Trump vs Clinton in the General Election

[BobLibDem]

@DerekMichaels00

you don’t think that foreign Muslim leaders can’t find out about Hillary using the term in the past (which she did?) Even Obama once used the term “radical Islam,” in his Speech on Race.

And even then, which would “offend” leaders of Muslim countries more; people who use the term, or people like Trump, who both use the term AND want to blanket ban Muslims coming into the country, talking pigs blood bullets, etc.

Also, this notion that it would offend Muslim countries beyond belief is misguided. (and that source is no GOP/conservative one either)

Kindly explain the benefits to be gained by use of the term “Islamic terrorism” other than warming the cockles of bigoted hearts.

[ATLHawk]

@Moriarty

How do you conclude that it’s “bad”? You were presented facts that establish that illegal immigrants are fearful of disobeying laws, and are therefore less likely to commit violent crimes than average citizens, your anecdotes notwithstanding. I don’t care what the answer is, but facts matter.

Is 7.5% of all homicides in Texas par for the course or something? Because they don’t kill as much as other groups it’s a non-issue? Give me a break.

@elucidator

So, the guy gets charged with serial cannibalism, but it gets proved that all he ever actually did was a DUI, and you say “Well, so not quite as much a criminal as we thought”?

Don’t be dense. The murders still occur.

[adaher]

YOu can’t know the enemy if you can’t even speak its name. If it’s not Islamic terrorism, what is it? I agree it’s not Islamic terrorism for what it’s worth. It’s Islamic fundamentalism. But that’s worse. What do you call it? What are we fighting against?

[DSeid]

@ATLHawk

… Because they don’t kill as much as other groups it’s a non-issue? Give me a break. . …

Really trying to but you make it hard.

[DSeid]

@Lantern

2016 General Election Polls: Trump vs. Clinton | RealClearPolling

The pollshave definitely narrowed with RCP showing Trump up by 0.2 points. I suspect a fair amount of this is Bernie voters who are now saying they won’t vote for Hillary. Many of them will come back once the primary is over and Bernie presumably endorses Hillary. Obama and Warren will also help Hillary consolidate the youth vote. Predictwise is reasonably stable showing a 67% chance of a Democratic win. Hillary is a weak candidate who is disliked and distrusted by many of the voters she needs but at the end of the day Trump is an even weaker candidate.

Wang just posted about the noise in national polls actually increasing from here. Per his analysis national polls were historically more accurate in February than they are now and do not become more predictive than that until August.

Not mentioned in that post but something he’s previously talked about is that as density of polling increases aggregated state polls are even better.

[DerekMichaels00]

@adaher

YOu can’t know the enemy if you can’t even speak its name. If it’s not Islamic terrorism, what is it? I agree it’s not Islamic terrorism for what it’s worth. It’s Islamic fundamentalism. But that’s worse. What do you call it? What are we fighting against?

well said! I gotta say, its becoming harder these days to call myself a liberal as I used to, particularly 10 years ago in the Bush vs. the World era. I still agree with Dems on taxes, environment, abortion, but on Islamic terror, Redskins, etc. the latter of which seem to actually mean a lot more to modern liberals than the former, especially ultra-PC millennial Bernie supporters, I bet I go GOP in the next 10 years, and Hillary is the last Dem I vote for, as the Clintons could be the last remnant of moderate Dems.

Kindly explain the benefits to be gained by use of the term “Islamic terrorism” other than warming the cockles of bigoted hearts.

We need unity at home to beat the enemy abroad and that seeks to infiltrate home. Unity and Americans being on the same page matters in these instances, as it did in WWII, the Cold War, and now this. Also, the Muslim populaces of both abroad and at home need to face there is a unique problem in their community; why are so many more people blowing themselves and other things up for Allah and Islam than for Vishnu and Hinduism, Jesus and Christianity, Mahabrahma and Buddhism, Yahweh and Judaism, …

[adaher]

This is “bounce” time as candidates receive bounces from clinching and then again from their VP picks and then again from conventions. So it can be a volatile time. If Trump makes his VP pick before Clinton(likely at this point) and it’s a well received choice, he could jump 5 points or so in the polls.

[iiandyiiii]

@DerekMichaels00

We need unity at home to beat the enemy abroad and that seeks to infiltrate home. Unity and Americans being on the same page matters in these instances, as it did in WWII, the Cold War, and now this. Also, the Muslim populaces of both abroad and at home need to face there is a unique problem in their community; why are so many more people blowing themselves and other things up for Allah and Islam than for Vishnu and Hinduism, Jesus and Christianity, Mahabrahma and Buddhism, Yahweh and Judaism, …

I don’t see how any of this is accomplished by using the language you suggest. Quite the contrary, in fact – using that language inspires disunity at home, by inciting hatred against the millions of very decent and patriotic Muslim Americans.

[Crotalus]

Something occurred to me as I was catching up on this thread. The first head to head debate between Trump and Clinton is probably going to get incredibly high ratings, maybe the highest ever. I know I am eager to see the first one on September 26. I guess it is possible that some things could happen between now and then that would make the debate less meaningful or interesting, but from this vantage point it looks like it will be must-see TV.

[Moriarty]

@ATLHawk

Is 7.5% of all homicides in Texas par for the course or something? Because they don’t kill as much as other groups it’s a non-issue? Give me a break.

How do you reach the 7.5%? As I thought I demonstrated, Texas keeps track of “criminal aliens”, but does not distinguish between illegal and legal immigrants. We don’t know what percentage of the stated 7.5% are illegal immigrants.

It sounds to me like you based your opinion on the fact that there are anecdotes of violent crime by illegal immigrants, so you have concluded that there is some non-zero number of incidents. That’s fine if that is your metric (and you wouldn’t be wrong, since “bad” is a subjective term), but I think you are overplaying your hand if you believe that you have statistical studies to back you up.

[truthSeeker2]

@DerekMichaels00

well said! I gotta say, its becoming harder these days to call myself a liberal as I used to, particularly 10 years ago in the Bush vs. the World era. I still agree with Dems on taxes, environment, abortion, but on Islamic terror, Redskins, etc. the latter of which seem to actually mean a lot more to modern liberals than the former, especially ultra-PC millennial Bernie supporters, I bet I go GOP in the next 10 years, and Hillary is the last Dem I vote for, as the Clintons could be the last remnant of moderate Dems.
We need unity at home to beat the enemy abroad and that seeks to infiltrate home. Unity and Americans being on the same page matters in these instances, as it did in WWII, the Cold War, and now this. Also, the Muslim populaces of both abroad and at home need to face there is a unique problem in their community; why are so many more people blowing themselves and other things up for Allah and Islam than for Vishnu and Hinduism, Jesus and Christianity, Mahabrahma and Buddhism, Yahweh and Judaism, …

Democracies all over the world happen to do appeasement of Islam. This is sad. Its almost suicidal. USA is great in the sense that it allowed an honest person like Trump to become a contender. One would guess Islam is not a major issue in US elections as not many people follow Islam in US, but yet, the people of US showed great awareness in supporting a contender like Trump.

I don’t agree with Trump’s call for (temporary) ban on Muslims. What should happen is there should be no appeasement of Islam, let the truth be spoken even if it offends some and parts of Islamic culture that are incompatible with civilized world should be banned.

Obama on the contrary imposed civil war on a secular, progressive person like Assad in the middle east which has resulted in death of 300k people (and counting) in Syria.

[Moriarty]

@adaher

YOu can’t know the enemy if you can’t even speak its name. If it’s not Islamic terrorism, what is it? I agree it’s not Islamic terrorism for what it’s worth. It’s Islamic fundamentalism. But that’s worse. What do you call it? What are we fighting against?

ISIS, or ISIL, or DAESH, or Al Qaeda.

[QUOTE=DerekMichaelson00]
the Muslim populaces of both abroad and at home need to face there is a unique problem in their community
[/QUOTE]

So maybe these words would be appropriate

[QUOTE=President Obama]
We cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam…That does not mean denying the fact that an extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim communities. This is a real problem that Muslims must confront, without excuse.
[/QUOTE]

(My emphasis)

And the reason why the President continues to reject the reference to Islam is something he has made very clear; he doesn’t want to legitimize a “movement” that relies on the rhetoric that there is a worldwide holy war between their perverted brand of Islam and non-believing infidels. If these terrorists can’t recruit new people, they will be isolated, marginalized, and defeated. I have no doubt that if it was advantageous to call them out as religious, the President would do so.

[QUOTE=President Obama]
I don’t quibble with labels. I think we all recognize that this is a particular problem that has roots in Muslim communities…But I think we do ourselves a disservice in this fight if we are not taking into account the fact that the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject this ideology.
[/QUOTE]

[ATLHawk]

@Moriarty

How do you reach the 7.5%? As I thought I demonstrated, Texas keeps track of “criminal aliens”, but does not distinguish between illegal and legal immigrants. We don’t know what percentage of the stated 7.5% are illegal immigrants.

@Moriarty

You were presented facts that establish that illegal immigrants are fearful of disobeying laws, and are therefore less likely to commit violent crimes than average citizens.

I missed those facts, can you tell me the post number?

Thanks.

[BrainGlutton]

@truthSeeker2

Democracies all over the world happen to do appeasement of Islam. This is sad. Its almost suicidal.

“Appeasement”? You might use that term in connection with an enemy that can potentially be destroyed, like Nazi Germany or Soviet Communism. But Islam cannot be so destroyed, not without the biggest genocide campaign in human history. Islam is not going away. One human being in five is a Muslim. 100 years ago, one human being in five was a Muslim. Almost certainly, 100 years from now, one human being in five will be a Muslim. The infidel world just has to deal with that.

@truthSeeker2

Obama on the contrary imposed civil war . . .

“Imposed”? That civil war started before any foreigners got involved.

[Moriarty]

[QUOTE=ATLHawk]
I missed those facts, can you tell me the post number?

Thanks.
[/QUOTE]

Post 174 addressed illegal immigrant crime rate, and my post 212, refuting the Brietbart article, addressed the definition of “criminal aliens”

The “criminal aliens” label applies to noncitizens who have either legal or illegal immigration status. (It is incorrect to consider all of them as illegal immigrants.

[ATLHawk]

@Moriarty

Post 174 addressed illegal immigrant crime rate, and my post refuting the Brietbart article addressed the definition of “criminal aliens”

Yes, I saw that. Now, where are the facts that show that* illegal immigrants are fearful of disobeying laws, and are therefore less likely to commit violent crimes than average citizens.* That’s what I’m trying to locate.

[truthSeeker2]

@BrainGlutton

“Appeasement”? You might use that term in connection with an enemy that can potentially be destroyed, like Nazi Germany or Soviet Communism. But Islam cannot be so destroyed, not without the biggest genocide campaign in human history. Islam is not going away. One human being in five is a Muslim. 100 years ago, one human being in five was a Muslim. Almost certainly, 100 years from now, one human being in five will be a Muslim. The infidel world just has to deal with that.

“Imposed”? That civil war started before any foreigners got involved.

Example of how the world is suffering because of Islam on a daily basis: 3 policemen killed by terrorists in Srinagar today

Example of one of the infinite appeasements : there is separate civil code (laws) for Muslims and for everyone else in India. Laws only for Muslims: A Muslim man (but not woman) can have upto 4 wives at a time in India. A Muslim man can divorce even on Facebook messenger simply by saying ‘talaq’ (divorce) 3 times and have zero liabilities towards his wife.

There is competitive appeasement as Muslims as a group tend to vote for 1 party.

[Moriarty]

@ATLHawk

Yes, I saw that. Now, where are the facts that show that* illegal immigrants are fearful of disobeying laws, and are therefore less likely to commit violent crimes than average citizens.* That’s what I’m trying to locate.

ETA: On preview, my use of the word “establish” was incorrect. I apologize. I should have said “tend to show”. I don’t actually see that the reason why the crime rate is lower is “proven” in any way, although I think it is a reasonable conjecture.
…

Maybe you are at work and can’t click on links (I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt, here ;)), but from the cite provided in Post 174

The decline in crime rates was not just national [from 1990-2010, violent crime rates declined 45%], but also occurred in border cities and other cities with large immigrant populations such as San Diego, El Paso, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Miami.
According to a 2008 report from the conservative Americas Majority Foundation, crime rates are lowest in states with the highest immigration growth rates. From 1999 to 2006, the total crime rate declined 13.6 percent in the 19 highest-immigration states, compared to a 7.1 percent decline in the other 32 states.
In 2006, the 10 “high influx” states—those with the most dramatic, recent increases in immigration—had the lowest rates of violent crime and total crime.

They also provided statistics to show that illegal immigrants are very unlikely to end up incarcerated.

A 2007 study by University of California, Irvine, sociologist Rubén G. Rumbaut, found that for every ethnic group, without exception, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants, even those who are the least educated. This holds true especially for the Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans who make up the bulk of the undocumented population.
The 3.5 percent incarceration rate for native-born men age 18-39 was five times higher than the 0.7 percent rate for immigrant men in 2000{Figure 5}. Among male high-school dropouts, 9.8 percent of the native-born were behind bars in 2000, compared to only 1.3 percent of immigrants.
In 2000, 0.7 percent of foreign-born Mexican men and 0.5 percent of foreign-born Salvadoran and Guatemalan men were in prison. Among male high-school dropouts, 0.7 percent of foreign-born Mexicans and 0.6 percent of foreign-born Salvadorans and Guatemalans were behind bars in 2000

And from the Conclusion

The problem of crime in the United States is not caused or even aggravated by immigrants, regardless of their legal status. This is hardly surprising since immigrants come to the United States to pursue economic and educational opportunities not available in their home countries and to build better lives for themselves and their families. As a result, they have little to gain and much to lose by breaking the law. Undocumented immigrants in particular have even more reason to not run afoul of the law given the risk of deportation that their lack of legal status entails.

My emphasis

Also, they make a good point about why statistics of illegal immigrants in prison can be misleading.

In an attempt to get around low immigrant incarceration rates, many anti-immigrant activists turn to a frequently cited estimate that over one quarter of inmates in federal prisons are “criminal aliens.” This is highly misleading for two reasons: Many of the immigrants in federal prison are being criminally charged with an immigration violation and nothing more. In other words, they may be in federal prison even though they have not committed a violent crime or even a property crime. Their only crime might be entering the country without permission. The federal government has chosen to prosecute more and more unauthorized immigrants for “unlawful entry” rather than simply deporting them, which means that they end up in federal prison. The federal prison population is a small share of the total prison population. One cannot make generalizations about the incarceration rates of immigrants based on the immigrant share of the federal inmate population since, according to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, only about 9 percent of the U.S. prison population was in federal prisons as of 2011. At the state and local level, where most U.S. prisoners are held, the incarceration rates for immigrants are lower than for the native-born.

[iiandyiiii]

@truthSeeker2

USA is great in the sense that it allowed an honest person like Trump to become a contender.

Trump is the most dishonest person to run for President in my living memory. He lies or makes false statements about 4 out of every 5 times he speaks.

[DerekMichaels00]

@BrainGlutton

“Appeasement”? You might use that term in connection with an enemy that can potentially be destroyed, like Nazi Germany or Soviet Communism. But Islam cannot be so destroyed, not without the biggest genocide campaign in human history. Islam is not going away. One human being in five is a Muslim. 100 years ago, one human being in five was a Muslim. Almost certainly, 100 years from now, one human being in five will be a Muslim. The infidel world just has to deal with that.

Truthseeker2 clearly means “appeasement” in the sense of not standing up for our right to limit immigration from Muslim societies and condemn and shun some of the worse cultural aspects that religion as practiced brings. No one is, nor is anyone serious, suggesting murdering whole groups of people, besides Islamists against Yazidis, Jews, etc.