American Politics

[Snorby]

>Stealthy

Yeah I realize things don't look fantastic for him, but what you cite makes a lot of massive assumption, like Hillary having a overwhelming chances to win places like Iowa, Maine, and Colorado where she frequently either loses to or ties with Trump. I haven't seen a poll since early September that had her up on Trump in Iowa, for instance.

My point is not that he'll probably win. It's that he could, potentially, make the uphill climb to win the day and it's not an unrealistic fear to have, because as Deo said, it's exactly the sort of mentality you seem to have that causes a would-be Clinton voter to stay home and do something else with that hour of his or her election day, which would make Trump's path to the presidency much, MUCH wider.

Everyone thought Remain had it locked up in the UK this summer, but lo and behold, after people had spent months assuring the public Brexit was next to impossible, the Brexit camp prevailed, in part because of low turnout in Scotland and for young people, the two biggest demographics in favor of Remain.

With Britain having set an ugly precedent just a few months ago, thinking that all this assurance from the pundits etc since as early as 2013 that Hillary will be our next POTUS no matter what happens might result in key demographics like young people or minorities not turning out in the large numbers Hillary needs isn't very far-fetch'd, I feel.

[Stealthy]

The underlying concept is that a rising tide lifts all boats.

If, when the race is tied, Trump would win Ohio by 2 pts, then if the race moves 5 pts in Clinton's favor then she'd win by about 3ish. There's caps and caveats and complications and everything else that the model controls for, but it's a basic concept that underlies national electoral statistics. It's how the NowCast can spit something out for Virginia despite there not being a poll since September, with the large sample size helping keep things reliable.

So if Clinton's poll numbers are increasing overall then you're gonna see increases in the swing states. The race as it stands is strongly in her favor, and when she's at a 6.2pt margin (more than Obama in 2012) then she's gonna take some states she wasn't doing so before, which is how Iowa comes back on the board, even if the win margin in Iowa would only be 0.8 pts give or take a margin of error.

And given that Trump could only pull off an okay shot at the presidency during Hillary's Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Week, and we're well off that end of the spectrum and are unlikely to return... yeah. GOP leaders aren't being bold when they're writing him off.

He's gonna lose, but probably still by not nearly as much as he should.

[Heather]

Originally Posted by Blastoise

Double post but whatever, I've already touched the poop.



The fundamental disconnect is that you're clearly in too deep: politics has become an outlet for you to discuss strategy and game theory and the like, much like the group of us bullshitting about the LoL championships or people talking about competitive 6v6 singles in Pokemon. The problem is that politics isn't competitive Pokemon, where there's no impending moral tragedy that will occur if your physical wall isn't properly statted to take a hit from a Jolly Garchomp and OHKO it back with Ice Beam or whatever the fuck: you're trying to divorce yourself from the impact the next potential PoTUS will have on actual IRL human beings because you're fascinated with the sixth dimensional chess match that is the presidential campaign for its own sake, and that is going to rankle anyone who wants to debate the impact of policy and not palace intrigue.

THIS FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. Shuckle, I don't know if you know this but there are UPNers and several other people in America who, at this juncture, are legitimately terrified of a Republican presidency, and rightly so, whether because right now that means the absolute madman that is Trump appointing a Supreme Court Justice from the republican side, Trump being our President at all, or, I don't know, some of the disgusting shit from the GOP 2016 platform, but this election does not exist in a vacuum, it has real, tangible effects, and some people (read: definitely like myself) are incredibly annoyed at your flimsy defending of a candidate that many believe poses a real threat to their safety.

[Doppleganger]

Spoiler: The economy is headed for a nosedive whether it's a Democrat or Republican in office. Hillary getting elected would just postpone the inevitable by one or two years. Trump would get the world ready to rumble by December.

Either way, if you're young, in college, have student debt, or all three, you're in for a world of hurt very, very soon.

[phoopes]

Lucky me!

[Mozz]

Originally Posted by Heather

THIS FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. Shuckle, I don't know if you know this but there are UPNers and several other people in America who, at this juncture, are legitimately terrified of a Republican presidency, and rightly so, whether because right now that means the absolute madman that is Trump appointing a Supreme Court Justice from the republican side, Trump being our President at all, or, I don't know, some of the disgusting shit from the GOP 2016 platform, but this election does not exist in a vacuum, it has real, tangible effects, and some people (read: definitely like myself) are incredibly annoyed at your flimsy defending of a candidate that many believe poses a real threat to their safety.

I am mildly "scared" of a Hillary presidency, and not scared of a Trump presidency. Given Obama's backing of an actual domestic terrorist group, importing actual terrorists, and Trump's proposed purging of illegal immigrants and visa overstays, I don't get the "threat to safety" of Trump to citizens, but I'm interested to hear why one would be.

[deoxys]

Originally Posted by Mozz

I am mildly "scared" of a Hillary presidency, and not scared of a Trump presidency.

I don't want to be that guy and use the "P" word, but it's not inaccurate; You (I assume, sorry if I am wrong) have privilege that others do not, and therefore you have nothing to fear. Those who lack the privilege you do, do have reasons to be afraid, particularly many different minorities.

Given Obama's backing of an actual domestic terrorist group,

Who are you referring to?

importing actual terrorists,

Source?

and Trump's proposed purging of illegal immigrants and visa overstays,

You mean the illegal immigrants working jobs that no one else would for far less than asking price? Genuine question here, do you think your day to day life would actually be any different whatsoever if illegal immigrants weren't here?

I don't get the "threat to safety" of Trump to citizens, but I'm interested to hear why one would be.

Trump is a bully, it's not even arguable, it's just a fact. He has time and time again displayed some bigoted positions which leave certain minorities fearful of what it means for them if a person that carried such views were in charge of the country. Particularly, it enables those who follow him in a cult-like manner, to potentially enact hate crimes. Trump has time and time again encouraged his supporters to get violent, claiming that 'some people need to be a little roughed up' when his supporters shoved around peaceful protesters and even punched one in the face at his rallies. He advocated taking their coats away from them and throwing them out in the winter storm, and this has only been seen as a meme and a good thing among a majority of his supporters. He encourages that sort of behavior to everyone, when it should never be acceptable, period.

We could also get into another huge discussion about stop and frisk, which is not only unconstitutional, but a. super Orwellian, b. particularly abused by those who racially profile (in fact, Trump himself indicated that stop and frisk should be primarily utilized in prominently black neighborhoods and cities), and c. it will only create more animosity in an already turbulent environment for black Americans.

For the sake of being fair, I will say that Trump mentioned a few months back that transgender people should be treated equally. I'm not sure if he's changed his view or said otherwise since, but there was at least one instance he mentioned this (and it shocked us all at the time). However, it doesn't excuse everything else.

[Mozz]

I don't want to be that guy and use the "P" word, but it's not inaccurate; You (I assume, sorry if I am wrong) have privilege that others do not, and therefore you have nothing to fear. Those who lack the privilege you do, do have reasons to be afraid, particularly many different minorities.

I do not think that Trump will go around the Constitution and round up citizens like FDR did.

Who are you referring to?

"Black Lives Matter"

Source?

It's not just Obama, it's been going on for a long time.

http://cis.org/HowTerroristsGetIn

Obama wants to let in 10k+ "Syrians", and Hillary wants to up that to 55k. Seems unnecessarily risky?

You mean the illegal immigrants working jobs that no one else would for far less than asking price? Genuine question here, do you think your day to day life would actually be any different whatsoever if illegal immigrants weren't here?

I live in NJ and work in NYC, so my food might be a little more expensive. But nationwide, there would be a large change in the teen and unskilled UE rate, at the very least.

Trump is a bully, it's not even arguable, it's just a fact. He has time and time again displayed some bigoted positions which leave certain minorities fearful of what it means for them if a person that carried such views were in charge of the country. Particularly, it enables those who follow him in a cult-like manner, to potentially enact hate crimes. Trump has time and time again encouraged his supporters to get violent, claiming that 'some people need to be a little roughed up' when his supporters shoved around peaceful protesters and even punched one in the face at his rallies. He advocated taking their coats away from them and throwing them out in the winter storm, and this has only been seen as a meme and a good thing among a majority of his supporters. He encourages that sort of behavior to everyone, when it should never be acceptable, period.

Blacks have committed many MANY more hate crimes against whites than vv, and Trump is actually somewhat gay friendly. The stuff about 'roughing up' was a joke, imo, that some took literally, and he shouldn't have said it. I do not think he, as President, would lead to an uptick of violence against liberals, gays, or blacks.

We could also get into another huge discussion about stop and frisk, which is not only unconstitutional, but a. super Orwellian, b. particularly abused by those who racially profile (in fact, Trump himself indicated that stop and frisk should be primarily utilized in prominently black neighborhoods and cities), and c. it will only create more animosity in an already turbulent environment for black Americans.

Trump should push stop and frisk to the next level of courts to verify the unconstitutionality, as there is an appeal left on it that was not pushed (unsurprisingly) by deBlasio, IIRC. If it's deemed unconst., then it should be dropped, and other options should be explored. Black crime rates are ridiculous, and nobody has a good answer for it besides 'jail more black men', which certainly perpetuates the cycle.

For the sake of being fair, I will say that Trump mentioned a few months back that transgender people should be treated equally. I'm not sure if he's changed his view or said otherwise since, but there was at least one instance he mentioned this (and it shocked us all at the time). However, it doesn't excuse everything else.

He is pretty chill af on social issues such as this, and seems incredibly gay/trans friendly for a Republican candidate.

[SoS]

Either Mozz is trolling or he's actually an outright racist. Lol at the idea of BLM being domestic terror. Lol at inverting quotes around Syrian refugees. Lol at the idea of black people committing more hate crimes, blatantly pulled out of your arse. Lol at the ignorance of the rise of hate crime, the far right and related racism. Lol at nobody having a "good answer" for "black crime" other than jailing more black men, other than say, fixing the system so it isn't as institutionally racist etc.

So which is it Mozz, troll or twat?

[Mozz]

Terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation in pursuit of political aims. The riots, the cops being shot, that's not it? Sure it's watered down from suicide bombs and planes into buildings, but it's not wrong. I'll ignore the ad homs, because who cares, but no, there has been no good answer for fixing black communities. I'm all ears, though.

[SoS]

>implying BLM was responsible for Dallas
Try again!

Spoilers: problem isn't black communities, it's the systems around them. I see you ignored that part.

So I'm guessing you're actually just a racist twat.

EDIT: Very little patience for open bigotry, and I believe in less-than-measured responses to less-than-reasonable points, sorry if I'm not playing nice daddy deo

[Mozz]

Originally Posted by Son_of_Shadows

>implying BLM was responsible for Dallas
Try again!

Spoilers: problem isn't black communities, it's the systems around them. I see you ignored that part.

So I'm guessing you're actually just a racist twat.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016...blm-criminals/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...ooting-police/

I'll tread lightly in dealing with the ad homs, since I'm assuming the mods will put me on the wrong side.

[JustAnotherUser]

BLM uses peaceful protesting methods, by and large, and does not approve of violent rioting. Opportunists will gladly take an excuse to riot and loot, regardless of their belief in the system. Consistent police violence against their protests could possibly make it seem like they're more aggressive than they are.

Besides, I'll remind you of Trump's reluctance to disavow the KKK and photographs of him with Klansmen in the past. Doesn't get a lot more "terrorist hate group" than them.

[Sparkbeat]

Originally Posted by Son_of_Shadows

Spoilers: problem isn't black communities, it's the systems around them. I see you ignored that part.

What systems need to be fixed, and how would you suggest fixing them?

[phoopes]

I'd like to make a comment on why some folks may be scared of a Trump presidency. While Trump is pretty cool on LGBTQ issues, it is his possible Supreme Court nominees that have members of the LGBTQ community worried. Trump has praised Scalia, a conservative, and being the Republican nominee it stands to reason that his Supreme Court nominee would be a conservative as well. Now say he has the chance to replace a liberal justice (RBG is the oldest, so most likely her). If he gets another conservative nominee in, the court has swung in favor of the conservatives. This means that there would be potential to overturn many of the rights that the LGBTQ community has won, like same-sex marriage. That's why some in the LGBTQ community would feel unsafe because of a Trump presidency, despite his record.

(sorry, quickly typed on my phone)

[Deebs]

Echoing phoopes and then pointing out that his running mate is decidedly not gay-friendly at all.

[Princess Ana]

It has much less to do with Trump himself and more the consequences of what will happen with a Republican president in office. Stronger Republican majorities in Congress, Mike Pence existing, Trump giving a voice to hate and allowing for more bigoted Republicans to run and win offices and allow people to justify hate and use it in force (transgender people for example have bizarrely high murder rates compared to other groups. I don't see this becoming any better for a Trump presidency, especially since he does not want to repeal the horribly transphobic NC bathroom law).

It's not _just_ Trump. It's never just Trump. Not sure how that is difficult to understand.

Josh stop being Rangeet.

[Stealthy]

Donald Trump will basically just sign whatever law Mike Pence and Paul Ryan put in front of him so long as it doesn't break the few principles he holds dear, such as his profit margins. I mean, Kasich was reportedly offered more or less complete policy control if he accepted the VP slot. Pence would, hypothetically, have a similar role, which makes sense because I don't think Donald really gives that much shit about political policies. And noooo thanks on that.

[Jerichi]

It's like Baby Bush all over again, except this Cheney's plan is much more obvious.

[deoxys]

Spark, it would take way too long to go into all of it, and it would probably be deserving of its own thread for that alone. There are many, many cogs in the machine of institutionalized racism, many of which turn because of even smaller cogs in place. There are so many factors at hand that discussing them would take a long time and aren't suited to be talked about from a mobile device (like I am now), so maybe someone else can start delving into that topic.

On Mike Pence: Need I remind everyone this is they guy who thinks it okay for businesses to discriminate against customers and employees based on religious beliefs and sexually orientation. He's an established asshat.

By the way, I don't know about the other mods, I'll leave it up to them, but I personally don't care if you call the candidates names (like I just did) as long as it isn't ridiculously overboard. Just don't insult and do it to each other.

Originally Posted by Son_of_Shadows

EDIT: Very little patience for open bigotry, and I believe in less-than-measured responses to less-than-reasonable points, sorry if I'm not playing nice daddy deo

You obviously know better, and while I understand the anger, if you feel he has an ignorant opinion, fighting it with name calling isn't going to make him change his opinion. In fact it likely will make him less open to what you or any other proponents of the issue have to say about it.

And please, it's dad. I told you not to call me that in public.

[deoxys]

On Black Lives Matter: This is something I think everyone should read to better understand it, especially those who say 'All Lives Matter'

Imagine that you're sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don't get any. So you say "I should get my fair share." And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying, "everyone should get their fair share." Now, that's a wonderful sentiment -- indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad's smart-ass comment just dismissed you and didn't solve the problem that you still haven't gotten any!

The problem is that the statement "I should get my fair share" had an implicit "too" at the end: "I should get my fair share, too, just like everyone else." But your dad's response treated your statement as though you meant "only I should get my fair share", which clearly was not your intention. As a result, his statement that "everyone should get their fair share," while true, only served to ignore the problem you were trying to point out.

That's the situation of the "black lives matter" movement. Culture, laws, the arts, religion, and everyone else repeatedly suggest that all lives should matter. Clearly, that message already abounds in our society.

The problem is that, in practice, the world doesn't work the way. You see the film Nightcrawler? You know the part where Renee Russo tells Jake Gyllenhal that she doesn't want footage of a black or latino person dying, she wants news stories about affluent white people being killed? That's not made up out of whole cloth -- there is a news bias toward stories that the majority of the audience (who are white) can identify with. So when a young black man gets killed (prior to the recent police shootings), it's generally not considered "news", while a middle-aged white woman being killed is treated as news. And to a large degree, that is accurate -- young black men are killed in significantly disproportionate numbers, which is why we don't treat it as anything new. But the result is that, societally, we don't pay as much attention to certain people's deaths as we do to others. So, currently, we don't treat all lives as though they matter equally.

Just like asking dad for your fair share, the phrase "black lives matter" also has an implicit "too" at the end: it's saying that black lives should also matter. But responding to this by saying "all lives matter" is willfully going back to ignoring the problem. It's a way of dismissing the statement by falsely suggesting that it means "only black lives matter," when that is obviously not the case. And so saying "all lives matter" as a direct response to "black lives matter" is essentially saying that we should just go back to ignoring the problem.

TL;DR: The phrase "Black lives matter" carries an implicit "too" at the end; it's saying that black lives should also matter. Saying "all lives matter" is dismissing the very problems that the phrase is trying to draw attention to.

Source - https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlike...e_says/ct8pei1

[Shuckle]

I think that arguing with people who say "all lives matter" is not the right way to go about it. Agree. Say "Yes; that is what Black Lives Matter means. Many black people, particularly those in low-income mostly-black communities, are given the impression from law enforcement and the court system that their lives matter less than white people's lives. Thank you for drawing attention to our cause; that all people deserve respect and fair justice."

"ALM" people are just feeling locked out of a discussion that they feel they should be a part of, because BLM carries with it the feeling of blame. "YOUR country makes ME feel like a nonhuman." And they want to defend themselves, because they don't want to be racist. And no, they aren't really the problem. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be involved in the discussion. Locking them out only compounds the problem of racial tensions.

BLM the group is not something I can support in good conscience, but their one good cause, the protest against mistreatment of black people at the hands of law enforcement, is something I am 100% behind all the way. I just think that the kinds of people who chant "ALL LIVES MATTER" would get behind BLM if people actually took the time to talk to them in a way they understand.

Which deo's quote does, to an extent. It's still only talking to people who agree. Nobody who says ALM is going to see that post, much less see it and think "Oh, I get it now." Ex. He's posting it on this forum, where literally 0 people think that black people should be mistreated by police or that the mistreatment of black people at police hands is just a hoax. Maaaaybe there's one person who's arguing that it's overinflated and overexaggerated, but that doesn't mean it's NOTHING or that it shouldn't be addressed IN SOME WAY.

[Princess Ana]

BLM like any movement has its good and bad parts. That message is the standard and is very good, but I myself have seen the gamut from demanding reparations (with the quote: you didn't really earn anything yourself attached to it) to this one woman (Whimsy has the article and I would pull it up myself but I can't find it) who is deliberately doing the opposite in the name of BLM (treating white kids, young kids, like they are garbage while lavishing child of color with special privileges in a school setting). There are, unfortunately, bad apples that can spoil the bunch, and it hurts the message as a whole. I, myself, will not ignore those bad parts just because its the "movement" representing black rights.

That said, I still support Black Lives Matter. I think that equality is one of the most important social issues of our generation.

[Heather]

Touching briefly back on sexuality, I think we also all remember some things Rangeet linked such as the fact that Trump attended and anti-LGBT event directly after Orlando. I may not trust Trump's accessories at all, but that does not mean I have any faith in Trump on LGBT. At this rate, he's basically a more batshit insane Ted Cruz to me. Shame he only looks like a [REDACTED] and not some comical villain like Grandpa Munster (who looks eerily similar to Ted Cruz)

[Sparkbeat]

His anti-LGBT stance is more attributed to the fact he's the Republican candidate so he has to obey the Republican agenda. If he had attended any sort of anti-LGBT event prior to winning the nomination or entering the race, then I would probably believe he's anti-LGBT. But currently, unless I missed something like that, I don't think the man himself cares enough to be against LGBT people.

But then again, what he personally thinks is irrelevant since he'll be representing the Republicans in office, who are most definitely anti-LGBT.