In our age of cocooning, it can be hard to remember that real-life Democrats and Republicans are not caricatures like you see on the talking head panel for MSNBC or Fox News. In fact, if both of those channels are skeptical of a proposal, you can bet that there is actually a good deal of support for it among the flesh-and-blood Democrats and Republicans who live around you. The divide in that case is between globalist elites and America-first populists.
The Reuters tracking polls include one about a temporary ban on all Muslims entering the country, which is more extreme than what Trump is proposing -- not on all Muslims, but those from countries with a proven record of producing Islamic terrorists.
As you can see by clicking that link, being against the ban had been comfortably more popular than being for it, from May 17 when they started asking it, until June 5, when it abruptly reverses. For some reason, Reuters stopped asking the question at that point, but put it back in after the Orlando shooting, showing little change from June 6. Presumably by the end of the week, there will be even greater support.
I have no idea what took place around June 5 that reversed the popularity of "for" vs. "against," but it's worth noting that the ban had more for than against already by the time of the Orlando attack.
The other big recent change is an increase of people who say they're merely "not sure".
Putting it all together, first some of those against switched abruptly to being for it (around June 6), and one week later some of those newly "for" it decided to walk it back a bit and said they were just "not sure". The end result is unchanged, though: it's more popular than not, and those who are sitting on the fence are probably for it but just don't want to admit it, or want a slightly watered-down version of it, like Trump has actually proposed.
If you filter the data to look just at Republicans, conservatives, or those who voted for Romney, there hasn't been much change over time -- support is consistently high. The change is entirely due to Democrats, liberals, and those who voted for Obama re-evaluating how wise it is to have unchecked immigration from Muslim countries in an age when they're likely to blow up our leisure spaces because they hate the "decadent West".
Women also show a major change in favor of the ban, while men have remained about equally for and against. White Democrats show a yuge increase in being "for" the ban, while black Democrats remain unchanged. Islamic terrorism is a potential wedge to drive between white and non-white Democrats.
The common denominator of the change in sentiment is those who feel most vulnerable to violence, or who prioritize protection from violence over other matters (such as multiculturalism). That is what liberal morality usually boils down to -- avoiding harm.
But perhaps in this case they're prioritizing culture and lifestyles, and wanting to maintain those against Muslim immigrants who want to impose sharia law on Americans. Whether or not they've read the data from a Pew survey of the world's Muslims, they can tell that most of the Muslims coming here don't want to assimilate to our norms, and want the backward severe laws of their homelands. When over 70, 80, and 90% of a country wants sharia law, "moderate Muslims" are like a needle in a haystack.
Sooner or later, liberals and Democrats will realize that unchecked Muslim immigration will become their worst nightmare, as a puritanical theocracy replaces a secular society.
Disturbingly, though, there is one conservative group that is fiercely against the Muslim ban -- try to take a guess, based on which state Trump lost by the biggest margin, and who is the only lingering high-profile "Never Trump" politician. That's right -- it's the damn Mormons again. The sooner that the Trump-influenced GOP can trade the Mormons for Michigan, the better.
During the entire period of the question, Mormons were 61% against the ban, 27% in favor, and 12% not sure. Other religious groups are either evenly for and against (like the Methodists), or slightly in favor (like the Catholics). It's only the Mormons who are so bitterly opposed to the idea. It stems from their still burning sense of persecution as a religious minority by the Federal Gubmint, which refused to allow Utah to enter the Union until they ended the most backward and whackjob practices of their new-age out-West cult, like polygamy.
That's my guess as to why Romney is still so triggered and tantrum-throwing about the rise of Trump, and crying about the Muslim ban. He's not like the other Establishment Republicans, who are either falling in line or trying to appear neutral. He's a high-ranking official of the Mormon Church, with divided loyalties between it and the nation:
Romney is no run-of-the-mill churchgoer but has held responsible posts in this clergy-less denomination that’s led locally by laymen serving part-time. He has been the “bishop” (equivalent of a pastor) in his own “ward” (congregation) and president of the Boston area “stake” (akin to a Catholic or Episcopal bishop). He is an ordained “high priest,” the LDS ecclesiastical rank below patriarch, seventy, and apostle.
Jews are the other "religious" group that is far more against the ban than for it, being globalist managerial types. But even they are not as naive as the Mormons, and have a healthy minority who want to keep Muslims out of Jewish neighborhoods.
The Trump movement's goal should be to put out feelers for common-sense liberals and Democrats (not progressive activists concerned with signaling their values), and encourage their skepticism of unchecked immigration from around the world, particularly from countries whose immigrants want to impose sharia law on us at a minimum, and occasionally blow up our leisure spaces.
It's also important to distance ourselves from the old Mormon and Mormon-ish base of the GOP, which will soon defect to the Democrats or form a breakaway party, in either case siding with globalist multiculturalism rather than putting America first.
" He has been the “bishop” (equivalent of a pastor) in his own “ward” (congregation) and president of the Boston area “stake” (akin to a Catholic or Episcopal bishop). He is an ordained “high priest,” the LDS ecclesiastical rank below patriarch, seventy, and apostle."ReplyDelete
Gosh, yeah these kooks need to jettisoned ASAP
Joseph Smith was a conman who made shit up, including the Book of Mormon, whose ideas he borrowed heavily from Wonders of Nature and Providence and View of the Hebrews, as well as rehashing New Testament passages.Its the longest running scam.Delete
Mormons voted heavily for Lying Ted Cruz, as well as pushing for immigration reform. They are straight Cuckservative voters. Also, your comment on Mormons being against the Muslim ban because of their victim identity is confirmed by this Mormon anti-Trumper in The Federalist.ReplyDelete
Another significant reason Mormons have rejected Trump has to do with our unique place in American history. Ours was the only major religious group in the nation’s history that suffered government-sanctioned violence. This persecution came to a head in 1838 when the governor of Missouri issued an extermination order legalizing the murder of any Mormon who refused to leave the state.
Needless to say, this history has made Latter-Day Saints sensitive to loud-mouthed politicians who single out religious minorities. Most Mormons were appalled by Trump’s suggestion that we ban all Muslims from entering the United States. The way Trump speaks about minority groups strikes a raw nerve with Mormons. To vote for Trump, Mormons would have to willingly forget their own history as the objects of fear and mistrust.
L. Ron Hubbard was the 20th century's Joseph Smith.ReplyDelete
In fairness some of these dorky Christian cults from the 19th Century seem to agree with white people's social and physical health. Mormons and Seventh-Day Adventists show longer health spans than other white populations, like the South's Scots-Irish who tend to belong to evangelical or fundamentalist churches which don't emphasize healthy habits.ReplyDelete
I have trouble taking The Federalist seriously in general because it has too many women writing for it.
Well, the writer at The Federalist was a Mormon himself. I don't really read that site much, it's Anti-Trump crap last time I checked.ReplyDelete
Actually, I believe Mormon resistance to the ban has to do with their arrogance and belief they can convert many Muslims to Mormonism. Yep. It stems from their evangelical nature.ReplyDelete
Also, don't forget that Trump called their hero a "loser", said it again and again and again. That might even be the number one reason they hate Trump. Mormons also value politeness (Harry Reid not a good example) and Trump on that basis alone leaves them cold. So, there are many reasons why Trump isn't going to win Utah.ReplyDelete
I really can't see an electoral path for him. Darn.
Mormons remember the days of the immigration ban on polygamists and those who accept the principle of polygamy.ReplyDelete
"Actually, I believe Mormon resistance to the ban has to do with their arrogance and belief they can convert many Muslims to Mormonism. Yep. It stems from their evangelical nature."ReplyDelete
Evangelicals gained only a handful of converts from Islam over a century or so. Few people are willing to risk a fatwa on their head https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehdi_Dibaj
According to Rasmussen's latest poll, Trump is getting squeezed from the top and bottom. Elites disdain his unvarnished anti-intellectual populism, while the presumably heavily Millennial and non-white low-income demo don't want anything to do with the non-PC Trump.
Notably, the poll is intended to represent the general population, not likely voters. I read some data recently that showed how overwhelmingly white and old elections tend to skew, 2008 not withstanding. Hispanics will likely continue to sit things out while many Millennials will find no reason to vote with the ones who do vote probably writing-in Sanders or voting for Stein.
"Eighty-four percent (84%) of blacks support Clinton, while Trump holds modest leads among whites and other minority voters."
As we saw most vividly with their support of O.J., the collective vindictiveness and ignorance of blacks has become so horrific that we ought to consider blocking their vote. Which, granted, is already done to a degree by not allowing felons to vote and passing I.D. acts (organized ethnic groups benefit from rigorous voting rules). The majority of blacks still believe that a vote for the Dems is a thumb to the eye of white GOP voters.
I expect the majority of pro-3rd party respondents are frustrated and a lot of them may not bother voting come election day.
"Mormons and Seventh-Day Adventists show longer health spans than other white populations, like the South's Scots-Irish who tend to belong to evangelical or fundamentalist churches which don't emphasize healthy habits."ReplyDelete
There's a correlation between health awareness and geography. The further North and further West you go in America, the healthier people tend to be. Part of this is probably ethnic make-up. Nords are more common in the North and West (including Utah), while Scots-Irish are in the Southeast.
It may just be that Western strivers care more about their looks, too. Minnesota is thinner and has fewer smokers than Wisconsin, for example.
The Mormon antipathy towards indulgence certainly does arise from Anglo-Nordic puritan roots. The Mormons represent the most docile and child-like tendencies of Anglo-Nords, with the wilder, more cunning, and more convival people being progressively drummed out of the cult as it moved further West and the pressure to conform and obey grew.
As we see with Mediterraneans, puritanism isn't necessary to live a long healthy life. The prohibition of "dangerous" activities is ostensibly about piety and health but really, among the Nords and Mormons it seems to be driven mainly by a nerdy and rather childish fear of growing up too fast and living too large. Which also explains their fear of Trump. Wimpy and overly genteel people hate Trump. He seems too unbridled and gut driven.
From Isteve post about SoCal being hammered by Mexicans:ReplyDelete
"Los Angeles is outsourcing a lot of their jobs to Georgia. I am talking about the film industry.
I go to the movie theater enough times to notice that most films these days show the Georgia peach during the end credits. A recent example is The Nice Guys which was also partially shot in Georgia and not entirely in Los Angeles."
It looks like L.A. is more and more losing it's appeal as being a festering sore of DIEversity (especially the worst kind, as in mixtecs) is pretty damn depressing. And mixtecs don't have jack shit to contribute to an industry that needs creativity and charisma.
California is shot, absent a ruler (at the national and/or state level) who vows to take on the immigration/diversity racket and practices that mixtecs rely on (like stacking dozens of people on top of each other in their living spaces).
In the wholesome mid century, such diseased customs were quietly but effectively quelled by responsible leaders and attentive commoners. But we can't clamp down on anything that enables non-whites anymore.
Louisiana has also been used for filming pretty often, we don't have nearly as much vibrant diversity as most states, just plain ol' blacks. Poverty has its benefits.ReplyDelete
As I understand it, Cleveland gets used quite frequently as a lower-cost stand-in for New York. Lots of tall buildings, but it's much cheaper to shut down streets for shooting big action scenes than in NYC.ReplyDelete
Well, the Mormons aren't acting that stupidly. They are actually acting rationally, according to their group interests.ReplyDelete
Mormons took over uninhabitable land--Utah was a ghost territory outside of small pockets---largely because they saw that no other groups would bother them there, because it was a wasteland. And since that time, even as they made it inhabitable, they have worked to keep outsiders out--not overtly, but through aggressive evangelization in their own region, as well as through subtle means, such as encouraging Mormons to choose other Mormons for business deals (e.g. buying a house? use a Mormon realtor!), and through making Mormons constantly attend Mormon-only events. So the chances of Muslims flocking there are slim. Thus Mormons in Utah are insulated from any negative externalizes from Muslim bombings.
Meanwhile, Mormons have made a mint becoming the most aggressive group of non-Eskimo salesmen and businessmen. Mitt Romney is their poster boy: a man who buys dying businesses, breaks them up, and invests in others. Like the Eskimos, both groups have taken not to building things, but to being more fly-by-night money men with non-Mormon businesses. It used to be a more disreputable business, but even today (as we saw with Romney's election) it leaves a bad taste in many people's mouths. But this rather rapacious dealing with non-Mormon people in the financial sector has made them more than a little callous as to what happens to non-Mormons who are faced with Muslim's onslaught.
Furthermore, Mormons in Utah/the West have achieved a position of financial and social stability that Muslim terror in the big East and West coast cities would be a boon to them. As the Mormons would remain cohesive as the big blue cities become uninhabitable, their consolidated voting power would increase relative to the dis-cohesion of the blue power bases.
The Muslims also represent a chance at further evangelization, something which Mormons love. Fervent religious converts usually come from former fervent believers in another creed--recall that St. Paul was at first a devoted Pharisee. Mormons aren't dumb when it comes to this fact; I'm sure in their many training sessions on the door-to-door business of converting people, they teach that the most religious are often the best targets.
Finally, in the likely event the USA broke up, the Utah Mormons would likely benefit. They are now much more financially and socially secure than they were 150 years ago. Their physical isolation, strong pro-gun policy, and social cohesion, financial strength, and emphasis on preparedness (Mormon households are encouraged by their churches to keep a 1 year supply of provisions on hand) would mean they could become a very stable nation-state in the midst of North American chaos.
In short, the Mormons aren't acting that bizarrely or stupidly, given their group position. It's just bad for the rest of us. (Please note: I'm not a Mormon, never was, and from the Northeast).
Utah's economy is dependent on the federal government, being one of our largest employers. If Hill Air Force base got shut down, Davis County would enter a severe depression. It's in Utah's best interest to keep the Union together.Delete
One big reason that so many of my fellow Mormons are sympathetic to Muslims and "refugees," which you may not have considered, is good-old-fashioned "love thy neighbor" Christianity. It may be naive, but there are a lot of true believers in the teachings of Jesus Christ among the Mormons.
Are they oblivious to the fact that apostasy is traditionally a capital offense for Muslims? It might be hard to carry out while we still have some rule of law here, but I'm guessing strong ostracization would be involved.ReplyDelete
I've heard they're heavily invested in private prisons, haven't researched this.
"Ours was the only major religious group in the nation’s history that suffered government-sanctioned violence. This persecution came to a head in 1838 when the governor of Missouri issued an extermination order legalizing the murder of any Mormon who refused to leave the state."ReplyDelete
Polygamy was against the law, so the government enforcing the law with force (the whole point of the state) was normal.
Mormons still are uneasy with their cult's foundation on polygamy -- *that* is the reason why they got tarred & feathered, arrested, driven out, and had their printing press destroyed. They were practicing and promoting polygamy.
The LDS group that did not take up polygamy, nor the crypto-Masonic Temple initiation ceremonies, remained in the Illinois / Missouri region, and were not bothered. They were mostly known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, now called Community of Christ.
Mormons don't want to convert Muslims -- they're banned from sending missions to the Muslim countries (scroll to end):ReplyDelete
On some level, they know that this reflects the commitment of Muslims to Islam, and not just government restrictions. Therefore they would convert almost nobody who came to America from those countries.
Imagine just trying to convert a Muslim to Christianity in America -- impossible. Now try converting them to a quasi-Christian cult that believes in three separate gods (against the Muslim emphasis on monotheism), and which all have physical form (against the Muslim emphasis on God being ineffable). Not to mention the mythological narrative of the Book of Mormon being based in the New World rather than the Old World as in the Old and New Testament.
Mormons are not clever in-group-maximizers who are callous to out-group suffering. They're plain old naive -- genetically bred to be so, given that their ancestors were selected for gullibility (leaving everything behind and following nutty new-age cult out West).ReplyDelete
The demographic doom-and-gloom crowd is committed to there being a white paradise where they could flee to if the shit hit the fan. There is -- and it's Vermont, not Utah.
Salt Lake City is a sanctuary city, only 60-65% white. Utah is under 80% white, no better than Great Lakes states, and far below New England.
All of the growth in the Mormon Church is from third-world converts, many of whom migrate into the US and Utah in particular. They aren't bringing in white Americans, and there's been a steady exodus of white Americans who were born into the Church, as of the 1990s.
SLC has one of the largest Somali "refugee" populations, and therefore probably the highest per capita. Just like their Nordic cousins in Minneapolis.
We'll see how long Utahns remain unaffected by Islamic terrorists.
Anyone who believes Utah is a whitopia is falling for another Mormon Ponzi scheme -- tell all your white friends about the whitopia that is Utah! Still bringing in the gullibles 150 years later...
There is still significant white Mormon growth from our high birth rate. There are very few other white groups that are as fecund, and fewer yet which have an above-average I.Q. Like it or not, Mormons are going to play an increasingly important rile in the future of the white race.Delete
Salt Lake City is probably already lost, though. It's only 30% Mormon now, and declining, and the liberal Gentiles who have taken over have installed a gay mayor and are importing as much diversity as possible.
Something called Kendal Unruh (from Colorado) is trying to lead a coup against Trump, you can't make this up: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gop-delegates-plan-last-ditch-effort-to-stop-donald-trump-at-convention/ReplyDelete
You were asking for video of the muzzie fag shooter. He was in two movies. They scrubbed his IMDB page but a clip remains:ReplyDelete
Clip with Omar:
Full BP Documentary:
h/t Anon on /pol/
"One big reason that so many of my fellow Mormons are sympathetic to Muslims and "refugees," which you may not have considered, is good-old-fashioned "love thy neighbor" Christianity."ReplyDelete
That's a modern perversion of scripture. Jesus didn't implore us to import the entire world into our homeland, to improve their material welfare, while they rape our daughters and blow up our office buildings.
You can't even find Christians arguing this for most of the 20th century. It is nothing more than a hasty see-through Christian veneer over top of the corporate globalist agenda to lower wages in order to boost profits to stockholders, and destroy social cohesion so that citizens will not unite against corrupt politicians.
FYI, the last country to take in a major flow of Arab Muslim refugees was Lebanon, where the Palestinians fled after the founding of Israel and the 1967 War.ReplyDelete
The outcome there was the protracted and gruesome Lebanese "Civil" War -- really a war between the native Lebanese (Christian) and the recent Palestinian refugees (Muslim).
Delicate Mormon sensibilities may read "raping our daughters" as mean hyperbole, but here's a case today from Twin Falls, Idaho:ReplyDelete
"Because thankfully local citizens wouldn’t let it go, officials now admit there was a sexual assault and that the perps are Sudanese and Iraqi, see here.
"There are stories swirling on the internet that a gang of refugee juveniles raped a 4-year old girl and that the police are mum because everyone knows this would be a bombshell in a community already on edge about refugees being poured into the area."
Mormonism is to western Christianity what Islam is to eastern Christianity- an heresy which morphed into a polygamous desert cult. It was created by very similar social forces, and Mohammed's biography reads a bit like that of Joseph Smith, if Smith were a skilled general living in a more lawless society.ReplyDelete
It seems to be almost a universal rule that charismatic and fraudulent cult leaders change the existing laws to give themselves sexual access to more partners. Mohammed (who set a limit of four wives per believer, then broke that limit himself), The Brethren of the Free Spirit, Jan of Leiden, Joseph Smith, Jim Jones, David Koresh, etc.
There's also a parallel to the Sunni-Shia split, where the Mormons are like the Sunnis (favoring the prophet's successor to be chosen by the elite of the movement), and the LDS who stayed in Missouri are like the Shia (favoring a successor from the prophet's family).ReplyDelete
The Shia are the more tolerant group, never spawning a Wahhabi / Salafi kind of movement and terrorist network. The Sunnis did spawn such a movement.
The LDS who stayed in Missouri never got into wars with the US federal government, did not spawn the separatist polygamists even after the mainstream Mormons agreed to end polygamy, and in general are more low-key about their religion and their relations with non-LDS people and society.
The Mormons are the more whackjob wing of the LDS movement.
In fairness, that may just be a reflection of evangelical zeal -- more likely among those who are OK with the founder's successor coming from outside his family. Those who would want the movement to stay within the family are probably not that zealous about bringing in strangers and newcomers.
Kind of like the successor to Jesus being Paul, who didn't even know Jesus personally, vs. James the brother of Jesus who kept the movement going in Jerusalem after the founder's death (along with Peter).