|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 25 2015 13:49 Plansix wrote:
Comply with court orders and you don't go to jail. Problem solved. If the court couldn't enforcement orders, it would be worthless. It doesn't matter if the order involves a gay wedding or adoption agency. The right to not be discriminated against is all the time. Not when straight people think the issue is important. Oh how much fun we can have with a purported right not to be discriminated against. Make way, free speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion ... here comes freedom to not be discriminated against, full stop. Every rogue court is a new despot, and if you happen to agree with their ruling, suddenly you're best friends with court orders. I guess some people just need an agreeable autocrat to pledge allegiance to for the next week.
|
This is a pretty silly argument. People do have a right to not be discriminated against. People cite religious freedom and free speech and all this but they forget that our courts have already ruled that people can not discriminate against black people even if it is warranted by their religious beliefs, so there is a precedent for individual rights and freedoms (to not be discriminated against) trumping religious freedoms. I'm sure you've heard this before, but basically religious rights end where another's individual rights begin, for the most part.
|
On August 25 2015 15:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2015 13:49 Plansix wrote:
Comply with court orders and you don't go to jail. Problem solved. If the court couldn't enforcement orders, it would be worthless. It doesn't matter if the order involves a gay wedding or adoption agency. The right to not be discriminated against is all the time. Not when straight people think the issue is important. Oh how much fun we can have with a purported right not to be discriminated against. Make way, free speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion ... here comes freedom to not be discriminated against, full stop. Every rogue court is a new despot, and if you happen to agree with their ruling, suddenly you're best friends with court orders. I guess some people just need an agreeable autocrat to pledge allegiance to for the next week.
You would have had a tough time during the civil rights movement. Not really, because it wouldn't directly impact you. But those evil courts where telling racists they couldn't legally be racist at their jobs and businesses left and right.
Weirdly, free speech made it out of that era in one peice.
|
Why do people need to use racism to defend freedom of speech? Like... it's a really tough sell, you know?
|
People seem to be confusing freedom of speech with other things here.
Public Accommodations are basically any business that is open to the public. Restaurants, bars, hotels, car rental, theaters, retail, educational institutions, etc. Public accommodations are prohibited by law from discriminating against Protected Classes Federally these include race, color, religion, disability, sex, nationality, etc. In some states, but not federally, sexual orientation and gender identity fall under protected classes. You can't open a business open to the public and decide you're not serving Asians or Hindu people because those are protected classes. This isn't new, this is what the civil rights movement was about.
The same people for the same reasons pull up the same arguments from back then when they didn't want to have to serve black people. This is religious persecution! But that bullshit hasn't flown for obvious reasons. Anyone with a brain knows those people are just looking for a reason to excuse being shitty awful people. Your book doesn't get to tell you who you will or will not serve. If your business is open to the public you deal with the public, regardless of their color, sex, religion, or other protected class. If that cost of doing business is too high for you then you're not cut out for being an entrepreneur and you should go look for a job in a factory or something. You're not allowed to reap the potential profits and have the freedom to be your own boss because you're a shitty human being.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/avqc6yR.jpg)
In the dark blue states you don't get to discriminate against someone for being gay or trans. They're both protected classes. In the grey states you're not allowed to discriminate against gays. In the lighter blue states its thunderdome, and that's obviously a problem. However as I look at this map the only states of note are dark blue with the exception of NY, so at least the good states have their shit together.
However, in all 50 states you're allowed to call someone a "queer" or say you don't like black people if that's what you're into because you still have freedom of speech. That's a different thing.
|
On August 25 2015 12:08 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2015 11:44 RenSC2 wrote:On August 25 2015 11:27 cLutZ wrote:On August 25 2015 11:07 RenSC2 wrote:On August 25 2015 06:44 Cowboy64 wrote:I understand with the sentiment that no one should be discriminated against for reasons XYZ, and I think the argument has some validity, but I do have to wonder... is it really so important that Big Earl's Diner not refuse service a gay couple? Yes, it's rude, yes it's petty and mean, yes it's silly and outdated... but do we really need to go blast some diner in the middle of nowhere on national television? Does the Federal Government really need to go make sure that Big Earl isn't discriminating against whoever? I just feel like if I was refused service somewhere for whatever reason, I would just leave and find somewhere else to eat. I could understand if we're talking about a grocery store or a gas-station, but why a diner? IDK, just seems like it's reverse bullying. The problem happens when every diner in an area follows Big Earl's lead. For example, if you were a black man in the deep south back in the 50s. Nearly all the businesses were owned by white people and almost all those businesses would refuse black people. So if you just wanted to get a bite to eat on your way to/from work, you couldn't stop at any of the diners along the way. Instead, you'd have to go way out of your way just to find someone who would serve you. In turn, you become less and less likely to live in that area because it becomes increasingly hard to do so. That creates pockets of racism where even being a tolerant person hurts you. For example, if you own a diner and allow black people in an area where there's some major racism, then the racist white people (who make up a large portion of the population) start to avoid your diner. You very likely find out that you can't support your diner financially because you're only serving a minority population that is often impoverished and being driven out of the area. So eventually, by being tolerant, you get driven out as well. The concern isn't the one jerk in the tolerant area, although the law ends up falling on him too. The concern is that everyone in an area is a jerk and in turn a larger pocket of jerks is created. That's why anti-discrimination laws are needed. I think that there is a lot of ignoring the negative consequences of such a law that you are ignoring (such as jailing non-compliant people), and that the logic you are going through could justify almost any intervention in businesses. Thus, I would say you need to demonstrate there is an imminent threat of the "worst case" that you illustrate to justify such a law. And that is indeed a fair criticism of non-discrimination laws. Although usually businesses would be fined, rather than owners being jailed (I think. I don't know the history on that part very well.). Laws need to narrowly target discrimination so that there isn't mission creep into other areas, but anti-discrimination laws do need to exist without the need for imminent threat. The problem with having to demonstrate there is an imminent threat is that by then you've already created the worst case scenario and it becomes very hard to undo. And likely, the local judges are included in that threat and thus make it harder for a local threat to be neutralized. There are still areas where discrimination is commonplace around this country. Many of those areas were forcibly de-discriminated decades ago, but the problems still exist. So the idea is to root out discrimination early before it can sink in. Its fair, but I do think you vastly undersell the risks. In Denver, for instance, the city council is trying to deny a permit based on Chick-Fil-A's beliefs in spite of no demonstrable differences in their service record (actually better than non-religious places like KFC, McDs, etc). Also, I think you did point to a significant problem with your own approach: that being that in a corrupt and intolerant area the policy isn't actually implementable anyways. Which means that the only purpose it really serves is harassing bigots where they are not politically powerful. Show nested quote +On August 25 2015 11:42 kwizach wrote:On August 25 2015 11:27 cLutZ wrote:On August 25 2015 11:07 RenSC2 wrote:On August 25 2015 06:44 Cowboy64 wrote:I understand with the sentiment that no one should be discriminated against for reasons XYZ, and I think the argument has some validity, but I do have to wonder... is it really so important that Big Earl's Diner not refuse service a gay couple? Yes, it's rude, yes it's petty and mean, yes it's silly and outdated... but do we really need to go blast some diner in the middle of nowhere on national television? Does the Federal Government really need to go make sure that Big Earl isn't discriminating against whoever? I just feel like if I was refused service somewhere for whatever reason, I would just leave and find somewhere else to eat. I could understand if we're talking about a grocery store or a gas-station, but why a diner? IDK, just seems like it's reverse bullying. The problem happens when every diner in an area follows Big Earl's lead. For example, if you were a black man in the deep south back in the 50s. Nearly all the businesses were owned by white people and almost all those businesses would refuse black people. So if you just wanted to get a bite to eat on your way to/from work, you couldn't stop at any of the diners along the way. Instead, you'd have to go way out of your way just to find someone who would serve you. In turn, you become less and less likely to live in that area because it becomes increasingly hard to do so. That creates pockets of racism where even being a tolerant person hurts you. For example, if you own a diner and allow black people in an area where there's some major racism, then the racist white people (who make up a large portion of the population) start to avoid your diner. You very likely find out that you can't support your diner financially because you're only serving a minority population that is often impoverished and being driven out of the area. So eventually, by being tolerant, you get driven out as well. The concern isn't the one jerk in the tolerant area, although the law ends up falling on him too. The concern is that everyone in an area is a jerk and in turn a larger pocket of jerks is created. That's why anti-discrimination laws are needed. I think that there is a lot of ignoring the negative consequences of such a law that you are ignoring (such as jailing non-compliant people), and that the logic you are going through could justify almost any intervention in businesses. Thus, I would say you need to demonstrate there is an imminent threat of the "worst case" that you illustrate to justify such a law. So your problem with a law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation is that the people who break the law get punished for it (certainly not by directly going to jail, by the way)? In other words, you don't like laws? Because what you're denouncing is the entire foundation of the legal system. Also, the justification for the law is that it is deemed unacceptable to discriminate based on sexual orientation, just like it is deemed unacceptable to discriminate based on skin color. That's justification enough. I would say the government needing to demonstrate a strong (compelling, important, define your own term) interest and a reasonable relation between the law and that end should really be a more commonplace requirement, especially when not everyone (or everyone's beliefs) are being treated equally.
Again, the entire reason for having laws is that breaking them is punishable. In this case, if you discriminate based on skin color, sexual orientation or whatever, you'll be fined. If you decide to keep breaking the law (in this case by not paying your fine, and possibly by continuing your discriminative practices), the punishment will obviously escalate. How else exactly are laws supposed to be enforced and to have any effect at all if those who break them do not get punished for it?
Second, everyone and everyone's beliefs are being treated equally: nobody is allowed to discriminate based on skin color and in some states based on sexual orientation, and everyone is free to believe whatever they want. What isn't allowed is acting upon your beliefs in a way that breaks the law. That's not new at all - if it is my belief that my religion orders me to kill infidels, I'm free to hold that belief but I still can't act upon it without breaking the law and being rightly punished for it.
On August 25 2015 13:22 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2015 13:11 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2015 13:01 Introvert wrote:
This isn't even the 1950s. There aren't that many cities (if any) where a gay couple isn't going to be able to find one cake shop to do their wedding. And even if you do, it's still not like the racist south- these places refuse to cater certain events (like weddings). They don't ask you your orientation before you stroll up to the counter.
And you blame the gay couple for suing a business when they could have just gone elsewhere. But we now have people advocating for jail time, amazing. You go to jail if you don't comply with the court order to serve the gay couple. It happens if you decide that you want to go to jail for being a bigot. There is plenty of warning it is going to happen. Show nested quote +On August 25 2015 13:15 Painmaker wrote:On August 25 2015 13:01 Introvert wrote:
This isn't even the 1950s. There aren't that many cities (if any) where a gay couple isn't going to be able to find one cake shop to do their wedding. And even if you do, it's still not like the racist south- these places refuse to cater certain events (like weddings). They don't ask you your orientation before you stroll up to the counter.
And you blame the gay couple for suing a business when they could have just gone elsewhere. But we now have people advocating for jail time, amazing. Well. I don't know about jail. But I'm totally up for some kind of consequence other than being judged in the "court of public opnion". Time doesn't have anything to do with it, there isn't even any practical reason to punish people for this when A) public opinion is changing anyway, and quite rapidly, and B) denial of service is no more than a mild inconvenience. The comparison to the racist south is absurd. I don't really know what to say, this is more scary than anything.
You've got to love how the guy who's never going to get discriminated against for his skin color or his sexual orientation is authoritatively claiming that getting discriminated against is only a "mild inconvenience". In the real world, it happens to be way more than that, since it is an oppressive reminder that you are being treated as less than everyone else because of a core aspect of who you are as a being, in a society where you're already facing hurdles that not everyone else is facing. The practical reason to punish people "for this" is that this is how the legal system works. You get punished if you break the law. And we, as a society, have decided that discriminating based on skin color is unacceptable, and in some states that discriminating based on sexual orientation is unacceptable, and therefore illegal. That's a very good thing, and all you have to do if you want to avoid getting punished harshly for it is 1. avoid discriminating and 2. pay your fine if you do get fined for breaking the law. Or is paying fines also against the bigot's religious beliefs?
On August 25 2015 15:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2015 13:49 Plansix wrote:
Comply with court orders and you don't go to jail. Problem solved. If the court couldn't enforcement orders, it would be worthless. It doesn't matter if the order involves a gay wedding or adoption agency. The right to not be discriminated against is all the time. Not when straight people think the issue is important. Oh how much fun we can have with a purported right not to be discriminated against. Make way, free speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion ... here comes freedom to not be discriminated against, full stop. Every rogue court is a new despot, and if you happen to agree with their ruling, suddenly you're best friends with court orders. I guess some people just need an agreeable autocrat to pledge allegiance to for the next week.
1. Freedom of speech: you're still allowed to say whatever you want to say.
2. Freedom of association: hasn't been touched either.
3. Freedom of religion: same, you're still free to hold whatever beliefs you want to hold.
Literally not one of these freedoms has been further limited whatsoever. You're simply not allowed to discriminate based on certain attributes in your actions (not in your speech, association or beliefs). There have been such rules for as long as the U.S. has existed, because like I said above there are plenty of practices that are illegal to engage in even if you think your beliefs require you to engage in those practices.
|
On August 25 2015 15:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2015 13:49 Plansix wrote:
Comply with court orders and you don't go to jail. Problem solved. If the court couldn't enforcement orders, it would be worthless. It doesn't matter if the order involves a gay wedding or adoption agency. The right to not be discriminated against is all the time. Not when straight people think the issue is important. Oh how much fun we can have with a purported right not to be discriminated against. Make way, free speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion ... here comes freedom to not be discriminated against, full stop. Every rogue court is a new despot, and if you happen to agree with their ruling, suddenly you're best friends with court orders. I guess some people just need an agreeable autocrat to pledge allegiance to for the next week.
I do really wonder if people used the same arguments for racism back in the 1950s.
I mean do you honestly not know how you sound? It's pretty bad. You're basically saying it's okay to discriminate against someone because it's not illegal. People used that freedom of speech and religion back then too but people told them to keep their mouths shut because it was a ridiculous argument in the first place. Any excuse at all to continue being a bigot is apparently okay...especially if it "infringes" on someone's religious beliefs. In the end you are still free to say and believe whatever you want to believe. Hats off when you ACT UPON them however. We haven't been able to discriminate against skin color for quite awhile now in a LEGAL sense. I mean...in roughly half the states it's illegal based on sexual orientation as well. It's already against the law because we, as a society, have deemed this sort of behavior completely unacceptable.
We are coming full circle it looks like it's just this time it's sexual orientation instead of race...something you have as much control of as the former.
|
On August 25 2015 19:31 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2015 15:35 Danglars wrote:On August 25 2015 13:49 Plansix wrote:
Comply with court orders and you don't go to jail. Problem solved. If the court couldn't enforcement orders, it would be worthless. It doesn't matter if the order involves a gay wedding or adoption agency. The right to not be discriminated against is all the time. Not when straight people think the issue is important. Oh how much fun we can have with a purported right not to be discriminated against. Make way, free speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion ... here comes freedom to not be discriminated against, full stop. Every rogue court is a new despot, and if you happen to agree with their ruling, suddenly you're best friends with court orders. I guess some people just need an agreeable autocrat to pledge allegiance to for the next week. I do really wonder if people used the same arguments for racism back in the 1950s.
The answer is yes. Every single argument you have seen to support businesses being able to turn away a specific group was used back then. You could likely find editorials or posters on the subject. The same goes for people who rail against feminism, pushes for diversity and almost every other progressive movement. The folks who make these arguments are making new ones, but slightly sanitized versions of the arguments made in the 50s and 60s. And those were different versions of the arguments that came before.
Nothing is new. We have done this before. We just deluded ourselves into thinking we might not have to do it again. But we are being proven wrong on that front every day.
|
On August 25 2015 19:22 kwizach wrote:
1. Freedom of speech: you're still allowed to say whatever you want to say.
2. Freedom of association: hasn't been touched either.
3. Freedom of religion: same, you're still free to hold whatever beliefs you want to hold.
Literally not one of these freedoms has been further limited whatsoever. You're simply not allowed to discriminate based on certain attributes in your actions (not in your speech, association or beliefs). There have been such rules for as long as the U.S. has existed, because like I said above there are plenty of practices that are illegal to engage in even if you think your beliefs require you to engage in those practices.
Freedom of association is definitely impacted ... selling something to someone is associating with them.
Freedom of religion in not freedom to believe, it is freedom to exercise those beliefs.
One can argue that these are cases where it is worth overriding the freedoms*, but not that you are not overriding freedoms.
*Segregationist states overrode freedom of association and stopped white stores from serving blacks, because they thought segregation was worth overriding freedoms for.
|
Between 5,000 and 8,000 Syrian refugees will be welcomed into the U.S. next year, officials said Monday.
Calling the U.S. a "leader" in resettling refugees, State Department spokesman John Kirby said the U.N. refugee agency has referred 15,000 Syrian refugees to the U.S., according to AFP News Agency.
More than 4 million Syrians have become homeless since civil war broke out in the country in 2011. Though the U.S. has contributed $4 billion in humanitarian aid to help with refugee resettlement, as of June the country had taken in fewer than 1,000 Syrians.
Kirby said this work was "not the metric of success," instead focusing on how he says the U.S. is helping to bring about reform within Syria so refugees can return to their home country.
"What we're really committed to is helping to foster the kind of political transition inside Syria, so that it is a safe environment for Syrian people to return, including the millions that are seeking refuge in Turkey right now," he said.
In the meantime, though, Syrian refugees are desperate for stability.
Source
|
On August 25 2015 23:36 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2015 19:22 kwizach wrote:
1. Freedom of speech: you're still allowed to say whatever you want to say.
2. Freedom of association: hasn't been touched either.
3. Freedom of religion: same, you're still free to hold whatever beliefs you want to hold.
Literally not one of these freedoms has been further limited whatsoever. You're simply not allowed to discriminate based on certain attributes in your actions (not in your speech, association or beliefs). There have been such rules for as long as the U.S. has existed, because like I said above there are plenty of practices that are illegal to engage in even if you think your beliefs require you to engage in those practices. Freedom of association is definitely impacted ... selling something to someone is associating with them.
Let's be honest here, freedom of association, as linked to the right to assembly, is largely understood to be about the freedom to group with others -- for example to defend ideas, rights, policies, etc. This is not impacted at all by laws preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. If you take into account the selling of goods as an "association", then yes, it is impacted, but the principle is not new at all since it is similarly illegal to discriminate in such a manner on the basis of skin color. There is no reason whatsoever to complain about this unless you also have a problem with it being illegal to discriminate on the basis of skin color.
On August 25 2015 23:36 Krikkitone wrote:
Freedom of religion in not freedom to believe, it is freedom to exercise those beliefs.
It is both, and it has historically been recognized that the right to exercise your religious beliefs is not absolute and is limited by the laws. For example, in Reynolds v. United States (1879), the Supreme Court stated "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices." (emphasis mine). Again, therefore, this is nothing new, and freedom of religion is no more impacted than it is due to the fact that countless practices are already banned under U.S. law. -- for each one, someone could claim that their religion compels them to engage in the practice.
|
Trump has more than Triple the support than any of his competitors in New Hampshire.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/08/ppps-new-new-hampshire-poll-finds-donald-trump-in-the-strongest-position-of-any-poll-weve-done-anywhere-since-he-entered-the.html
PPP's new New Hampshire poll finds Donald Trump in the strongest position of any poll we've done anywhere since he entered the race. Trump laps the Republican field with 35% to 11% for John Kasich, 10% for Carly Fiorina, 7% each for Jeb Bush and Scott Walker, 6% for Ben Carson, 4% each for Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio, and 3% for Rand Paul. Candidates falling outside the top ten in the state are Rick Perry at 2%, Lindsey Graham, George Pataki, and Rick Santorum at 1%, and Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, and Bobby Jindal all at less than 1%. Everyone does have at least one supporter on this poll.
To give an idea of how fundamentally the contest has shifted over the last four months none of Trump, Kasich, and Fiorina weren't even included in the horse race question when we last polled the state in April. The candidate who's made the most cataclysmic drop is Walker- he's gone from leading at 24% all the way down to 7% in this newest poll.
Three other candidates who've seen dramatic decreases in their support are Cruz, Huckabee, and Paul. Cruz's 10 point drop from 14% to 4% is a little bit misleading. When we last polled the state he was still enjoying the bump he received following his candidacy announcement. It's worse news for Paul- he's declined 8 points from 12% to 4% but more notably he's seen a major blow to his image. In April he had a +29 net favorability rating at 54/25. That's now dropped a remarkable 44 points to a -15 spread at 34/49. We've found Paul under water all four places we've polled since the Republican debate. It's a similarly bad story for Huckabee- he's dropped from 7% to less than 1% and he's also seen his favorability go from +16 at 48/32 to -7 at 34/41. For Paul and Huckabee it's not just that other candidates are passing them by- they are becoming increasingly unpopular themselves.
Trump's advantage over the Republican field is thorough. He leads with Tea Party voters (44%), men (39%), independents (36%), conservatives (36%), voters who are most concerned about electability (35%), both younger voters and seniors (at 34% with each), evangelicals (32%), women (30%), and moderates (29%). Trump has a 56/32 favorability rating and he also leads when you match him with the other Republican hopefuls head to head- it's 47/39 over Ben Carson, 53/35 over Scott Walker, 53/34 over Marco Rubio, and 56/33 over Jeb Bush.
Quick notes on some of the other candidates:
-Bush is really struggling. Only 38% of primary voters have a favorable opinion of him to 41% with a negative one. This is largely a function of his unpopularity with conservatives- among voters who identify themselves as 'very conservative' just 34% have a positive opinion of him to 48% who have a negative one. Only 3% say he's their first choice for the nomination, putting him in a tie for 8th place with that group.
-Kasich is on the move because of his strength with moderate voters. He gets 20% with them, putting him second to Trump, and making up for his own trouble on the right- he gets just 1% with 'very conservative' voters. Moderates are 29% of the GOP electorate on this poll, a lot more than in most places.
-New Hampshire makes another state where Ben Carson is the most well liked Republican, with 62% rating him favorably to 17% who have a negative opinion. Carly Fiorina is not far behind him at 58/19. Besides those two and Trump, the only other Republican seen positively by a majority of primary voters is Marco Rubio at 50/27.
-Besides Bush, Huckabee, and Paul other Republican hopefuls with negative favorabilities even among the GOP electorate in New Hampshire are Lindsey Graham at 20/43 (-23), Chris Christie at 35/46 (-11), Jim Gilmore at 4/13 (-9) George Pataki at 27/32 (-5), and Rick Perry at 34/37 (-3).
|
Washington (CNN)Civil rights activist and philosopher Cornel West on Monday endorsed Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders for president.
"I endorse Brother @BernieSanders because he is a long-distance runner with integrity in the struggle for justice for over 50 years," West tweeted late Monday night.
West went on to say that it's time for Sanders' "prophetic voice to be heard across our crisis-ridden country."
While West has been a long time supporter of Sanders (and "not a Hillary Clinton fan at all"), the endorsement comes weeks after Black Lives Matter activists disrupted a Sanders event in Seattle, taking the podium from the self proclaimed socialist who is seeking the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. West has frequently linked arms with Black Lives Matter activists and has been arrested with them during various protests.
"We will push him with integrity toward a more comprehensive vision of freedom for all," West tweeted.
Source
|
On August 26 2015 01:31 whatisthisasheep wrote:Trump has more than Triple the support than any of his competitors in New Hampshire. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/08/ppps-new-new-hampshire-poll-finds-donald-trump-in-the-strongest-position-of-any-poll-weve-done-anywhere-since-he-entered-the.htmlShow nested quote +
PPP's new New Hampshire poll finds Donald Trump in the strongest position of any poll we've done anywhere since he entered the race. Trump laps the Republican field with 35% to 11% for John Kasich, 10% for Carly Fiorina, 7% each for Jeb Bush and Scott Walker, 6% for Ben Carson, 4% each for Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio, and 3% for Rand Paul. Candidates falling outside the top ten in the state are Rick Perry at 2%, Lindsey Graham, George Pataki, and Rick Santorum at 1%, and Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, and Bobby Jindal all at less than 1%. Everyone does have at least one supporter on this poll.
To give an idea of how fundamentally the contest has shifted over the last four months none of Trump, Kasich, and Fiorina weren't even included in the horse race question when we last polled the state in April. The candidate who's made the most cataclysmic drop is Walker- he's gone from leading at 24% all the way down to 7% in this newest poll.
Three other candidates who've seen dramatic decreases in their support are Cruz, Huckabee, and Paul. Cruz's 10 point drop from 14% to 4% is a little bit misleading. When we last polled the state he was still enjoying the bump he received following his candidacy announcement. It's worse news for Paul- he's declined 8 points from 12% to 4% but more notably he's seen a major blow to his image. In April he had a +29 net favorability rating at 54/25. That's now dropped a remarkable 44 points to a -15 spread at 34/49. We've found Paul under water all four places we've polled since the Republican debate. It's a similarly bad story for Huckabee- he's dropped from 7% to less than 1% and he's also seen his favorability go from +16 at 48/32 to -7 at 34/41. For Paul and Huckabee it's not just that other candidates are passing them by- they are becoming increasingly unpopular themselves.
Trump's advantage over the Republican field is thorough. He leads with Tea Party voters (44%), men (39%), independents (36%), conservatives (36%), voters who are most concerned about electability (35%), both younger voters and seniors (at 34% with each), evangelicals (32%), women (30%), and moderates (29%). Trump has a 56/32 favorability rating and he also leads when you match him with the other Republican hopefuls head to head- it's 47/39 over Ben Carson, 53/35 over Scott Walker, 53/34 over Marco Rubio, and 56/33 over Jeb Bush.
Quick notes on some of the other candidates:
-Bush is really struggling. Only 38% of primary voters have a favorable opinion of him to 41% with a negative one. This is largely a function of his unpopularity with conservatives- among voters who identify themselves as 'very conservative' just 34% have a positive opinion of him to 48% who have a negative one. Only 3% say he's their first choice for the nomination, putting him in a tie for 8th place with that group.
-Kasich is on the move because of his strength with moderate voters. He gets 20% with them, putting him second to Trump, and making up for his own trouble on the right- he gets just 1% with 'very conservative' voters. Moderates are 29% of the GOP electorate on this poll, a lot more than in most places.
-New Hampshire makes another state where Ben Carson is the most well liked Republican, with 62% rating him favorably to 17% who have a negative opinion. Carly Fiorina is not far behind him at 58/19. Besides those two and Trump, the only other Republican seen positively by a majority of primary voters is Marco Rubio at 50/27.
-Besides Bush, Huckabee, and Paul other Republican hopefuls with negative favorabilities even among the GOP electorate in New Hampshire are Lindsey Graham at 20/43 (-23), Chris Christie at 35/46 (-11), Jim Gilmore at 4/13 (-9) George Pataki at 27/32 (-5), and Rick Perry at 34/37 (-3).
While Trump demolishing the competition is kind of what I expected, the confirmation of the previous New Hampshire poll, is what I found more interesting.
There's been a big shift on the Democratic side since April as well. Bernie Sanders now leads the field in the state with 42% to 35% for Hillary Clinton, 6% for Jim Webb, 4% for Martin O'Malley, 2% for Lincoln Chafee, and 1% for Lawrence Lessig.
The main story in New Hampshire is how universally popular Sanders has become with the Democratic electorate. 78% see him favorably to only 12% with a negative opinion- that makes him easily the most popular candidate on either side with their party's voters. Meanwhile Hillary Clinton's favorability numbers have taken a little bit of a hit- she was at 78/10 with Democratic primary voters in April, but now she's at a 63/25 spread.
The ideological divide is actually not that stark on the Democratic side. Sanders is ahead with 'somewhat liberal' voters (45/32), 'very liberal' ones (46/37), and moderates (40/36) alike. And although there is certainly a gender gap Sanders is ahead with both men (44/30) and women (41/38). But the real big divide we see is along generational lines- Clinton is ahead 51/34 with seniors, but Sanders has a 45/29 advantage with everyone under the age of 65.
|
I am getting the impression that voters total feed up with being spoon feed candidates from the party elite. Like totally feed up with it. The difference is that Sanders is running a campaign and Trump is just grabbing clickbait headlines by being terrible to drown out all the other candidates. It is going to be interesting, but the Republican party seems even more clueless than last two elections. And that is saying something since they were convinced Romney was going to win.
|
^isn't that the guy who called Obama a neo-progressive in blackface or something?
|
On August 26 2015 01:31 whatisthisasheep wrote:Trump has more than Triple the support than any of his competitors in New Hampshire. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/08/ppps-new-new-hampshire-poll-finds-donald-trump-in-the-strongest-position-of-any-poll-weve-done-anywhere-since-he-entered-the.htmlShow nested quote +
PPP's new New Hampshire poll finds Donald Trump in the strongest position of any poll we've done anywhere since he entered the race. Trump laps the Republican field with 35% to 11% for John Kasich, 10% for Carly Fiorina, 7% each for Jeb Bush and Scott Walker, 6% for Ben Carson, 4% each for Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio, and 3% for Rand Paul. Candidates falling outside the top ten in the state are Rick Perry at 2%, Lindsey Graham, George Pataki, and Rick Santorum at 1%, and Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, and Bobby Jindal all at less than 1%. Everyone does have at least one supporter on this poll.
To give an idea of how fundamentally the contest has shifted over the last four months none of Trump, Kasich, and Fiorina weren't even included in the horse race question when we last polled the state in April. The candidate who's made the most cataclysmic drop is Walker- he's gone from leading at 24% all the way down to 7% in this newest poll.
Three other candidates who've seen dramatic decreases in their support are Cruz, Huckabee, and Paul. Cruz's 10 point drop from 14% to 4% is a little bit misleading. When we last polled the state he was still enjoying the bump he received following his candidacy announcement. It's worse news for Paul- he's declined 8 points from 12% to 4% but more notably he's seen a major blow to his image. In April he had a +29 net favorability rating at 54/25. That's now dropped a remarkable 44 points to a -15 spread at 34/49. We've found Paul under water all four places we've polled since the Republican debate. It's a similarly bad story for Huckabee- he's dropped from 7% to less than 1% and he's also seen his favorability go from +16 at 48/32 to -7 at 34/41. For Paul and Huckabee it's not just that other candidates are passing them by- they are becoming increasingly unpopular themselves.
Trump's advantage over the Republican field is thorough. He leads with Tea Party voters (44%), men (39%), independents (36%), conservatives (36%), voters who are most concerned about electability (35%), both younger voters and seniors (at 34% with each), evangelicals (32%), women (30%), and moderates (29%). Trump has a 56/32 favorability rating and he also leads when you match him with the other Republican hopefuls head to head- it's 47/39 over Ben Carson, 53/35 over Scott Walker, 53/34 over Marco Rubio, and 56/33 over Jeb Bush.
Quick notes on some of the other candidates:
-Bush is really struggling. Only 38% of primary voters have a favorable opinion of him to 41% with a negative one. This is largely a function of his unpopularity with conservatives- among voters who identify themselves as 'very conservative' just 34% have a positive opinion of him to 48% who have a negative one. Only 3% say he's their first choice for the nomination, putting him in a tie for 8th place with that group.
-Kasich is on the move because of his strength with moderate voters. He gets 20% with them, putting him second to Trump, and making up for his own trouble on the right- he gets just 1% with 'very conservative' voters. Moderates are 29% of the GOP electorate on this poll, a lot more than in most places.
-New Hampshire makes another state where Ben Carson is the most well liked Republican, with 62% rating him favorably to 17% who have a negative opinion. Carly Fiorina is not far behind him at 58/19. Besides those two and Trump, the only other Republican seen positively by a majority of primary voters is Marco Rubio at 50/27.
-Besides Bush, Huckabee, and Paul other Republican hopefuls with negative favorabilities even among the GOP electorate in New Hampshire are Lindsey Graham at 20/43 (-23), Chris Christie at 35/46 (-11), Jim Gilmore at 4/13 (-9) George Pataki at 27/32 (-5), and Rick Perry at 34/37 (-3).
The analyst class has to be tearing their hair out at how Trump's character and bravado can carry both independents and moderates. A tough stance on immigration coupled with a simple message on restarting America's greatness (capitalist, foreign policy overtones) apparently has wide appeal, who'd have thunk.
Any disruption in GOP primaries-as-usual is a welcome sight.
|
On August 25 2015 18:57 OuchyDathurts wrote:People seem to be confusing freedom of speech with other things here. Public Accommodations are basically any business that is open to the public. Restaurants, bars, hotels, car rental, theaters, retail, educational institutions, etc. Public accommodations are prohibited by law from discriminating against Protected Classes Federally these include race, color, religion, disability, sex, nationality, etc. In some states, but not federally, sexual orientation and gender identity fall under protected classes. You can't open a business open to the public and decide you're not serving Asians or Hindu people because those are protected classes. This isn't new, this is what the civil rights movement was about. The same people for the same reasons pull up the same arguments from back then when they didn't want to have to serve black people. This is religious persecution! But that bullshit hasn't flown for obvious reasons. Anyone with a brain knows those people are just looking for a reason to excuse being shitty awful people. Your book doesn't get to tell you who you will or will not serve. If your business is open to the public you deal with the public, regardless of their color, sex, religion, or other protected class. If that cost of doing business is too high for you then you're not cut out for being an entrepreneur and you should go look for a job in a factory or something. You're not allowed to reap the potential profits and have the freedom to be your own boss because you're a shitty human being. In the dark blue states you don't get to discriminate against someone for being gay or trans. They're both protected classes. In the grey states you're not allowed to discriminate against gays. In the lighter blue states its thunderdome, and that's obviously a problem. However as I look at this map the only states of note are dark blue with the exception of NY, so at least the good states have their shit together. However, in all 50 states you're allowed to call someone a "queer" or say you don't like black people if that's what you're into because you still have freedom of speech. That's a different thing.
Thank you for this. For some reason there are always idiots who just don't understand how freedom of speech works. Here is another relevant image:
![[image loading]](https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png)
|
On August 26 2015 06:29 writer22816 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2015 18:57 OuchyDathurts wrote:People seem to be confusing freedom of speech with other things here. Public Accommodations are basically any business that is open to the public. Restaurants, bars, hotels, car rental, theaters, retail, educational institutions, etc. Public accommodations are prohibited by law from discriminating against Protected Classes Federally these include race, color, religion, disability, sex, nationality, etc. In some states, but not federally, sexual orientation and gender identity fall under protected classes. You can't open a business open to the public and decide you're not serving Asians or Hindu people because those are protected classes. This isn't new, this is what the civil rights movement was about. The same people for the same reasons pull up the same arguments from back then when they didn't want to have to serve black people. This is religious persecution! But that bullshit hasn't flown for obvious reasons. Anyone with a brain knows those people are just looking for a reason to excuse being shitty awful people. Your book doesn't get to tell you who you will or will not serve. If your business is open to the public you deal with the public, regardless of their color, sex, religion, or other protected class. If that cost of doing business is too high for you then you're not cut out for being an entrepreneur and you should go look for a job in a factory or something. You're not allowed to reap the potential profits and have the freedom to be your own boss because you're a shitty human being. In the dark blue states you don't get to discriminate against someone for being gay or trans. They're both protected classes. In the grey states you're not allowed to discriminate against gays. In the lighter blue states its thunderdome, and that's obviously a problem. However as I look at this map the only states of note are dark blue with the exception of NY, so at least the good states have their shit together. However, in all 50 states you're allowed to call someone a "queer" or say you don't like black people if that's what you're into because you still have freedom of speech. That's a different thing. Thank you for this. For some reason there are always idiots who just don't understand how freedom of speech works. Here is another relevant image:
You do realize that you are posting a comic that mocks people who don't know the difference between protest movements and laws, during a discussion about laws...right?
|
On August 26 2015 01:16 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2015 23:36 Krikkitone wrote:On August 25 2015 19:22 kwizach wrote:
1. Freedom of speech: you're still allowed to say whatever you want to say.
2. Freedom of association: hasn't been touched either.
3. Freedom of religion: same, you're still free to hold whatever beliefs you want to hold.
Literally not one of these freedoms has been further limited whatsoever. You're simply not allowed to discriminate based on certain attributes in your actions (not in your speech, association or beliefs). There have been such rules for as long as the U.S. has existed, because like I said above there are plenty of practices that are illegal to engage in even if you think your beliefs require you to engage in those practices. Freedom of association is definitely impacted ... selling something to someone is associating with them. Let's be honest here, freedom of association, as linked to the right to assembly, is largely understood to be about the freedom to group with others -- for example to defend ideas, rights, policies, etc. This is not impacted at all by laws preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. If you take into account the selling of goods as an "association", then yes, it is impacted, but the principle is not new at all since it is similarly illegal to discriminate in such a manner on the basis of skin color. There is no reason whatsoever to complain about this unless you also have a problem with it being illegal to discriminate on the basis of skin color. Show nested quote +On August 25 2015 23:36 Krikkitone wrote:
Freedom of religion in not freedom to believe, it is freedom to exercise those beliefs. It is both, and it has historically been recognized that the right to exercise your religious beliefs is not absolute and is limited by the laws. For example, in Reynolds v. United States (1879), the Supreme Court stated "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices." (emphasis mine). Again, therefore, this is nothing new, and freedom of religion is no more impacted than it is due to the fact that countless practices are already banned under U.S. law. -- for each one, someone could claim that their religion compels them to engage in the practice.
And neither of those are saying the right is not violated, merely that the violation is considered allowable due to other factors. (such as interfering with other rights)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
