely going to reduce the number of people entering the country that hold offensive views, for the same reasons. It's a ridiculous PR exercise, intended to create the impression that something is being done while not actually having any measurable effect.

The claim that this would have no measurable effect on immigration is a factual claim subject to, you know, actual verification. A lot of people seem to be under the impression that everyone will always lie about something if they know that being truthful will have an adverse consequence for them, but we actually have quite a bit of practical evidence that this is not always the case. People, for example, voluntarily speak with and confess things to the police all the time which is not in their best interest to do so. I'm not suggesting that these measures would be 100% effective - certainly they would not be, and certainly people will lie to get past it, but so what? I would never expect 100% success for any screening mechanism. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

18 minutes ago, Harakiri said:

So you're okay with xenophobic hypocrisy.

Let me be absolutely clear - I am one hundred percent okay with harnessing xenophobic hypocrisy for a good cause. Without a doubt in a world. 

[mormont]

24 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

That just makes this policy idea the perfect trojan horse for combating those retrograde views. 

You're mistaken about what the Trojan horse is in this scenario. Look again at what the masquerade is here, and what is actually inside that thing.