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

[Ormond]

2 hours 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.

 

Sorry, I do not agree with the above at all. Such persons are much more likely to change their opinions if they are legally resident in the United States than prevented from entering, which is probably merely going to radicalize them further. Not to mention that people would quickly learn just to lie about this stuff to get in. We do not have any sort of lie detection method that is accurate enough to use in such a case. 

I just find the idea of limiting people's right to come to the USA based on their beliefs, even those I find reprehensible, even more reprehensible. People who were born in the USA who hold such opinions (and they certainly exist) have every right to be here and hold the opinions, though not to act on them. Persons who otherwise meet criteria for legal immigration should be treated the same way.

P.S. And having now seen the subsequent argument -- I think the "message" that would be sent by such a policy is that the United States really doesn't believe in that freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of thought stuff after all, which is much more dangerous in the long run than any "message" about acceptance of homosexuality or the other issues would be helpful.

[sologdin]

the US has long used immigration policy to affect the domestic political balance; the special statutes for refugees from nicaragua and cuba, for instance, taking away from the diversity lottery aggregate, was a means (and perhaps still is) to maintain a certain amount of rightwing immigrants. the act of declaring a petitioner to be a refugee or an asylee has geopolitical consequences, as it indicates the declarant's opinion as to the viability of the state whence the petitioner fled. in the US, this declaration has been more likely during the cold war when the petitioner requests asylum from a leftwing regime, in which case the petitioner is unlikely to have leftwing ideas.  the INA furthermore specifically forbids entry to members of 'terrorist' organizations, as defined by the state, communists, nazi war criminals (but not nazi non-criminals), and anyone the department of state thinks is likely to cause foreign policy problems, inter alia.

am accordingly having little objection to barring admission to bearers of retrograde ideas, considering the US has been taking in these far right motherfuckers for decades now.

[TerraPrime]

In other news, Clinton campaign is slowing down operation in PA, meaning they think they got it in the bag. That's OH, VA, and PA now in Clinton's column. That should free up some resources for states like Kansas and even Texas. It'll be interesting to see where Clinton turns her attention to with this new resource.

[DireWolfSpirit]

Everyones seen those occasional track races where the over confident sprinter starts to pull up before the finish line, only to see the competitor lunge across the line, seemingly out of nowhere, to capture first place. Hillary better discipline herself against celebrating to soon imo. 

 

[Ser Reptitious]

2 hours ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

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.

 

Out of curiosity, do you consider freedom of speech to be a fundamental human right or a simply a privilege to be extended to members of a particular club?

[TrackerNeil]

2 hours ago, Ormond said:

P.S. And having now seen the subsequent argument -- I think the "message" that would be sent by such a policy is that the United States really doesn't believe in that freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of thought stuff after all, which is much more dangerous in the long run than any "message" about acceptance of homosexuality or the other issues would be helpful.

Hear, hear! Americans are supposed to think that free speech is not a privilege just for members of the club, but rights that people of every nationality should enjoy.

59 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

In other news, Clinton campaign is slowing down operation in PA, meaning they think they got it in the bag. That's OH, VA, and PA now in Clinton's column. That should free up some resources for states like Kansas and even Texas. It'll be interesting to see where Clinton turns her attention to with this new resource.

Yes, I am watching this as well. Tempting as it is to sit on an advantage, sometimes you have to press that advantage. Clinton has no lack of cash, and if she can go on the offensive, I'm all for it. If the numbers in Georgia and Arizona really go against her she has time to scale back and focus once more on VA, OH and PA.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

52 minutes ago, Ser Reptitious said:

Out of curiosity, do you consider freedom of speech to be a fundamental human right or a simply a privilege to be extended to members of a particular club?

This is an unnecessarily vague way to talk about actual, concrete, particularized issues. All governments punish certain types of speech. Some are more permissive than others. To pretend that this is a binary yes/no issue is not correct.

I do not think that the United States has an obligation to extend naturalized citizenship to people that hold certain unacceptably retrograde and vile views. I do believe that all governments have an obligation to provide a forum in which most types of speech are protected, but that does not mean I believe that all governments have an obligation to accept all people as citizens. 

[alguien]

2 hours ago, TerraPrime said:

In other news, Clinton campaign is slowing down operation in PA, meaning they think they got it in the bag. That's OH, VA, and PA now in Clinton's column. That should free up some resources for states like Kansas and even Texas. It'll be interesting to see where Clinton turns her attention to with this new resource.

I just hope she's not pulling her resources too soon. Pennsylvania's still pretty important, IMO. If it's in the bag, along with VA and OH, then the election is pretty much done.

But now is not the time for Dems to get complacent. 

***Also, completely unrelated to the above post, but the previous thread was already closed today. Wanted to add that my coworkers loved the Sassy Trump link in the previous thread. So whoever posted that, thank you! 

[aceluby]

22 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

I do believe that all governments have an obligation to provide a forum in which most types of religions are protected, but that does not mean I believe that all governments have an obligation to accept all people as citizens. 

Literally one word change and you're discussing banning entire religions a la Trump.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Can't tell if this is a smart move or not:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/17/us/politics/donald-trump-roger-ailes.html?_r=0

Ailes will certainly help Trump in the debates and will drill in the importance of staying on message at all times, but it also makes attacks against Bill's past behaviors ring incredibly hollow. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Consider the rape accusation from the Donald and Ivana divorce, that accusation sounds hollow anyway. 

Not to mention 

this one

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

19 minutes ago, alguien said:

***Also, completely unrelated to the above post, but the previous thread was already closed today. Wanted to add that my coworkers loved the Sassy Trump link in the previous thread. So whoever posted that, thank you! 

 Isn't that hilarious? It might be my single favorite Trump related internet silliness to come about since he declared for office.

[MerenthaClone]

6 hours 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.  

No fuck this.  Just about the only question we should be able to ask with regards to whether people are ideologically unfit to enter the United States is something like "do you support the imminent violent overthrow of the United States government?".  Because frankly, I do not want to get into watching any of the governmental bodies involved deciding what "core American values" are, given the number of states and politicians who apparently believe that racist, sexist, xenophobia are some of them.  

 

[Kalbear]

My suspicion regarding pulling out of VA and PA right now is that the ground game is still there, just not the ads. So she's saving money to use closer to the end of the election, as she can't do much better than she is now.

There are still 80 days after all. Ugh.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

43 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Literally one word change and you're discussing banning entire religions a la Trump.

I guess it's a good thing that I said what I said and not what you misquoted me as saying? I mean, words matter. I chose my words carefully. To go in and then swap out my word with another word I didn't use, and completely change my position, is just not a legitimate way of disputing something someone said.

I feel like this is begging to be identified as an informal logical fallacy. The Mad Libs fallacy, perhaps? 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

One other thing to consider about Trump's proposed screenings is will he be replacing many of the people who do the actual screenings? Seems like that would be a pretty easy backdoor route to stop all immigration from countries he deems unfit. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

37 minutes ago, MerenthaClone said:

No fuck this.  Just about the only question we should be able to ask with regards to whether people are ideologically unfit to enter the United States is something like "do you support the imminent violent overthrow of the United States government?".  Because frankly, I do not want to get into watching any of the governmental bodies involved deciding what "core American values" are, given the number of states and politicians who apparently believe that racist, sexist, xenophobia are some of them.  

 

This sounds like a practical issue, and not an theoretical problem with the concept. 

Let's stipulate, for the purposes of the argument, that we could be 100% certain that the test would consist of three questions, and if an applicant answered "yes" to any of them, or if the examiner could prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they actually held one of these beliefs, that they would be prohibited from being granted citizenship. 

Question 1: Do you believe that it is okay for homosexuals to be killed because they are homosexual?

Question 2: Do you believe that young women should have their clitorises cut to prevent them from experiencing sexual pleasure? 

Question 3: Do you believe that married women should have no right to refuse sexual access to their husbands? 

Under those conditions, would you be in favor of implementing this restriction on citizenship? Why or why not? 

[TerraPrime]

Hey guys, the current form to apply to become a U.S. citizen already asked these things, and more. You can check out Form N400 from www.uscis.gov. Look for section 12, questions 1 to 50, starting at page 11 of the form.

 

Further, I think asserting that equality for gays and women is the central core value of the U.S. is presumptuous. Both are hot points of contention within this country, with the significant portion of the populace disagreeing with some of these tenets.

 

I agree that any country can set the rules on whom to accept and whom not to accept as immigrants, but saying that these are core values of the country and thus merit being enforced as immigration screening criteria is breathtakingly arrogant.

[The Anti-Targ]

3 hours ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

This is an unnecessarily vague way to talk about actual, concrete, particularized issues. All governments punish certain types of speech. Some are more permissive than others. To pretend that this is a binary yes/no issue is not correct.

I do not think that the United States has an obligation to extend naturalized citizenship to people that hold certain unacceptably retrograde and vile views. I do believe that all governments have an obligation to provide a forum in which most types of speech are protected, but that does not mean I believe that all governments have an obligation to accept all people as citizens. 

The problem though is that you only agree with the proposal because the proposal seeks to weed out people who have ideas that you find objectionable. If thought policing for immigration is established as a precedent then it opens the door to weeding out people who have ideas that you support. What then? Will you still agree to this thought police policy for immigration? What if one of the questions is are you pro-life or pro-choice (and the "right" answer is pro-life)? What about a question like Are you for or against increased gun control? Is that a legitimate question? And will the correct answer to that question be entirely dependant on who is in the White House at the time? Would a President Cruz retain the gay rights question, or would he change which answer is the correct answer?

[The Marquis de Leech]

Poll out of Florida has Clinton +9 (ridiculous, but it's a pollster with a good reputation), and poll out of Texas has Trump +6 (*very* interesting, especially since Clinton leads among Texans under the age of 65).