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

[all swedes are racist]

10 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Anti-poxxers

Hahaha, fair. I've heard there is now a vaccine for both-your-house pox, but big pharma is keeping it under wraps 

[James Arryn]

13 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

It's a good thing you're no longer engaging in pointless exchanges. 

Lol, fair cop. In my defense, I actually went much further down that path but deleted a bunch before submitting, and my motivation is genuine fear that people arguing she's just a victim make the Trumppocalypse more likely, but I agree I went kinda passive-aggressive there.

[Kalbear]

9 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

She got married and took her husband's name that's hardly unusual particularly in this part of the country.  What is wrong with her converting to another faith?  She is still a female holding the highest executive office in South Carolian, a notoriously sexist part of the world.

"Nikki" isn't her husband's name. 

Declaring herself caucasian is also not converting to another faith.

 

[Kalbear]

7 hours ago, Patrek_Mallister said:

I think that a vote for Peace/Freedom or Libertarian is a vote for Peace/Freedom or Libertarian. Mine seems to be the more defensible position. Of course the effect of the vote is proportional to support, but that just means most people support the very people they're complaining about. That seems like a crazy thing to do, but it's being vehemently defended from most in the thread. 

Because in a first-past the post, winner-take-all system that has precisely one winner, this is the absolute inevitable outcome. Supporting a candidate that has no chance of winning makes it more likely that the candidate that you least want to win does in fact win. This isn't hard math to understand. 

A vote for peace/freedom/libertarian FSM PUA activists is a vote for them. It is also a good chance that that vote will be entirely wasted, and even worse that the person you wanted least to win will end up winning. 

7 hours ago, Patrek_Mallister said:

And the idea that not voting is in effect a vote for some party is just mathematically confused, I mean demonstrably wrong. I see the point, but rhetoric shouldn't be so overblown that it literally makes no sense. 

It is not a vote for some party, but it also makes it more likely that the party you want least to win will win. 

[ThinkerX]

Again with the polarization and demonization.

And again, the utter incomprehension, that short of genocide or literal police state, the 'other side' is not going to go away, at least in the short to mid term.  The winners throne is a precarious place to be.  Victory is not absolute. 

 

Plus, the underlying demographics are starting to shift big time, in a process that will take years or even decades to play out.  That will change the nature of both parties.

 

 

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Again with the polarization and demonization.

And again, the utter incomprehension, that short of genocide or literal police state, the 'other side' is not going to go away, at least in the short to mid term.  The winners throne is a precarious place to be.  Victory is not absolute. 

Um. Okay. 

There are a lot of ways to deal with extremism that are not a police state or genocide. The problem many have is not that there exists an other side, but said other side is so absurdly extremist in their viewpoints and stated goals. 

5 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

 

Plus, the underlying demographics are starting to shift big time, in a process that will take years or even decades to play out.  That will change the nature of both parties.

At least so far that doesn't seem to be particularly good for that demonic other side.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

21 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

PUA activists

You mean Trump supporters?

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

And to me anyone who is either that kind of active or passive bigot is probably not a very good person. Even if they have other virtues, even if they are generally kind to those around them, even if they're good to animals, environmentally concerned, donate to charities, etc. If they are willing to support others being negatively defined by their race, religion, gender or sexuality, they are supporting 'evil' for lack of a better word. And in Trump they must know what they're supporting or they don't care about it enough to look. That's morally indefensible to me. It's the kind of thing that's lead me to end friendships, and lead to familial estrangements. 

That's the tough thing, I think. And one of the big divides.

I know a lot of racists. They're not racist like KKK members or white power members. They're not particularly hateful people. They're not even particularly ignorant people - though often they don't know a whole lot of people of other walks of life. 

They aren't bad people. But they absolutely have racist views. From stupid ones like black people can't swim to views that Mexicans are lazy, they think these things. They are indoctrinations that they don't question, not for a second. So when they hear Trump speaking like this, it's not like they think he's being racist - they think he's being truthful. And they don't understand why all of a sudden it's somehow a horrible thing to actually say truthful things. Again, they don't think they're bad people, and they're almost certainly not bad people by most metrics. They don't break laws. They give to charity and help their community. They don't hate people based on their skin or their sex. They care about their friends and family and society, and think about things. And to them they are absolutely not racists - racists are KKK, racists are lynchers and neo-nazis, and by God their parents fought in a war to make sure people like that lost. They aren't racists like that, so when you call them a racist it's a huge insult to them. 

So how do you convince them? Probably the best way is to have them hang out with others a bit more. Diversity in community is one of the best proven ways to improve racist viewpoints. Short of that, telling them that they're racist or sexist or bigoted really only helps if they're truly getting hurt by it in some way - like you're a close family member. Otherwise it does nothing. 

 

 

[Kalbear]

Just now, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

You mean Trump supporters?

I'm not convinced all of them are Trump supporters, honestly. I suspect there's a whole bunch of them who are very much pro Bernie Sanders and have now migrated to Johnson, who appeals to them because of the libertarian bullshit vibe combined with the climbing everest and calling Trump a pussy vibe. 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'm not convinced all of them are Trump supporters, honestly. I suspect there's a whole bunch of them who are very much pro Bernie Sanders and have now migrated to Johnson, who appeals to them because of the libertarian bullshit vibe combined with the climbing everest and calling Trump a pussy vibe. 

Maybe some are, but the PUA 'movement' has been a huge influence on, and continues to constitute a large part of the Alt-Right.

[Patrek_Mallister]

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

That's morally indefensible to me. It's the kind of thing that's lead me to end friendships, and lead to familial estrangements. 

A good sanity check on your belief system is, 'does what I believe pressure me into cutting off ties with my family and friends?' I know a lot of people end ties for their own safety. But it is a pretty big alarm bell that perhaps your views are not quite as sane as you think.

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Patrek_Mallister said:

A good sanity check on your belief system is, 'does what I believe pressure me into cutting off ties with my family and friends?' I know a lot of people end ties for their own safety. But it is a pretty big alarm bell that perhaps your views are not quite as sane as you think.

Well, sure. Sanity is largely dependent on societal norms. If you're disagreeing with your friends and family chances are, to them, you'll be considered insane. 

That doesn't mean it's a bad thing to do.

[Altherion]

44 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

The thing with Trump voters for me is, that at some level, however 'ordinary' they are when not angry, however anti-elite their motivations, however fed up with the status quo their concerns, the bottom line is that they are at least okay with significant bigotry coming from the very top. They may feel Trump is less likely to be empowered, they may feel the media will be more vigilant, all that, but still...they are willing to sign off on significant and overt bigotry in the White House. Whether it's because they are themselves bigots or because bigotry is just not very important to them, that's still the bottom line.

There's no perfection in this world. The choice is between Trump and somebody who has taken millions of dollars from Wall Street directly and tens of millions from all sorts of questionable sources via a foundation. I think most people badly underestimate the importance of the latter and the harm it causes to nearly everyone.

Also, Trump's "bigotry" is not nearly as harmful as the media makes it out to be (though some of his supporters really are quite terrible). There are two groups that he has consistently attacked: illegal immigrants and Muslims. The first of these is not in fact a race, ethnicity or any other protected group (although the scum in the media do their best to make people forget this). Frankly, the supporters of these are much more likely to be bad people than Trump: they pretend to be compassionate, but it is a very selective and self-interested compassion. They're compassionate towards people who serve as a source of cheap labor for them and not at all towards fellow citizens who must compete with this cheap labor for jobs. Trump is of course guilty of crudeness and vulgarity when discussing this, but on the whole, his ethical position on this issue is much stronger than that of his opponents. It amounts to enforcing the law -- even when blatant violation of this law benefits richer citizens at the expense of poorer ones.

The issue with Muslims is a lot trickier. It stems from our social framework not really being designed to handle the current situation. In the past two decades, Muslims have killed thousands of American citizens on US soil. The majority of these casualties came when our society was much more open than it is today, but even with all of the restrictions and safeguards, it is impossible for law enforcement to stop further attacks because we give both citizens and residents a fairly expansive set of rights. If you consider the most recent attackers (the NY/NJ bomber from last Saturday, the Orlando shooter, the Boston marathon bombers, etc.), you will see that the FBI actually investigated all of them, but could not find anything to charge them with. They get flak for this, but in fact they merely followed the law: it is not a crime to hang out with people who hold anti-American views or travel to the Middle East or anything of the sort. For the authorities to arrest them, they must be caught in the act which results in a time window narrow enough to make it implausible unless they are very closely monitored.

Here are the possible solutions to this problem (in very broad terms) that I have heard of so far:

1) Discriminate against Muslims to the extent that one can get away with it given the Constitution. Trump is proposing a mild version of this which is nevertheless highly unpleasant.

2) Tighten the restrictions and safeguards thus curtailing everyone's liberties even further. The NSA has done this, but it does not appear to be effective.

3) Minimize the role of Islam and generally pretend that this is not a problem until a sufficiently deadly attack or sequence of attacks renders this position untenable. This has been the position of the ruling elite (including both G.W. Bush and Obama) and I expect Clinton to hold the same position.

None of these is any good, but I honestly don't see what to do here -- the attacks will most certainly not stop and it's only a matter of time until people are sufficiently fed up to do something about them. Trump is trying to do it now. His proposal is certainly problematic, but this is a real-life version of one of those philosophical thought experiments where every action or even inaction is bad.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

25 minutes ago, Patrek_Mallister said:

A good sanity check on your belief system is, 'does what I believe pressure me into cutting off ties with my family and friends?' I know a lot of people end ties for their own safety. But it is a pretty big alarm bell that perhaps your views are not quite as sane as you think.

Just to test an edge case:

So I'm against rape. It turns out on of my childhood friends believes there's nothing wrong with rape, and that he'd totally rape strangers if he could get away with it and strongly implies that he has. I'm in no particular danger- we're both men and he's strictly heterosexual and he also won't touch any of my female friends or family.

Would it not be sane to end ties with this guy?

[Kalbear]

Wow, @Altherionhas gone from "Trump won't do any of the bad things that he says" to "a foundation that has saved thousands of lives is worse than someone who lies all the time, and he's not that bad anyway". 

On illegal immigration: he is not, actually, in favor of the law. For example, he wishes to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants without due process. This is against multiple supreme court decisions. He wishes to remove the property of legal immigrants (namely, those who were born here but whose parents were not). Again, against due process. He wishes to deport people who are legal citizens, and has said so repeatedly. This isn't remotely legal. The common refrain of 'he just wants to enforce the law' is interesting, but when pressed on it it is either incorrect (see above) or is humorously precisely the same position that Obama and Clinton have, which is to selectively deport those who are most illegal and have committed crimes and spend the resources that way, but 'with more energy'. 

[DireWolfSpirit]

10 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I don't think those two things are analogus.

a·nal·o·gous

əˈnaləɡəs/

 

You are busted Mr. Ser Scot A............  

[Boris the Blade]

8 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

This is where the election will be won or lost. Clinton will lose if all the scrutiny is on her while Trump gets to skate by some major scandals. 

It takes two to tango, and a lot of it has been self inflicted. Hell, without the email scandal (and it is a legitimate scandal) I bet Clinton would be over 50% in the polls right now while Trump would be at 40% max. 

Bullshit, the FBI investigated it and didn't prosecute her. So the email thing shouldn't be an issue at this point and should have never been an issue given how republicans are on record about having used private servers as well, yet Clinton is the only one getting shit for it. Again, because of a 20+ year smear campaign from the right and the media playing along.

[Tijgy]

5 minutes ago, Harakiri said:

Bullshit, the FBI investigated it and didn't prosecute her. Republicans are on record having used private servers as well, yet Clinton is the only one getting shit for it. Again, because of a 20+ year smear campaign from the right and the media playing along.

Isn't the scandal she lied about this for months and she tried to hide it? One of her IT specialists deleted after a "oh, sh*t"-moment all their remaining emails after they had been subpoenaed. Something I consider personally as destroying evidence. He got for this immunity and plead the fifth for Congress. And he might even asked on internet how to tamper with those emails. 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/20/clinton-email-wiper-appears-to-have-asked-online-how-to-hide-vip-info.html

(not really smart that guy)

And while the Trump Foundation get investigated by the DA of NY, the same DA refused to do anything about the fact one of Clinton Charities neglected to tell the State of NY which foreign donors gave money to the charity. And you are here not talking about thousands of money given to a charity in return a stupid statue/painting or helmet during an auction (The most incriminating thing is the alleged bribe to Bondi). You are talking here about millions of dollars which are unaccounted for.

http://www.newsnet5.com/longform/exclusive-clinton-charities-ignore-law-requiring-them-to-disclose-millions-from-foreign-donors

And this DA is a democrat who is part of some NY group aiding Clinton, he donated to her, ... which gives him a really biased outlook. Those things only give more and more the perception Clinton is indeed corrupt. And the only thing what really matters during an election, is the perception and not the the truth. And in the end it were not the Republicans who decided to make a private server on the name of Clinton, it were not them who decide to lie, to delete those emails, ... She or one of her staff did it themselves. 

[ThinkerX]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

There are a lot of ways to deal with extremism that are not a police state or genocide. The problem many have is not that there exists an other side, but said other side is so absurdly extremist in their viewpoints and stated goals. 

And here we go again, painting in dark colors with a broad brush. 

What you consider 'extremist,' was, a few decades ago, 'normal,' - and it was 'normal' for most of two hundred years. 

You also failed to grasp my point: even if the democratic party manages a clean sweep and Clinton gets left leaning Supremes appointed, the conservative movement will still be there, still comprising a good 40+% of the country.  Same thing inverted should Trump somehow win.  The other side doesn't go away.  Instead, they did in their heels and strike back however they can - an huge numbers of people will go along with this.  Polarization.  A vicious cycle.  The rhetoric expressed on this board only makes that cycle ever more vicious. 

Thing is, the people on both sides are just that - people.  They have different skill sets, professions, incomes, religious beliefs, virtues, and flaws.

 

 The first of these is not in fact a race, ethnicity or any other protected group (although the scum in the media do their best to make people forget this). Frankly, the supporters of these are much more likely to be bad people than Trump: they pretend to be compassionate, but it is a very selective and self-interested compassion. They're compassionate towards people who serve as a source of cheap labor for them and not at all towards fellow citizens who must compete with this cheap labor for jobs

 

  I remember reading much the same about slave owners during the bad old days - their reliance on slaves made free people all the poorer.  The same mechanics are in place today.  And it's not just republicans guilty of this type of wage suppression.  How many of those employing cheap undocumented workers at the expense of others are staunch members of the democratic party, even Clinton supporters?   And why should those thrown out of work or into even worse jobs vote for those who support importing dirt cheap labor? 

 

 

[Happy Ent]

9 hours ago, Altherion said:

[…] Here are the possible solutions to this problem (in very broad terms) that I have heard of so far:

Good post, Altherion. (In a thread that is otherwise dominated by shallow tribalists attacking the Other of being, well, tribal.)

There are, indeed, no solutions to the problem of muslim immigration. (You seem to reduce the problem to security, but I think security is the least part of it. I’m sufficiently far on the Left to think that a certain amount of terrorism is just part of life. Terrorism I can live with. The problems with Islam are are totalitarianism and surveillance as a result of terrorism, censorship, muslim social conservatism, de-personalisation of women, antisemitism, tribalism, homophobia, nepotism, lack of societal trust, curated school curricula, etc.  Not the odd gay bar exploding. But that’s another debate.)

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. 

Well, that, and global capitalism, where I just agree with the position he expounds. But this, at least, is a position where I understand the other side: I understand and have some sympathy for people who like the Soros-version of global, economic liberalism, the Soros-version of the open society (which is manifestly not the Popperian version of the open society, in which I am a strong believer.) I just thing that global capitalism/liberalism is wrong (and immoral). But not that its supporters are dumb.

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. (ETA: Maybe “little” apparent gain is a more correct assessment.) And there are no solutions to those problems, only realities to confront. (And the inevitable reactions are extremely costly; just think of surveillance/security.) 

ETA: On your other point: The question of stopping illegal immigration should not even be a question. Of course you should. That’s why it’s illegal. There is no way to build a democracy if you don’t control your borders.