Police: please don’t sell milkshakes to anti-fascists

[Yukaphile]

And you can't boil down voters to something as simple as the strawman you think the other side is.

[Yukaphile]

Please. Refusing to comment on Sanders' slob attire, while criticizing her pantsuits? They clearly had an agenda.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Please. Refusing to comment on Sanders' slob attire, while criticizing her pantsuits? They clearly had an agenda.

That was just general misogyny.

[clearspira]

Or, because the media really failed to inform people on what he was like. They were too concerned with "emails, emails, emails!" To the point a hardcore lefty like Fuzzy thinks Clinton was as corrupt as the MSM painted her as.

The mainstream media barring Fox went 110% against Trump. Stop rewriting history.

[Karha of Honor]

And you can't boil down voters to something as simple as the strawman you think the other side is.

Give me examples. I go out of my way to say i just dislike the vanguard of the Progressives.

[Yukaphile]

Well, how about this. They cut out George Clooney admitting how much they were fundraising was an obscene amount of money... so that their viewers never got to see him admitting it's a necessary evil to stop Citizens United. Or how about when Sanders stalked the Pope to fake his endorsement? I heard the MSM cut out the part where he was flat-out saying, he's NOT endorsing someone.

[CmdrKing]

Oy vey. Most Christians in the UK do not want homosexuality outlawed. Most Muslims do. You can point toward some Christians all you want, but it doesn't matter. Most Christians in the UK are fine with having homosexuals as neighbors, by quite a margin. If you want to say it's a fundamentalist religion problem, that just means more British Muslims are religious fundamentalists. It doesn't really change anything about the desires of British Muslims. Tap dancing around the bottom line won't change the bottom line.

And, please pay attention as I repeat myself. My point of mentioning that 40% of Muslims in the UK wanting to enforce some of Sharia law is not that some parts of Sharia law is awful, the point is that 40% of Muslims in the UK want to change the law to better suit themselves. That's as simple as I can make it for you.

But enjoy the study.

Let's break down the problem. The argument you're making goes more or less thusly:

1. Muslim immigrants are substantially out of sync with UK values
2. Said immigrants seek to replace extant law with laws drafted by them
3. Said changes will fundamentally undermine the rights of UK citizens
4. Therefor it is an acceptable step to remove and/or exclude Muslims from the UK.
5. Therefor Nigel Farage's specific singling out of Muslims as a danger is not a fascistic form of nationalism.

Now, I'm not willing to debate you about the last two conclusions anymore. Removing or excluding people based on a characteristic like national, ethnic, and religious background is a human rights violation, full stop, and someone arguing in favor of human rights violations in defense of nationalism is a form of fascism. You can tell me it's rhetoric if you want, but it's had a measurable real-world impact just as rhetoric, and being an American, wherein the current administration has established concentration camps for refugees, extra SPECIAL ones for the gay and disabled ones, and has recently announced plans to make it legal for Christians to let trans people die in hospitals, I'm going to call you not merely wrong but willfully disingenuous if you want to argue that Farage would not attempt to implement his rhetoric if he achieved office.

That said, you're essentially arguing an end-justify-the-means case to hit those two conclusions: the human rights violations that would occur without intervention in Muslim immigration outweigh those done to Muslim immigrants, and therefor those extraordinary steps are required for this specific, laser focused circumstance.

So let's talk about that.

A heightened sense of religious devotion manifests in a clear social
conservatism on some issues. This was reflected, for example, in high levels
of support for gender segregated education (40% supported this proposal,
as compared to just 11% of the general population), as well as ‘traditional’
religious clothing within schools (44% supported the idea that schools should
be able to insist on the hijab or niqab).

So let me ask: does the UK still have gender-segregated private schools and school uniforms? If not, how recently has that changed? Because this is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about: I heartily agree those are bad things. But if the existing law already allows for them in anglo-founded institutions, then Muslim communities insisting upon them are not some horrible undermining of UK values, it's asserting that they deserve equal rights. The solution isn't to exclude Muslims from the UK, prevent their access to craft and influence law, or to discriminate against their specific reasons for religious dress codes and gender separation but not those of other religions, but to abolish those institutions altogether.

There are relatively large levels of support among British Muslims for the
implementation of elements of Sharia law; however, the nature of that support
is quite ‘soft’. Whilst a plurality of people expressed a preference for such
measures ‘in the abstract’, they were far less forthcoming in supporting them
‘in reality’. (Only 4% of those surveyed said that they used Sharia banking, for
instance, and 55% said that they would not prefer to use this option). It should
also be noted that younger Muslims
were relatively less likely than their
older counterparts to endorse Sharia.

Hm. This looks suspiciously similar to that thing I said, about Sharia being a broad topic with many facets. In particular, I want to draw attention their specific citation here. A quick googling tells me this:

"Islamic banking, also known as non-interest banking, is a system based on the principles of Islamic or Sharia law and guided by Islamic economics. Islamic banks make a profit through equity participation which requires a borrower to give the bank a share in their profits rather than paying interest."

Now, that's very different from how western banks operate, yes. But it's not inherently unethical, if well regulated. I don't see any reason that the law can't recognize (and therefor regulate) this form of banking in addition to existing financial structures. A support of "sharia law" is not necessarily a matter of replacing existing law, but of recognizing and therefor providing legal recourse for Muslim customs.
There's a further implication in the study's conclusion there, but let's see if the data backs me up here.

Moreover, when results are broken down it is notable that younger
respondents were relatively less likely to favour the provisions of Sharia
law. Only 35% of those aged 18–24 expressed support for such measures (and
only 11% expressed ‘strong support’ as compared to an overall proportion of
16%); conversely amongst the two oldest age cohorts (those 55 years old and
above) that figure rose to 48–49% (and
17–19% strong support).

Well what a not-surprise. It turns out that younger Muslims, who overwhelmingly were born in the UK, have far less use for traditions of another culture, whilst their older, more conservative counterparts do want to see aspects integrated into law.
Otherwise known as what all immigration patterns look like. There is no exceptional, special characteristic of Muslims that make them less likely to integrate or respect the culture and laws of their new home. Just normal generational shifts over time.
The case for ends justifying the means is pretty goddamned weak here.

Again, therefore, it is possible to identify a gap between an issue as seen in
the abstract and the way it is viewed at a more tangible, practical level. ‘Sharia
law’ as a concept considered in general terms, is one that many Muslims are not
willing to reject, and significant numbers state a ‘Panglossian’ preference for it: it
is something that they might like in the best of all possible worlds. However, in
their day-to-day lives, this is not an issue that drives many Muslims in the UK. The
practical problems that surround Sharia ensure that many show little interest in
those Sharia-compliant measures that do exist. In this context, expressing support
for Sharia is a way of saying something about one’s identity and religion, rather
than voicing a commitment to a specific policy and legal objective

Oh look, that thing I said!
I mean there's an entire segment about "extremism" that includes in the middle

Yet, even accounting for this, when put alongside the previous set of results,
it seems clear that a significant proportion of Britain’s Muslim population do
not consider extremism to be a significant issue. Again, there are different ways
to read this: either, they simply do not encounter ‘extremist’ views; or, when
they do, they do not recognise such extremism for what it is. The vagueness
of the term – and the enduring difficulties that surround efforts to produce a
definition – are of critical importance here. Successive governments have sought
to initiate a debate about the nature of both mainstream ‘British values’ on the
one hand, and unacceptable ‘extremism’ on the other. To date, there has been
little consensus on either front. Against this backdrop, it is perhaps unsurprising
that many within Muslim communities are unsure about what constitutes
‘extremism’. Equally, however, it is worth at least considering whether there is
an element of denial here?

Even the most troubling result is hard enough to interpret that it's not responsible to draw any clear conclusions.

Nothing in here is out of line with what you'd expect from a somewhat conservative community. Nothing suggest some magical, disproportionate ability to outvote anglo citizens and curtail their rights, nor a desire to do so. Indeed every problem here is right in line with all forms of conservative thought.

That thing I said.

-----

The mainstream media barring Fox went 110% against Trump. Stop rewriting history.

Oh? Did they stop publishing his responses to accusations against him? Stop covering his rallies and speeches? Never announce his candidacy at all? Kill all negative stories about Clinton? Tell viewers the election was close and it was important to go support Clinton? Openly insist that Trump was an existential danger to the republic?
No mistake, Trump's coverage is overwhelmingly negative. But there is far, far more that could have been done if "The Media" were "Out to Get" Trump.

[Mecha82]

It's clear to anyone who has brains that whole "mainstream media was against Trump" claim that Trump supporters like to cry about is pure conspiracy theory that they can't even prove. They hypocrisy level is over 9000.

[Yukaphile]

I mean, Muslims want homosexuals outlawed? Are you kidding? Have you seen what the religious right does? Evangelical preachers go over to other countries and sway the local populace, and you end up with laws passed where just being with someone you love means you'll be jailed or executed. The GOP would love to repeal gay marriage, and many of them run on that platform. Even if you want to argue they don't mean it, it's still an inherently cruel position to take and irresponsible to preach given you're an elected official. You should be held to a higher standard.

[CmdrKing]

We're largely restricting this to the UK, and the claim has been that the UK is overall fairly secular and less inclined towards the local equivalent of American Fundamentalists than the US is. I'm dubious on the point, but also don't care to put in the research to prove or disprove it.

But politicians do, in fact, generally try to implement their campaign promises and rhetoric, even when it's extreme as in the US with Trump, and I don't see any reason to expect Farage or UKIP to be an exception.