Politics

[earthling]

Most every generation has had a counter culture from Carnies to Beatniks, Hippies, Punks, etc. It used to be relatively underground but then got to the point last 20 years where 'alternative is mainstream' and Millennials grew up with that (as well as much more racial diversity). It's getting to a point now of alternative lifestyle getting political power and clashing with those trying to impose traditional lifestyle and knock down alternatives (specifically, the far right).

[phuqueue]

Do you think this country could accommodate three national parties? What could happen is the Democratic party moves more to the left. The Republican party shed it's right wing and become more of a middle or moderate party by absorbing some Democrats not wanting to take such a turn to the left. The right wing of the GOP becomes a Nationalist party

Our electoral system is built for two parties that crowd out the rest, so the country would never accommodate three parties on a permanent basis. Flash in the pan third parties that make an impact in one or a few elections and then fade away again (eg Bull Moose, Reform) aren't precluded, and it's even possible for a third party to rise up and supplant an existing major (eg GOP knocking out the Whigs), but we won't permanently support a three party system.

Millennials are the the most diverse group ever, more accepting towards others unlike themselves than ever.

I don't find this to be the case at all. Millennials seem more anti-religion, anti-capitalism and anti-individual liberties of any generation the country has ever seen. They're tolorant as long as thoughts are within a band of acceptable options. It's funny because they encourage breaking of traditional taboos but are creating new taboos on the other side. I guess any solving of societal out of balance always has the possibility of swinging too far the opposite direction.

Ah yes, the old false equivalency about how intolerant it is not to tolerate intolerance.

[beautyfromashes]

Ah yes, the old false equivalency about how intolerant it is not to tolerate intolerance.

I could respond but, at worst, you didn't even read my words. At best, you didn't even make an attempt to understand.

[phuqueue]

So you weren't complaining about trigger warnings and political correctness?

[shinatoo]

The biggest worry about a strong third party is not reaching 50 of the electoral votes and consistently kicking it into the House to decide the presidency. They you essentially wind up with a Prime Minister.

[beautyfromashes]

So you weren't complaining about trigger warnings and political correctness?

See, this is my point. You jumped to an assumption without even attempting to engage in a dialogue. I don't know if it's this generations short attention span, lack of reasoning skills or what, but no one seems to venture outside their precious chosen thought space. If I mention, 'gay rights' or 'climate change' or '2nd amendment' or 'racial tension' or 'religion' most in society today would have their prepared talking points they can yell or troll. No one seems to have the mental ability to reason or try to understand a different point of view.

[flyingember]

So you weren't complaining about trigger warnings and political correctness?

See, this is my point. You jumped to an assumption without even attempting to engage in a dialogue. I don't know if it's this generations short attention span, lack of reasoning skills or what, but no one seems to venture outside their precious chosen thought space. If I mention, 'gay rights' or 'climate change' or '2nd amendment' or 'racial tension' or 'religion' most in society today would have their prepared talking points they can yell or troll. No one seems to have the mental ability to reason or try to understand a different point of view.

It doesn't make your argument stronger to jump to an assumption about other people.

[WSPanic]

So you weren't complaining about trigger warnings and political correctness?

See, this is my point. You jumped to an assumption without even attempting to engage in a dialogue. I don't know if it's this generations short attention span, lack of reasoning skills or what, but no one seems to venture outside their precious chosen thought space. If I mention, 'gay rights' or 'climate change' or '2nd amendment' or 'racial tension' or 'religion' most in society today would have their prepared talking points they can yell or troll. No one seems to have the mental ability to reason or try to understand a different point of view.

If you continue to interact and judge based on media and social media interactions, this will continue to be your view. However, I don't know how you separate the snark and dissonance of millenials vs. any other generation. Perhaps they're just better at social media.

Regardless, I find when you actually talk with millenials, they seem much less sinister. Whether interns or entry level employees, I've found the millenials I know to be thoughtful, caring, open people that are frustrated with a system they didn't create.

[earthling]

So general US presidential polls don't mean much since it's about electoral votes at state level but they still give a temperature of the public and many consolidated polls are maybe at least a bit more valid than looking at a single poll. That said...

It looks like Trump is not impacted much as might be expected since his vagina grabbing bombshell (only a 1% or so drop since late Sept). What appears to be happening is that Clinton is gaining at the expense of Libertarian/Green candidates.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -5952.html

But in the end, it's about who shows up to vote and both parties appear to show more lack of interest in voting compared to last several elections, especially DEMS according to...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/195806/ameri ... ident.aspx

[flyingember]

We know that the R vs D split is diverting towards more liberal voters based on age.

Women are just as strongly moving the same way.

Look at the third chart here. There's up and downs but it's not a back and forth across where women vote for Republicans, it's firmly a trend of how big a blowout do women get for which party.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/men ... 6-forecast


So this last number is the determining factor for the election. (item 2)
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ele ... 6-forecast

Who are these 15% of people who haven't decided. Will they vote?
That's a big enough group of people to turn the election if they live in the swing states Clinton holds and decide to Trump

So if you go to the polls and see a lot of women under 40 in line you can largely identify how the polls will go.

[earthling]

Women are maybe a motivating factor for Clinton leaners to show up to vote but will it be significantly more than normal and enough given Trump doesn't have much decline with women who have been for Trump.

Obama motivated the black/minority voters to show up as well as a bigger chunk of liberal college vote who did not shown up in past couple elections. Bill Clinton had the MTV 'rock the vote' driving a new wave of voters. Hillary doesn't really have anything to strongly motivate outside the female card and it may not be a new wave of voters, although Latino registrations have picked up. Trump has very motivated supporters who will likely show up. During the primaries the establishment GOP thought his supporters wouldn't show up to vote and they did. Many Bernie supporters may be accepting towards Hillary now but will they actually show up...

In general when looking at Clinton's gain with close states, this should be Clinton's win at this point but her reluctant supporters need to show up. And if polls/media proclaim Hillary should win a day or two before election, many of her reluctant supporters may not show up thinking she already has it. Many think this is what happened with Brexit.

[phuqueue]

So you weren't complaining about trigger warnings and political correctness?

See, this is my point. You jumped to an assumption without even attempting to engage in a dialogue. I don't know if it's this generations short attention span, lack of reasoning skills or what, but no one seems to venture outside their precious chosen thought space. If I mention, 'gay rights' or 'climate change' or '2nd amendment' or 'racial tension' or 'religion' most in society today would have their prepared talking points they can yell or troll. No one seems to have the mental ability to reason or try to understand a different point of view.

I see a lot of whining here but a direct answer to the question is conspicuously missing. If my "assumption" (which was, after all, based on your own words and further informed by a broader context of screeds against supposedly "intolerant" millennials, like the UChicago letter from a few months ago) was off the mark, you could do no better than to explain yourself and show how off base I was. Instead you whine that millennials in general - but it seems, also, I specifically - just aren't willing to hear the other side on gay rights or "racial tension" (so, yes, it seems your point really was that it's intolerant not to tolerate intolerance) and a few other issues on which you imagine millennials stand monolithically against you, unwilling to listen to reason.

You want me to make all the pro-gun, all lives matter, climate change isn't a problem arguments? I'll do it. But you gotta pick up the slack and argue my side for me too.

[beautyfromashes]

I'm fine to be called out for "whining". I would call it more concern for a citizenry that is more divided than ever and less likely to attempt empathy or understanding for the other side. I really wasn't calling you out specifically at all. My apologizes if you felt that way or took offense. Personally, I'm tired of friends fighting over stupid politicians that could care less about the electorate besides the goal of power and money. Perhaps, I've given into the very worst of human character traits...cynicism. I just want people to ask questions from friends who believe differently instead of throwing labels like 'racist' or 'denier' or ' communist' or 'sellout'. People need to listen more. Ask why someone is voting for Trump instead of blind labeling and starting a word war. I have a very diverse group of friends from all spectrums. I'm proud of that. It's sad that ideology and differences are reasons to disassociate instead of value in different thought. Obviously, I'm stereotyping quite a bit, but it seems millennials don't value diversity as much as they probably would say and that the new norm is thought segregation. That bodes poorly for race relations, upward mobility of the poor and the political tension in our society.

[phuqueue]

I agree that people should try to understand all sides and shouldn't immediately resort to labels. That being said, often the labels are appropriate. It may be that your one friend already understands your other friend and still disagrees -- and it might be that the other friend actually said something that was either tacitly or willfully racist (or whatever). I do think, with an issue like racism in particular, that many people genuinely and innocently do not understand that this attitude that they've been socialized with is a racist attitude. I think when people hear "racist" they picture white hoods and burning crosses, and they rightfully find that to be reprehensible, and so they don't think of themselves as racist, but they continue to traffic in harmful stereotypes in their everyday lives. It's not constructive to simply call that person a racist, because he's not going to hear that and think "hey, you know, you're right, I shouldn't think about it that way, that's not right," he's going to insist that he's not a racist and get angry for being called one and a pointless argument is going to ensue.

All that being said, I don't believe this is an issue that is unique to millennials, or that millennials "don't value diversity." Diversity and tolerance don't require you to accept things that are morally repugnant. Theoretically that argument cuts both ways, of course -- a klansman would tell you that, say, interracial marriage is morally repugnant. But it's not hard to see the difference between hating people and hating hateful beliefs. Ultimately your argument here still seems like it boils down to chafing at "PC culture" etc. And while, surely, some people do go so far that they take "political correctness" far beyond the bounds of simply "don't be a dick to other people based on their immutable traits," I don't really have any reason to believe that this is a widespread thing among millennials or that it is something that only afflicts millennials.

[beautyfromashes]

Yes, but you sound like you're trying to find a correct answer for an issue that could just be two different life experiences or understanding of life. I hate using the racial example, but you brought it up. Try to look past the particular example and look at the underlying idea: So, one friend would say that we should hold to the standard of the Constitution on what makes a citizen and not allow "illegal aliens" and require proof of citizenry for voting. The other would say that anyone risking their life to enter the country should be allowed to stay because, "we were all immigrants once." Personally, I understand both sides and don't consider one friend racist or the other an anti-Constitutionalist. I, stereotypically, find millennials to be anti- live and let live. Decisions are very black and white. I wonder if it has to do with never having lived during the Cold War where people were more interested in what connected us instead of what separated us.

[earthling]

What's interesting is that a major pusher of Constitution purism lately is Ted Cruz, who is a) not born in America running for Prez and b) desires a theocracy and essentially a single national religion (guess which one), both against the Constitution. Can he and his Constitution 'righteous' followers be any more hypocritical.

On cynicism, Gen-Xrs (my generation) are the most cynical methinks. Too many less educated Gen-Xrs/Boomers are also too gullible with conspiracy theories. Millennials don't seem to buy into it to the same degree, more skeptical, which is interesting given they grew up in a blogging world with no journalistic integrity. But whatever the stereotyping, they are highly likely to be the most left leaning generation ever, but also maybe the most against establishment, which is why I wonder what parties will look like in another 10+ years.

[mean]

But it's not hard to see the difference between hating people and hating hateful beliefs.

You'd think so, but very many people seem to have a hard time seeing the difference between hating beliefs that lead people to throw gays off buildings and kill women who have been raped and all sorts of other things, and hating all Muslims, at least when you call those beliefs "Islam". And the sticking point is very clearly what is or is not "Islam". On the one hand (generally the left) in this country, mainstream thought seems to be that the hateful stuff is a perversion of Islam, while (generally the right) seems to think that, no, the hateful stuff is, in fact, Islam. Which side you come down on correlates fairly strongly with your own personal level of religiosity, and I doubt this is a coincidence. Yet when a secular person points out that, statistically, Muslims tend to agree with the illiberal and often violent beliefs you can easily find in any of the "Big Three" religions at rates significantly higher than Jews and Christians, they might get yelled at by Ben Affleck or Glenn Greenwald and labeled gross racists. I don't really see this as being helpful. As soon as you call someone a racist, conversation is impossible. Instead, how about listening? Is the racist label really appropriate when you are merely describing reality as determined by polling? Because it seems to me if you are legitimately trying to understand all sides you should actually make that effort. If you have an issue with the polling, or a reason to believe it is wrong, then share it. Don't just jump in with the "you're a racist!" shit, right? Or am I being completely misled and failing to think rationally here?

[grovester]

Well, if the percentage of muslims in the US felt the way you are suggesting, I might be worried, but that's not the case. In the mean time, we have scum bags like the 3 jokers from Liberal plotting against an historically peaceful immigrant population, all based on racial and religious grounds.

It's all fear and loathing and it doesn't lead to anywhere good.

[phuqueue]

Yes, but you sound like you're trying to find a correct answer for an issue that could just be two different life experiences or understanding of life. I hate using the racial example, but you brought it up. Try to look past the particular example and look at the underlying idea: So, one friend would say that we should hold to the standard of the Constitution on what makes a citizen and not allow "illegal aliens" and require proof of citizenry for voting. The other would say that anyone risking their life to enter the country should be allowed to stay because, "we were all immigrants once." Personally, I understand both sides and don't consider one friend racist or the other an anti-Constitutionalist. I, stereotypically, find millennials to be anti- live and let live. Decisions are very black and white. I wonder if it has to do with never having lived during the Cold War where people were more interested in what connected us instead of what separated us.

I don't know where to begin with this. It seems like you're talking about two different things here, first whether we allow non-citizens to vote, and then whether we allow non-citizens to stay in the country. So on the first one, can you point to any specific examples of somebody trying to make a good faith argument that non-citizens should be permitted to vote? Because the voter ID debate isn't about whether or not we should let non-citizens vote (either intentionally or by turning a blind eye to "voter fraud"), it's about whether we should enact a legislative "solution" to a problem that essentially doesn't exist, where this solution has the effect of disenfranchising a lot of legitimate voters who are citizens of this country.

On the second point, I don't know, maybe you have friends who believe we should let undocumented immigrants stay just because they risked their life to enter the country and "we were all immigrants once." I don't really have any qualms with those arguments as far as they go but I think there are plenty of better reasons to let people in and let them stay, such as the economic boost that they provide (however, I am dubious of the argument that "they do jobs Americans won't do" -- this seems to be true, but "we should let them in so we can exploit them" isn't great). I don't think that everybody who opposes immigration is ipso facto racist, because I think a lot of people genuinely, but incorrectly, believe that immigrants take jobs from Americans, live off of social services without paying anything into them (when the opposite is actually true -- immigrants end up paying all kinds of taxes but because of their status are unable to claim any benefits), etc. That being said, it's pretty naive to think that racism doesn't underlie the general anti-immigrant sentiment in this (or any) country, even if you can point to specific individuals who are anti-immigrant for misguided rather than racist reasons.

In any case, this is all just to respond to another specific example rather than to any general point. You find millennials to be "anti-live and let live," which is a statement that doesn't really naturally follow from what preceded it. I would, again, dispute that anybody who doesn't entertain both sides must not understand both sides. I can't speak to any specific millennial you've encountered in your life, but I think it's entirely possible to understand, for example, the pro-voter ID side and still take a "black and white" view that it's bad policy. It's important to weigh every perspective on an issue, but after you've done that, indecisiveness or "neutrality" is not a virtue in and of itself. I don't feel that you've made an argument here that millennials are intolerant or "anti-live and let live," you've just vaguely made the point that millennials are opinionated. If that opinion has a sound basis (and, in fairness, for many people, millennial or not, it doesn't), there's no problem with that.

I do also wonder what minority communities like African-Americans and LGBT about the idea that during the Cold War we were "more interested in what connected us instead of what separated us," but maybe that's a different discussion for a different thread. The past was never as nice as it looks through rose-colored glasses.

What's interesting is that a major pusher of Constitution purism lately is Ted Cruz, who is a) not born in America running for Prez and b) desires a theocracy and essentially a single national religion (guess which one), both against the Constitution. Can he and his Constitution 'righteous' followers be any more hypocritical.

We need to dispense with the notion that you have to be born in America to run for president. The Constitution states that you must be "a natural born Citizen," which does not mean that you have to have been born on American soil. A baby born in a foreign country to an American parent is a "natural born American citizen." This makes all of the birth certificate bullshit around Obama especially ridiculous -- even if he were born in Kenya, he was born to an American mother and was therefore born an American citizen. Ted Cruz is a fucking ghoul but he's certainly constitutionally eligible for the presidency.

But it's not hard to see the difference between hating people and hating hateful beliefs.

You'd think so, but very many people seem to have a hard time seeing the difference between hating beliefs that lead people to throw gays off buildings and kill women who have been raped and all sorts of other things, and hating all Muslims, at least when you call those beliefs "Islam". And the sticking point is very clearly what is or is not "Islam". On the one hand (generally the left) in this country, mainstream thought seems to be that the hateful stuff is a perversion of Islam, while (generally the right) seems to think that, no, the hateful stuff is, in fact, Islam. Which side you come down on correlates fairly strongly with your own personal level of religiosity, and I doubt this is a coincidence. Yet when a secular person points out that, statistically, Muslims tend to agree with the illiberal and often violent beliefs you can easily find in any of the "Big Three" religions at rates significantly higher than Jews and Christians, they might get yelled at by Ben Affleck or Glenn Greenwald and labeled gross racists. I don't really see this as being helpful. As soon as you call someone a racist, conversation is impossible. Instead, how about listening? Is the racist label really appropriate when you are merely describing reality as determined by polling? Because it seems to me if you are legitimately trying to understand all sides you should actually make that effort. If you have an issue with the polling, or a reason to believe it is wrong, then share it. Don't just jump in with the "you're a racist!" shit, right? Or am I being completely misled and failing to think rationally here?

I don't even really know what point you're trying to make here. Like at first I was with you but then by the end it seems like you're just arguing that polling shows Muslims really are violent.

I agree that calling someone a racist makes it difficult to have a thoughtful discussion, and I've said as much already (of course, depending on exactly how racist they are, a thoughtful discussion might not be on the table in the first place). But there are plenty of Muslims out there who condemn jihadists, who condemn murdering gay people and women, etc. Whether the jihadists and the murderers are "perverting" Islam is a matter for Islamic theologians to debate and doesn't really matter to me. I don't give a shit whether your Islam is the "correct" Islam (I also don't believe there's any such thing, but as an atheist I also don't really care anyway), I only care about what your Islam (or your Christianity, or your atheism, for that matter) entails. And so I think, again, that it's perfectly easy to separate people who hate people from people who hate hateful beliefs. You don't have to tolerate beliefs that require people "to throw gays off buildings and kill women who have been raped and all sorts of other things." But when self-identified Muslims join you in condemning those things, you should probably also listen to them, instead of falling back on "well, I saw a poll that said Muslims agree with that stuff more than Christians and Jews do." I don't know what polls you're looking at so I'm just making up a number here, but if 80% of the estimated 1.6 billion Muslims in the world embrace those "illiberal and often violent beliefs," that still leaves over 300 million -- basically an entire America -- Muslims who don't. To judge a person not on their own merits and traits but because they belong to a larger group about which you have whatever pre-conceived notions, whether those notions are "statistically" accurate in the aggregate or not, is bigotry. That's just like literally what the word means, I don't really know how else to slice it. So I don't have any sympathy for Bill Maher being called a racist for being a racist. You can go on all you want about a particular set of beliefs that you find reprehensible and people who subscribe to them, but as soon as you assign a specific label to those beliefs that other people will also use to refer to a different set of beliefs, and start generalizing about the label instead of the beliefs, you're on dangerous ground.

[earthling]

Transcript of last night's debate, much better insight than getting soundbites from media...
http://nashvillepublicradio.org/post/la ... t-checking

Wonder how much difference debates make. John Kerry was considered to be 'winner' of 3 debates yet lost election, though going up against a second term pres run. Each are saying the right things to motivate their base but not much to get the few undecided or cause a switch. Trump may get an extra boost from anti-abortion base the way he responded. Is exactly what they wanted to hear even though was Pro-Choice his whole life until running, evangelicals maybe believe he really 'converted' or will at least follow through.

It's all about who shows up to vote, not who most prefer. And Trump supporters are maybe more motivated to show up than Hillary's even though Hillary seems to have broader appeal, especially in the close states.

BTW I did absentee ballot and it wasn't easy for MO. It was a 3 step process to get the ballot that should have been one (online) and return envelope had to be notarized.