U.S. Elections 2016 - Polls in mirror appear closer than they are

[Maithanet]

5 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

But about muslim immigration I am getting increasingly unsure. It seems clear to me that muslim immigration incurs gigantic costs on the host society, no matter where it happens, for no apparent gain. And there are no solutions to those problems, only realities to confront. (And the inevitable reactions are extremely costly; just think of surveillance/security.)

Do you really think that the millions of Muslim Americans already living here make no contributions to this country?  Because I think that getting educated, paying taxes, voting, serving in the military, etc are all pretty good indications that Muslims are quite capable of being good citizens.  On the other hand we have...what?  What exactly have Muslim Americans done that could be described as a "gigantic cost" (your words) to America?  I haven't seen one whiff of Muslims installing retrograde beliefs into law in this country, which I certainly cannot say about Christians. 

[DanteGabriel]

Happy Ent's disingenuous assessment of Trump's stance on LGBTQ rights would be easier to swallow if one ignores the presence of Mike Pence. Pence is a troglodyte on social issues and represents the religious right's stake in the Trump campaign. I can believe that Trump does not personally have anything against gay people, but he's clearly signalled his willingness to let the McJesusites write his agenda. For fuck's sake, the platform they announced at the convention declares support for gay conversion "therapy."

This willingness to accommodate social bigotry was the devil's bargain struck with the debased leaders of the religious right, who formed an alliance with a thrice-married philandering casino owner in order to get them the thing they care about most: access to temporal power.

[mormont]

4 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

I can believe that Trump does not personally have anything against gay people

Well, there's the other thing. Guess which candidate said the following?

"I think the institution of marriage should be between a man and a woman."

"I just don't feel good about it. I don't feel right about it. I'm against it, and I take a lot of heat because I come from New York. You know, for New York it's like, how can you be against gay marriage? But I'm opposed to gay marriage."

"I think I’m evolving, and I think I’m a very fair person, but I have been for traditional marriage. I am for traditional marriage, I am for a marriage between a man and a woman.”

All of these things were said by Trump over the same period of time that Clinton was moving from being opposed to supporting gay marriage. But I'm guessing that 'in his heart' Donald wasn't a social conservative? He said these things for some other reason?

[Boris the Blade]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

And when those people make up 40% of the total population in a given area?  You are refusing to engage.  Refusing to associate and are adding the ingredients for... very bad times.

Civil discussion and civil discourse are important as vents to prevent much worse circumstances.  So, while I understand your frustration with people who hold noxious opinions, when the people who hold noxious opinions are labled as "other" and excluded from normal social interactions very bad circumstances can result.

Talking is a much better option.

I'm totally fine with not associating with 40% of the assholes that infest this country. The problem is you're naive and think you can be civil with those people, the same people that are not civil to the LGBTQIA community, people of color or women. That is where your cis white male privilege comes to play.  You make the assumption that i haven't tried to be civil, I have. Like I said there is no being civil with a bigot. I have zero patience for it now, even more so because they're empowered thanks to a presidential candaiate in Trump having normalized a lot of it again and the media eating it up because of raitings. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Harakiri,

You may not have noticed but I make a sincere effort to be civil with everyone.  I don't make exceptions.  My civility is mine.  I'm not going to allow other's bigotry to take it from me.

[Shryke]

5 hours ago, mormont said:

But it's undeniable that the only reason the email scandal has mileage in the media is because of the pre-existing narrative that Clinton is untrustworthy. So stating that the email scandal is self-inflicted is true, but it's not the whole story. (Also, I think you are overestimating its impact.)

You want to see a more clear example of this, look at the recent "Clinton Health Scare" stories. A thing that only exists because the media had spent the last few weeks normalizing a fringe far-right internet theory about how Clinton was totally deathly ill because see this video where she shakes her head.

You begin with having"questions" about her health based on some made up bullshit and then use that preexisting narrative to justify your interest in a topic that otherwise would not generate the level of interest it does.

It's the old "some people have been talking about X" where those people are of course you an hour ago trick. Fox News does this religiously.

[Happy Ent]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

They are not equivalent positions though. 

Oh, I completely understand that.

But either we’re allowed to ascribe (perhaps maliciously) intent to our political opponents or not. A lot of the vitriol against Trump is based on a (obviously malignant) mind-read of his personality. “Trump’s a racist at heart, no matter what he says.” Well, that’s completely possible, and a valid argument. (An argument which I happen to reject, but understand is part of accepted political discourse.)

Somebody was (perhaps honestly) soliciting an argument for how somebody who cares about (say) the plight of homosexuals or women or Jews could vote for Trump. I explained that. I find it immensely helpful to discourse to explain how Good People can come to an opposite political conclusion, which is why I answered.

No equivalence was implied. It’s a question which kind of liar you want to side with. I’m find it useful to judge people on what they say (rather than what my limited mind-reading capabilities tell me they think and feel.) So I prefer the smooth liar who falsely panders to my own views.

[Happy Ent]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

Do you really think that the millions of Muslim Americans already living here make no contributions to this country? 

What a strange thing to ask. For the record: no, of course not. 

ETA: Ah, now I get it.

Where you’re coming from is that in the US, Muslim immigration may have been a net positive. Yes, that is my understanding as well. I believe our positions here are very much informed by what context we write from. 

[Boris the Blade]

24 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Harakiri,

You may not have noticed but I make a sincere effort to be civil with everyone.  I don't make exceptions.  My civility is mine.  I'm not going to allow other's bigotry to take it from me.

Good for you. Not everyone is like that, some people are tired of it. Especially people within marganlized demographics. 

[Happy Ent]

57 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Happy Ent's disingenuous assessment of Trump's stance on LGBTQ rights […]

I can believe that Trump does not personally have anything against gay people, but he's clearly signalled his willingness to let the McJesusites write his agenda. 

So… we agree? I’m able to say something that you basically can believe, but when I say it it’s disingenuous? Why are we discoursing in this way? Why this constant willingness to misunderstand, malign, attribute falseness to the other side? I’m shocked you all are so entrenched in utterly  tribal mindsets that you not only fail to be able to give a benevolent explanation of the other side (highlighting all the best points of the Other), and when somebody does so, it’s true yet disingenuous?

[Happy Ent]

2 minutes ago, Harakiri said:

Good for you. Not everyone is like that, some people are tired of it.

Maybe the moderators can help us understand the role that civility is supposed to play in these forums.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, Harakiri said:

Good for you. Not everyone is like that, some people are tired of it. Especially people within marganlized demographics. 

That is indeed their call.  I'm pointing out that having large minorites willing to come to blows inside a given society is a recipe for very bad things to happen.  Hell, it can be argued that it's already happening look at unjustified police shootings.

If we refuse to talk to each other because we are certain we cannot change minds with talk... what is left?

[Happy Ent]

6 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

(Also, lets note that up until 2000, US Muslims leaned Republican. The US Right had no problem with them then...). 

I’d be surprised if they did not lean Republican. (Muslims, as a group,  are very conservative. Ío that is probably true of the selected, very secularised, very highly educated US Muslim population as well.)

But you’re telling me they US Muslims now lean democrat? Very interesting (but maybe not surprising). Where can I read up on this?

[TheKitttenGuard]

Any and Vitriol I have towards Trump is mainly based on that he is a media creature charlatan with a Personality with all the Hallmark of an absolute Authoritarian.  That he has held no Public Office or Service and will be given the some of the greatest powers on Earth is quite an outstanding precedent. 

I do not know what people who support think will restrain Trump when he is being built up as this person who is outside normal rules.

 

There is many aspects of Hillary I find deeply troubling and should be looked at with clear eyes.  I also know she is a person who serve public office and was elected by the public.  She had to handle and deal with people and groups with their interest and some are against each other. 

A Clinton Presidency with a Republican House of Representative will be more scrutinized then a Trump Presidency with a Republican Congress. 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

 

[IheartIheartTesla]

28 minutes ago, Happy Ent said:

I’d be surprised if they did not lean Republican. (Muslims, as a group,  are very conservative. Ío that is probably true of the selected, very secularised, very highly educated US Muslim population as well.)

But you’re telling me they US Muslims now lean democrat? Very interesting (but maybe not surprising). Where can I read up on this?

Almost every non-European immigrant group (let's divide it by countries rather than religions to make it easier) comes from a more conservative country than the US, and yet first generation immigrants from those countries routinely trend democratic. Subsequent generations tend to represent the mainstream much more (I think this is a universal 'bootstrapping' phenomena, be it IQ, political affiliation, earning power, TV watching characteristics etc...)

There are some exceptions like Cuban refugees etc... but if there was a better conservative party than the Republicans, more first generation immigrants might flock to that party.

[The Marquis de Leech]

49 minutes ago, Happy Ent said:

But you’re telling me they US Muslims now lean democrat? Very interesting (but maybe not surprising). Where can I read up on this?

They don't lean Democratic as such. Rather, US Muslims now vote Democratic by margins comparable to blacks:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/22/muslims-america-views-presidential-candidates-donald-trump-ted-cruz

89% of them voted for Barack Obama in 2008.

http://www.gvhlive.com/gvh-daily/2016/3/18/z11wv6q3tl1vt63lwiy0vycne8j1lo

By contrast 72% voted for George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000, so this is a very recent phenomenon.

US Jews have always voted Democratic (the last Republican to win the Jewish vote was Calvin Coolidge in 1924, when the opposition vote was split by a socialist third party). Catholics traditionally voted Democratic too, but are now largely evenly split. Protestants (unless they're black) vote Republican. 

[Lyanna Stark]

3 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

Oh, I’m sorry if I came off as disingenuous. I absolutely know (and did not want to hide or distort) that she is playing a different card now (for completely cynical reasons that have to do with tribalism). 

Want I wanted to express is that I’m utterly confident that she remains in her heart opposed to gay marriage, while Trump couldn’t care less about gay marriage. She is a social conservative. He is not. (They are both running party platforms that go against what I assume are their own core values. Both lie.)

Sorry this wasn’t clear.

However, what "they feel in their hearts" when it comes to politics is irrelevant, no? We cannot know that, and it doesn't really matter. What *does* matter is policy, and here there are lots of differences.

Or are you arguing for a case wherein we should vote for what we think a politician thinks in their hearts (not brains? ) or what their policy stances are? I would say the latter, always, should hold precedence.

 

EDIT: Oh as for your insistence that muslims vote right-wing. At least in Sweden they are statistically far more likely to vote left. One such source. Another such source. Clearly, muslims are voting *class* not *identity politics*.

[James Arryn]

A politician...any politician...who previously held position A when it was the popular position and now holds the opposite position in concurrence with a shift in popular opinion is rightly held in suspicion. That posters here are actually suggesting that not doing so is and should be the default position barring unknowable insight into that politicsn's mind is honestly laughable. Was Byrd immediately embraced with open, unquestioning arms? Should he have been? 

In my own experience, people can overcome prejudices...but it's rare and for it to happen in middle age is extremely rare indeed. For a politician to espouse a position for the sake of effect regardless of their view...then or now...is much, much more common, and therefore IMO much more likely here.

That said, I don't really care if Hillary is sincere in her rejection of former bigotry or was insincere in that bigotry to begin with, or had an extraordinary but timely road to Damascus...if she's a weathercock, that's fine so long as the prevailing wind blows against this particular prejudice, which is about what you can expect from your average politician. I also don't care if Trump really doesn't mind gay marriage and is just making nice with the GOP for expediency, because that's the wind he'll still be following at least until 2nd term, so in effect he might as well be true blue homophobe. 

Kal, Altherion, Scott, your posts deserve more considered responses, so I'll do so when I have more time.

[Happy Ent]

Just for the record: I don’t think that Clinton is a bigot, or was. I just think she holds (in her heart) conservative views on gay marriage. You don’t need to be a bigot for that. 

I also think she is far more religious than Donald Trump. I am really, honestly happy that the Republican party has nominated somebody who is clearly an atheist. (Unless my intuition about people is now completely broken.)  So this is a reason to rejoice. Clinton is probably a cultural Christian at least, probably a half-hearted Deist. If not more. (Again, I could be wrong. She could just be a skilled liar, like Obama, who is also obviously (to me) an atheist and just lies about it.)

So, there are a bunch of issues where I’m far more sympathetic to Trump than to Clinton. On the other hand, his platform (the Republican party) is far from mine, except for a few points where I agree. So those are reasons to oppose Trump that would be identical to reasons against Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz.

But for me, the main reason against Trump, is is utter incompetence. This has nothing to do with his party platform or his alleged bigotry.