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

[Swordfish]

4 minutes ago, Happy Ent said:

BTW, for those who care about discourse (and haven’t found him yet) I get a lot of pleasure from listening to Sam Harris’s regular podcasts. In particular, let me point to the illuminating conversation he had in August with Eric Weinstein: Fait in Reason. I really liked the two-dimensional idea that Weinstein introduced (illustrated in the linked blog post) that explains well how and why the opinions of contrarians (“first principles thinkers”) like myself are constantly mapped to the troglodyte position. I found that very illuminating. 

(I also learned the pejorative term “rent-seeking elites,” which is funny but not really helpful for discourse other than social signalling.)

Thanks!  I'll check it out.

[James Arryn]

1 minute ago, Swordfish said:

Actually,now that i think about it,  it's an excellent example, thank you for bringing it up!

Because The people crossing the border are the rapists and criminals, the law abiding citizens, while a flawed and obviously untrue statement, is NOT the same as 'Trump thinks all mexicans are rapists'.

Why is it no sufficient to criticize the quote on it's lac of merits?  Why are you compelled to spin it into a blanket statement that Trump thinks all mexicans are rapists?

 

 

When he's telling Americans that the Mexicans in America are rapists, the fact that he's leaving the ones Americans don't have to encounter out of it is kind of beside the point (and his). And either way, it's still racist.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 minutes ago, Harakiri said:

Go tell the LGBTQIA community, women and people of color we should listen to the bigoted opinions about them as if they're valid and see how that goes over. Clearly listening to them spout their hatred doesn't do any good now doesn't it?

Harakiri,

What is the alternative?  Really, how do you simply ignore or freeze out 140,000,000 people?  Where do you think, realisitically, such a course of action would lead? 

I'm not defending what they say.  I'm saying, realistically, ignoring what they say isn't a viable option.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Okay, rather than ones that have somehow reemerged as current issues, let's look at ones we all agree are in the past...things like Jim Crowe, slavery, disenfranchised women, interracial marriage bans, etc. When huge chunks of the population supported those positions, how should they gave been addressed? Did sheer volume mean it wasn't bigotry? Or just that the word ought not be used? 

It is absolutely bigotry.  Accepting that as true what happens if 140,000,000 people are frozen out of the political process due to their noxious opinions?  Will they sit on their hands and complain, or might being frozen out prompt action by that very large minority?

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Trump is certainly a racist. There's a long history of him saying, and doing racist things: from his properties getting sued for refusing to rent to minority tenants (twice), to saying that he doesn't want black people counting his money because they're lazy, to calling a judge unqualified because he's "Mexican." There is no disputing that Trump is a racist if you bother to do even the most cursory research.

That said, I can understand why people won't take the American Left's word for it. We* have called every notable Republican politician racist for at least two decades. And while people like McCain and Romney might support policies that might have had disparate racial impacts, and they might be in their heart of hearts, biased**, they were not racist like Donald Trump is. And so people who rightfully call out Donald Trump for being a racist orange on this earth will run straight into the Boy Who Cried Wolf Problem***.

*As in the American Progressive Elite

** Everyone's at least a little a racist

*** Analogies not perfect. Maybe in this case, it's the boy who kept crying wolf when it was only a fox or a small dog.

[TrackerNeil]

21 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Actually,now that i think about it,  it's an excellent example, thank you for bringing it up!

Because The people crossing the border are the rapists and criminals, the law abiding citizens, while a flawed and obviously untrue statement, is NOT the same as 'Trump thinks all mexicans are rapists'.

Why is it no sufficient to criticize the quote on it's lac of merits?  Why are you compelled to spin it into a blanket statement that Trump thinks all mexicans are rapists?

On reflection, I'm going to decline to debate this, and let Trump's words stand for themselves.

[Altherion]

11 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

But independently of whichever bad solution you want to support (or, like me, prefer no solution), the question of stopping muslim immigration is orthogonal, and it violates no rights. This is one of the points where Trump is right on the money and Clinton is in lah-lah land.

Yes and no. It is true that we could probably get away with by framing the issue as restricting immigration from specific countries. However, to say that it violates no rights is skating on a technicality -- it will certainly not be perceived that way. It would mean that, for example, the Muslims who are already here would have a very hard time bringing their families over. It's a really unpleasant problem.

10 hours ago, mormont said:

You are not this dense.

Trump is not interested in illegal immigrants from Scandinavia or Australia or Canada. His attacks on illegal immigrants are entirely about illegal immigrants who have brown skin. They are a front, a way for him to express and take advantage of racism and bigotry. We both know that. You're arguing about semantics because you know that, but you don't want to admit it. You're trying to pretend that a paper bag full of shit is paper all the way through. It isn't working.

Oh come on -- he is not interested in illegal immigrants from Scandinavia or Australia because there aren't any, not worth mentioning anyway. There might be a few who overstayed their visas, but they're utterly negligible compared to the 10 million or more that Trump is railing against. What is he supposed to say, "We're going to build a wall and you -- yes, you personally, Henrik Eriksson -- you are going back to Sweden!"?

10 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

I struggle, though, with "they simply hold a different set of beliefs."  It is becoming infuriating to hear that "they simply hold a different set of beliefs," suggesting we should be tolerant, when those beliefs involve negating entire groups' humanity on the basis of gender, orientation and/ or race.   To sum it up as merely a "difference in beliefs" is not adequate.   Those beliefs are just morally wrong, and need to change.

I think your perception of their beliefs is extremely skewed or, at the very least, you are quoting beliefs held by a very tiny fraction of the group you are discussing. Almost nobody is "negating entire groups' humanity."

Quote

Except, to go back to the second reason I gave, it is profoundly naive to see Trump as the right person for this job.

You misunderstand. There's some probability that Trump would reign in the elites and help the masses, but indeed, it is not large. However, it is not necessary that he do this: simply the fact that he somehow managed to win the Republican nomination appalled Bush, Romney et al, and his election would appall them even more.

[Dr. Pepper]

11 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

Trump is certainly a racist. There's a long history of him saying, and doing racist things: from his properties getting sued for refusing to rent to minority tenants (twice), to saying that he doesn't want black people counting his money because they're lazy, to calling a judge unqualified because he's "Mexican." There is no disputing that Trump is a racist if you bother to do even the most cursory research.

That said, I can understand why people won't take the American Left's word for it. We* have called every notable Republican politician racist for at least two decades. And while people like McCain and Romney might support policies that might have had disparate racial impacts, and they might be in their heart of hearts, biased**, they were not racist like Donald Trump is. And so people who rightfully call out Donald Trump for being a racist orange on this earth will run straight into the Boy Who Cried Wolf Problem***.

*As in the American Progressive Elite

** Everyone's at least a little a racist

*** Analogies not perfect. Maybe in this case, it's the boy who kept crying wolf when it was only a fox or a small dog.

Well, it's only a fox or a small dog relative to Trump.  Still all of the same canine family.  

[Boris the Blade]

A friend's post on his Facebook, along with thinking about that media focus graph someone on here shared yesterday really showed how responsible the media is for where the election is right now. Trump has a child rape lawsuit against him, yet Clinton coughing and being sick was focused on more than that was for Trump. Obviously Trump supporters won't care, they're deplorable. 

[Happy Ent]

4 minutes ago, Altherion said:

It would mean that, for example, the Muslims who are already here would have a very hard time bringing their families over. It's a really unpleasant problem.

But not a very large one. “Bringing your family over” is not a universal right. Countries already have huge differences in how they handle that. 

(I mean, by European standards, US immigration regulations are incredibly strict, so even Clinton would be vilified as the Devil Incarnate from a European Judging Eye, charred in sin, damnation not so much smoking, as radiating off her blasted skin.)

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

3 minutes ago, Happy Ent said:

But not a very large one. “Bringing your family over” is not a universal right. Countries already have huge differences in how they handle that. 

(I mean, by European standards, US immigration regulations are incredibly strict, so even Clinton would be vilified as the Devil Incarnate from a European Judging Eye, charred in sin, damnation not so much smoking, as radiating off her blasted skin.)

no, but it would make a possibly destabilizing situation even worse. You have a bunch of disaffected underemployed young men and you now want to make sure they remain disaffected, underemployed single young men. That's a recipe for disaster no matter religion they are.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Let me get this straight, the "law and order" candidate was introduced today by a convicted murderer who is best known for being the most corrupt person in all of sports?

Are we in a bizarro universe? 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

We're in the universe where the candidate perceived as more honest is going on trial for fraud shortly after the election, and we all seem to have forgotten about it because of the thousands other stupid things he's said.

[Swordfish]

39 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

On reflection, I'm going to decline to debate this, and let Trump's words stand for themselves.

Yes!!  That's exactly what I've been saying!

His words stand for themselves, let's leave the hyperbole and deliberate over the top rhetoric behind!  it's not even necessary!

 

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

1 hour ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

Trump is certainly a racist. There's a long history of him saying, and doing racist things: from his properties getting sued for refusing to rent to minority tenants (twice), to saying that he doesn't want black people counting his money because they're lazy, to calling a judge unqualified because he's "Mexican." There is no disputing that Trump is a racist if you bother to do even the most cursory research.

That said, I can understand why people won't take the American Left's word for it. We* have called every notable Republican politician racist for at least two decades. And while people like McCain and Romney might support policies that might have had disparate racial impacts, and they might be in their heart of hearts, biased**, they were not racist like Donald Trump is. And so people who rightfully call out Donald Trump for being a racist orange on this earth will run straight into the Boy Who Cried Wolf Problem***.

*As in the American Progressive Elite

** Everyone's at least a little a racist

*** Analogies not perfect. Maybe in this case, it's the boy who kept crying wolf when it was only a fox or a small dog.

Trump didn't refuse them because they were black, he refused them because they were poor.  The Government dismissed the case against him, without requiring him to admit wrongdoing, and only requiring a statement that he follow the law, which is standard anyway.

He also didn't say Curiel was unqualified because he was Mexican.  He said that Curiel, with Mexican heritage and being active in Mexican-American associations, had a conflict of interest.  Since even a Supreme Court Judge admitted that her hispanic heritage influences her decisions, this isn't a large leap to make.

As for calling blacks lazy, only one person has claimed he said that, and that person had an axe to grind against Trump.

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

When he's telling Americans that the Mexicans in America are rapists, the fact that he's leaving the ones Americans don't have to encounter out of it is kind of beside the point (and his). And either way, it's still racist.

He qualified his statement by saying that some of them are good people, which precludes the idea that all the illegal mexican immigrants are rapists.  Further, even if he did, it's still not racist since Mexican is a nationality, and not a race.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

8 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

He qualified his statement by saying that some of them are good people, which precludes the idea that all the illegal mexican immigrants are rapists.  Further, even if he did, it's still not racist since Mexican is a nationality, and not a race.

[Inigima]

I am really surprised that people seem to agree that Clinton privately doesn't support gay marriage and her pro position is a political calculation. I have always assumed the opposite -- that she always privately supported gay marriage, and her former position was the calculation, that she thought Americans wouldn't have accepted it at the time. Consequently I have also always assumed that gay marriage just wasn't a priority issue for her, hence her willingness to base her position on political expediency rather than her values.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

We're in the universe where the candidate perceived as more honest is going on trial for fraud shortly after the election, and we all seem to have forgotten about it because of the thousands other stupid things he's said.

It's kind of crazy to think of all the things that Clinton gets dinged for when there is little to no evidence that she's guilty and when there is a ton of evidence suggesting Trump is actually guilty of said charge. For example, see the claims of using a personal foundation as a slush fund. There is no evidence that Clinton is guilty of this claim, yet she's been getting a ton of blow back from that accusation, while at the same time it's becoming clear that Trump in fact used his to pay his own debts and it's only just becoming an issue. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 minutes ago, Inigima said:

I am really surprised that people seem to agree that Clinton privately doesn't support gay marriage and her pro position is a political calculation. I have always assumed the opposite -- that she always privately supported gay marriage, and her former position was the calculation, that she thought Americans wouldn't have accepted it at the time. Consequently I have also always assumed that gay marriage just wasn't a priority issue for her, hence her willingness to base her position on political expediency rather than her values.

This one is a hard nut to crack, because she was one of the last major Democrats to come out and support gay marriage. I think she started off being opposed to it, but after speaking with enough people she decided to change her private stance, and then publicly supported it once it became the norm. I'm not going to fault her for that, but I do worry that she can be too fearful of taking the lead because it bit her badly in the past.