United States Politics

[Bolt Strike]

Yes, in America the Left generally opposes bans on Sharia law while the Right advocates for them. Yes, the Left in America happens to like women's and LGBTQ rights considerably more than the Right. No, that's not in opposition.

As noted before, bans on Sharia law don't do anything in America because it literally already isn't Constitutional by most reasonable interpretations. Even if it was Constitutional, there's about a 0% chance that actually happens because Muslims are a small, thinly spread, and highly marginalized group in American culture that currently isn't growing much faster than the population as a whole. If there was a reasonable chance of Sharia actually happening, liberals would be on the forefront of opposing it. But there isn't, so effectively liberal opposition to redundant bans is less about the policy itself and more about the rationale behind it.

The right opposes Sharia not because it restricts freedoms for women or LGBTQ people but because it's associated with Islam. A popular refrain in the conspiracy-peddling, far right publications since 9/11 has been that all Muslims are terrorists hell-bent on destroying Christianity. This has already been used to substantially curb the civil liberties of Muslims on pretenses that more or less don't hold up in real life. The bans on Sharia are an attempt to peddle more fear by providing legitimacy through the claims through circular reasoning: There would be no need to ban Sharia if it wasn't a serious and imminent threat, we banned Sharia, so it must have been a serious and imminent threat.

In reality, the American right actually really does want laws and social standards to be based on Evangelical Christianity, which is in itself a form of religious holy law. They also want to use this justification to curb the rights of women and LGBTQ Americans, among others. But the Muslim holy law would not be Christian holy law and, besides, America is a Christian country, not a Muslim one.

Really, this comes down to some attacking a politically powerless community to peddle fear amongst Christians to gain votes. Tellingly enough, a Venn diagram of American politicians pushing for Sharia law bans and American politicians who have uttered the words "The Homosexual Agenda" with a straight face would basically be a circle. It's not about the merits of Sharia, because that's about as likely to become law in America as Martian is to become the official language. Rather, it's about showing basic respect for minorities and refusing to propagate detestable and factually baseless conspiracies about them to gain votes.

But, if after all of the points I made previously, you still think that the Muslims could imminently establish an American caliphate unless we explicitly say that's illegal, I'm sorry but I don't waste my time trying to debate conspiracy theorists.

Again you seem to be wilfully misinterpreting what I am saying. At no point did I suggest an American caliphate or that it would sweep the whole country.

I am referring to individual pockets, as seen in Europe, where Shariah law is implemented. There is no country in Europe that is entirely Shariah, but many countries, such as the aforementioned UK, France and Sweden, where Shariah courts are already working openly, and there are self declared Shariah zones, and Shariah patrols.

Yes its not all over the country, but still we are seeing these pockets emerge in our communities, and it is more than likely that we will see the same occur in the US over the next decade. Hence the need to explicitly ban the practise.

American politics doesn't work that way. The Constitution is the highest form of law in the U.S., if it's banned in the Constitution it's banned for all levels of government. So if a local government tried to establish Shariah law, one of the higher levels would take action against that. So that wouldn't happen, the only way Shariah law would be allowed is if 3/4 of the states vote to amend the Constitution to allow it and the chances of that happening are near zero.

 

[Lyrebird]

Okay guys while this is a discussion, we would like to keep away from certain murky waters including the role of religion in Europe. Also it would be best that if anyone makes a claim that they back it up with facts. We don't want a discussion that goes into racism and anything that demeans a religion. This thread is about the presidential election in 2016 in the United States, let's keep it along those lines.

 

[Shinobu]

I don't think that Kasich will get the Republican nomination, but I do think he'll be the VP candidate. He still has high approval ratings in Ohio and has a lot of experience. He is a pretty divisive despite his approval ratings, though.

 

[Hector]

When Trump inevitably implodes (I mean he is going to implode right, I mean this isn't going to keep going all the way to the convention right?), it will be interesting to see who will benefit.

While I still #standwithRand , I'm starting to feel like a realist here, that he's rapidly falling out of the race. It seems like at this point it's Jeb! out in front with one of Cruz / Rubio / Kasich breaking out to challenge him.


On the flip side, Hillary is in trouble. The email server story isn't going away and she has handled it very poorly. This continues to open the door for a Biden run (even though he has stated that he's only mulling it) as well as for Bernie to continue to gain momentum. The issue for Bernie is that he polls very poorly with minority voters (which I find odd given his history) but a Democrat needs the minority vote to get the nomination. I wouldn't be surprised if Biden swept in and took it.


Right now if I were a betting man, I'd pick Bush v Clinton II, the Bushening. However my ideal election would be Paul vs Biden.

 

[Persephone]

I think that the Republican's ideal ticket, if they only considered victory, would be Kasich-Rubio. But I also don't think that will happen.

I maintain that Hillary is almost certain to win the Democratic nomination. She has virtually every party elite behind her, mountains of cash, nigh-universal name recognition, tons of press coverage, and what is realistically a dominant position on the polls. Even factoring in Biden, she has a 20 point lead on Sanders in national polling. Sure, she could lose Iowa and New Hampshire, but that's because those state primaries are made up of a majority white liberals (the group that Sanders is soaking up right now). But once it gets in to more moderate, more diverse primaries Sanders will hit a wall. And, realistically speaking, Biden has virtually no policy differences from Clinton and almost none of the advantages. While she's mired in scandal... OK, let's be real: She's a Clinton. She's survived much, much worse than this. And you can't tell me people are just now finding out the woman has some shaky ethics.

I'm increasingly thinking that Cruz will get the Republican nomination. Trump will probably implode in time because all of the party actors are out to get him and I can't imagine him absorbing much more of the field. But, and I get this is said every year, it looks like the moderates have lost all control this time. The mainstream or moderate candidates—which here I will qualify as Bush, Rubio, Kasich, Christie, Pataki, Gilmore, and Graham—are polling at 20% of the vote, total. Even if we extend this to include the pseudo-mainstream candidates, who are still all very extreme for a normal candidate, we can add in Walker, Perry, and Jindal, and we get to ~25% of the vote. The extremists/crazies/wacko birds/"outsiders"—Paul (who arguably belongs in the establishment now), Cruz, Huckabee, Santorum, Carson, Fiorina, Trump—we get to 64.6% of the polling total. And those people show up more than the moderates in primaries.

The reason I go with Cruz over Carson is that he's really trying hard to make himself the poster boy of the far right and sucking up to Trump and his supporters as much as possible. As such, he could end up with a huge windfall when the other crazies drop out and their voters need somewhere to go. And there in the middle is the bomb-throwing, shutdown-raising Senator with a small mountain of cash and a few loyal cronies in the House. Ultimately he'll probably just overwhelm Carson and the like with strong debate performances, crazier statements, and lots of cash. While the party could still shut him down, I ultimately don't think they'll be able to when they realize what a problem he has become.

 

[DerMißingno]

Trump 2016

think of how great The Daily Show would be

And then our country would possibly be screwed through all of the stuff that Trump will do.

worth it

 

[Persephone]

Until Trump deports Noah for being a foreigner and a loser, this ending The Daily Show.

 

[Hector]

As long as he doesn't deport John Oliver too. Then we'd have a real crisis.

 

[The Infidel]

As long as he doesn't deport John Oliver too. Then we'd have a real crisis.

He can't deport John Oliver! We don't want him back!!!

How about you take Piers Morgan back too? I guess in return we could take Madonna of your hands

 

[Jersey Jimmy]

GUYS. BERNIE SANDERS HAS OVERTAKEN HILLARY CLINTON IN IOWA.

IT'S HAPPENING.

 

[Hector]

Spoiler

 

[Shinobu]

And we have our first drop-out: Rick Perry.

 

[Persephone]

Kind of a shame, too. As a Democrat I think he was one of their better options since he had more experience than virtually anyone in either field (although Kasich, Walker, Clinton and Sanders rival him, depending upon how you count "experience"). He's also somewhat famous for advocating for a more humane policy towards Latinos and African Americans through immigration and prison reform.

But, he's never had to run a real campaign in his lifetime outside of the presidential ones because Texas isn't exactly competitive. And he was probably doomed by the "oops" moment of the last cycle, which is a little unfair in my opinion. Regardless, he wasn't having much of an impact on the race aside from tearing in to Trump more viciously than anyone else. He won't exactly be missed.

 

[Shinobu]

But, he's never had to run a real campaign in his lifetime outside of the presidential ones because Texas isn't exactly competitive. And he was probably doomed by the "oops" moment of the last cycle, which is a little unfair in my opinion. Regardless, he wasn't having much of an impact on the race aside from tearing in to Trump more viciously than anyone else. He won't exactly be missed.

We tend to overestimate the effect gaffes have on campaigns, but they're usually just minor fodder for the 24 hour news cycle. Most people don't even remember Obamas clinging to guns and religion remark anymore. And Perry's gaffe wasn't even controversial.

 

[Jersey Jimmy]

And we have our first drop-out: Rick Perry.

Can't say I'll be pressing F for him. If anything, he was on the very bottom rung of how I feel about the candidates along with Huckabee, Bush, Trump, and Cruz - and that's saying something.

 

[The Infidel]

Anyone know what time the debate is tonight? Give me Eastern and Ill add 5 hours?

 

[Scarlet Sky]

Republican Debate is on CNN right now for those interested.

 

[The Infidel]

Republican Debate is on CNN right now for those interested.

Oh you got my hopes up then, it's just the kiddy table debate :'(
Whens the real one

 

[Persephone]

Now

 

[Olive]

Spoiler

Trump/Carson 2016

^With this kind of high-stakes coordination going on between the GOP candidates, Hillary and Sanders better watch their backs.


In all seriousness, no one candidate really stood out during last night's debate to me. Rand Paul made some solid points that made sense, but he's been so awkward at the debates that it's hard to take him seriously sometimes. That and the fact that he'll probably be dropping out after the first sets of primaries.

Carly Fiorina made a strong, very pushy, and at times mechanical presentation. She'll probably climb in the polls after this, but I can't see her being a sustainable candidate.

Chris Christie finally put together his decent don't-call-me-a-liberal stance and had some nice moments where he acted like a moderator of sorts. As much as I like him as a candidate, he still seems too far away from the lead to do much.

Ben Carson made some decent points too. I'm not sure what to make of his manner though. Will the Republican establishment go for someone so passive?

Jeb Bush got boring at times with his defenses of Bushes I and II, and didn't say much that stood out to me.

Donald Trump was amusing at times, but seemed way more docile than past encounters. He still kept a decent presence though.

Everyone else just kind of meshed together in a big quasi-conservative rigmarole, but I suppose that's to be expected when you put twelve politicians from the same party on one stage.

Here's looking at October 13.