American Politics Thread

[Volphied]

We do though you can literally enter illegally and have a baby that baby is a full citizen. No where else in the world outside of the West does that happen.

Wrong again.

Jus soli - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is also common in South America, and even some African and Asian countries.

 

[Weiss]

Ok quiz time
What was the American Civil War primarily fought over?

The right to succeed from the union due to the Southern states refusal to end their slave labour. They felt it was a State legislative issue and it could not be imposed upon them.

Obviously they should have ended slavery it was a terrible crime against the African slave population and didn’t benefit anyone other than the rich plantation owners.

Edit

I believe they were bitter over Abe’s election as well as none of them voted for him parallels with the impeach Trump people a little bit lol.

 

[Weiss]

Wrong again.

Jus soli - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is also common in South America, and even some African and Asian countries.

Their legal systems are based off European systems...

You’re taking everything at face value without thinking any through. I have nothing against you but you appear to have spent all day arguing against me and @Poké Boss and failing.

 

[Contrainer]

There legal systems are based off European systems...

So anywhere with Europe-inspired laws? That's most of the world

 

[Weiss]

Spoiler

*Their
But you even edited!

So anywhere with Europe-inspired laws? That's most of the world

Thanks I have Multiple sclerosis so I use auto fill (due to pain when typing) to type mostly and I don’t always see if it selects the wrong grammar I appreciate it.

It’s not most of the world clearly by the graphic but I’m pretty sure that’s why the South American countries use it. Even so it’s a bit of a moot point as most immigration is going in the opposite direction north not south. Given this a case could be made that they need to replenish their workforce.

My Mother is Polish/Ukrainian I’ve seen what happens to towns that are left empty by people immigranting for more money and welfare benefits. It’s one of the main reasons I’m against it it hurts both countries.

Also from the wikipedia article she linked


“Jus soli was part of the English common law, in contrast to jus sanguinis, which derives from the Roman law that influenced the civil-law systems of continental Europe.[3][4] Jus soli is the predominant rule in the Americas, but it is rare elsewhere.[5][6] Since the Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland was enacted in 2004, no European country grants citizenship based on unconditional or near-unconditional jus soli.[7][8]

Almost all states in Europe, Asia, Africa and Oceania grant citizenship at birth based upon the principle of jus sanguinis(right of blood), in which citizenship is inherited through parents rather than birthplace, or a restricted version of jus soliin which citizenship by birthplace is automatic only for the children of certain immigrants.”


I think it’s rich some chastity me for not reading when I actually do and they don’t even bother to read the second and third paragraphs.

Edit

Perhaps it would have been better to say English rather than European but it still holds true.

 

[Contrainer]

Thanks I have Multiple sclerosis so I use auto fill (due to pain when typing) to type mostly and I don’t always see if it selects the wrong grammar I appreciate it.

OK

It’s not most of the world clearly by the graphic but I’m pretty sure that’s why the South American countries use it. Even so it’s a bit of a moot point as most immigration is going in the opposite direction north not south. Given this a case could be made that they need to replenish their workforce.

My Mother is Polish/Ukrainian I’ve seen what happens to towns that are left empty by people immigranting for more money and welfare benefits. It’s one of the main reasons I’m against it it hurts both countries.

Also from the wikipedia article she linked


“Jus soli was part of the English common law, in contrast to jus sanguinis, which derives from the Roman law that influenced the civil-law systems of continental Europe.[3][4] Jus soli is the predominant rule in the Americas, but it is rare elsewhere.[5][6] Since the Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland was enacted in 2004, no European country grants citizenship based on unconditional or near-unconditional jus soli.[7][8]

Almost all states in Europe, Asia, Africa and Oceania grant citizenship at birth based upon the principle of jus sanguinis(right of blood), in which citizenship is inherited through parents rather than birthplace, or a restricted version of jus soliin which citizenship by birthplace is automatic only for the children of certain immigrants.”


I think it’s rich some chastity me for not reading when I actually do and they don’t even bother to read the second and third paragraphs.

Edit

Perhaps it would have been better to say English rather than European but it still holds true.

By that I meant the West, as you were referring to it

 

[Weiss]

OK

By that I meant the West, as you were referring to it

Some have obviously changed relatively “recently” I didn’t know Ireland revoked it’s birthright. Then again this only established post famine to encourage Irish to come home.

I think the Irish are a good examples Scots-Irish and American-Irish I’m assuming all X-Irish are allowed to settle in Ireland if they can prove Irish ancestry. My Husband is illegible but refused the ROI passport as he said it’s wrong to carry to passports or he thinks so.

 

[Beer&Nyquil]

Not really sure I understand the line of thinking that says if you weren’t born in a country you can’t criticize it. I also don’t know if I understand the point of running for office or being a politician if you don’t think you can improve your country. Hell, what’s trump’s slogan again?

 

[Contrainer]

Person: Make America Great Again!
Trump: good
Person: America should be made great again!
Trump: IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT GET OUTTA HERE! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

 

[Weiss]

Not really sure I understand the line of thinking that says if you weren’t born in a country you can’t criticize it. I also don’t know if I understand the point of running for office or being a politician if you don’t think you can improve your country. Hell, what’s trump’s slogan again?

I don’t think she’s trying to improve it though when she dismisses any criticism of her as racist or because she is Muslim. She seems to hate the West by her comments and I can almost guarantee if Trump or a Republican made the comments she made about Israel they’d be out so quick.

There are legitimate criticisms but she compares American unfavourably whenever she can to basically anything Islamic so people rightly question why she doesn’t move to an islamic country. Again at least for me I don’t actually want her to move it’s just a tactic to point out her hypocrisy.

 

[Weiss]

Person: Make America Great Again!
Trump: good
Person: America should be made great again!
Trump: IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT GET OUTTA HERE! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

That’s not what’s happening though she’s not constructive in her criticism and is disrespectful. “Some people died on 9/11” etc.

I’m trying to engage in good faith but I feel it’s pointless when met with comments like the above.

 

[Contrainer]

That’s not what’s happening though she’s not constructive in her criticism and is disrespectful. “Some people died on 9/11” etc.

I wasn't quoting anyone in thread, I just had nowhere else to put it.

 

[Weiss]

I wasn't quoting anyone in thread, I just had nowhere else to put it.

I thought you were referring to the comment before. Trying to claim that the Omar woman is trying to “make America great again” which I doubt.

Most of the replies I get are shallow rhetoric and don’t really stand up to criticism. All started because I said nationalism is not a bad thing. Should not be surprised American’s bastardising the English language yet again. lol

Again I’m an actual liberal but I just can’t understand some of the people here even when confronted with proof they just dismiss it with no counter evidence.

Heck starting to think Trump is the divine punishment for stupidity (not directed at you personally).

 

[Beer&Nyquil]

I don’t think she’s trying to improve it though when she dismisses any criticism of her as racist or because she is Muslim. She seems to hate the West by her comments and I can almost guarantee if Trump or a Republican made the comments she made about Israel they’d be out so quick.

There are legitimate criticisms but she compares American unfavourably whenever she can to basically anything Islamic so people rightly question why she doesn’t move to an islamic country. Again at least for me I don’t actually want her to move it’s just a tactic to point out her hypocrisy.

Well, if we’re being honest, a lot of the criticism of her comes from her being Muslim in a country with a fairly serious problem with Islam. Again, she lives in the United States and considers it her home, so I don’t think she “hates the West.” Her comments about Israel were 100% correct, and as a Jew I wish more in Congress would speak out against their illegal treatment of Palestinians; nonetheless, when, for example, Bernie Sanders criticizes Israeli policy, he doesn’t get the same pushback Omar does.

A Muslim country, not an Islamic country. The words mean different things. She also doesn’t compare America to “basically anything islamic” and I’m not actually sure what you’re trying to say.

When, for example, Omar suggests that we pay workers a living wage or provide healthcare to all Americans, do not think she is trying to improve the country? You do know that workers in many Muslim countries do not always get paid living wages and healthcare is not a right in every Muslim country, right?

 

[Beer&Nyquil]

-“most of the replies I get are shallow rhetoric”
-“she compares America to basically everything Islamic”
You’re really setting standards for discourse very high here with your not-at-all shallow rhetoric buddy

 

[Weiss]

Well, if we’re being honest, a lot of the criticism of her comes from her being Muslim in a country with a fairly serious problem with Islam. Again, she lives in the United States and considers it her home, so I don’t think she “hates the West.” Her comments about Israel were 100% correct, and as a Jew I wish more in Congress would speak out against their illegal treatment of Palestinians; nonetheless, when, for example, Bernie Sanders criticizes Israeli policy, he doesn’t get the same pushback Omar does.

A Muslim country, not an Islamic country. The words mean different things. She also doesn’t compare America to “basically anything islamic” and I’m not actually sure what you’re trying to say.

When, for example, Omar suggests that we pay workers a living wage or provide healthcare to all Americans, do not think she is trying to improve the country? You do know that workers in many Muslim countries do not always get paid living wages and healthcare is not a right in every Muslim country, right?

Eh no Muslims by definition are Islamic they practice Islam and their laws are based on islamic text. More often than not the state religion is Islam.

A muslim is one who submits to god through islam. That’s like saying Christianity and Christian are not related.

She did a whole interview downplaying Al-Qaeda’s crimes. Yet refused to admit the war against the Taliban was justified because of 9/11. She’s also pro women's rights but pro sharia law which is an oxymoron.

I think she’s pandering for votes I don’t think she gives two ticks about average Americans. Muslims tend see the left as useful idiots; ost minority groups do. This was said on BBC by a cleric in a few decades they’ll be the majority he said and we will be forced to live under their law. True or not it is the mindset a lot of these types hold. If she thought she’d get into power calling for tax cuts and a wall she would.

Sanders gets a pass because he is Jewish but they will clobber him with his remarks on Israel should he get close to the nomination like they did last time. I doubt he’s ever said the Jews and Israel have the whole world under their magic spell please Allah free them.

 

[Weiss]

-“most of the replies I get are shallow rhetoric”
-“she compares America to basically everything Islamic”
You’re really setting standards for discourse very high here with your not-at-all shallow rhetoric buddy

So you literally want me to pull ever quote just for you to dismiss them? I come with figures etc links and I get told oh but ok I think that’s rude... Seriously?

 

[dragon_nataku]

We've had to make two inthreads to try to get you guys to stop flaming eachother. We've been very lenient and none of you have gotten any warnings from this, although several of you probably should have. This is because we understand that politics is a touchy subject and tempers can flare. HOWEVER. We will NOT allow any more flaming in this thread. We've locked it for now to give you all some time to cool off. Maybe in a day or two we'll reopen it, but if another flame war erupts, this thread will be shut down for good and warnings handed out.

This is your final inthread warning. Please be more respectful of your fellow posters in the future, whether you agree with them or not, and whether you're on the same political side or not. And please keep any future replies to this thread in line with the actual topic (which is "American Presidential Election 2020" and NOT "the left/the right/whoever are all racist bastards" or any other blanket statements, please and thank you).

 

[Pikochu]

Hey everyone!

After dealing with all the reports we have received with this thread, I am happy to announce that this thread will be unlocked. There are a few things that we need to point out and to remember.

READ BELOW BEFORE POSTING

- Reminder: All Bulbagarden rules still apply. No exceptions.

- Failure to follow any of these rules may result in warning points and in some cases, automatic bans through point accumulation or through the warnings themselves.

- If you see a post that you think breaks the rules, use the report feature found below of the post and explain to why you think it breaks the rules. Don't engage with that user, let the mods handle it. We won't punish you if you report in good faith.

- If you are tired of seeing a user's post or you don't want a user to see your posts anymore, feel free to use the ignore feature. See this guide to learn how to use it.

- Discussions can get heated. Address the user's points, not the user themselves and do not assume bad faith.

- Remember, this is a thread about American Presidential Election 2020 thread. If it's not closely related to the 2020 Elections in the United States, it most likely doesn't belong here.

If discussions get out of control again, the moderators or staff will close this thread and other threads relating to politics indefinitely. Consider this as your final in-thread warning.

Happy discussing!

 

[Volphied]

Deficit Man and the 2020 Election
The Trump bump probably peaked too early.

Spoiler

I’ve seen a number of people suggest that the 2020 election will be a sort of test: Can a sufficiently terrible president lose an election despite a good economy? And that is, in fact, the test we’d be running if the election were tomorrow.

On one side, Donald Trump wastes no opportunity to remind us how awful he is. His latest foray into overt racism delights his base but repels everyone else. On the other side, he presides over an economy in which unemployment is very low and real G.D.P. grew 3.2 percent over the past year.

But the election won’t be tomorrow, it will be an exhausting 15 months from now. Trump’s character won’t change, except possibly for the worse. But the economy might look significantly different.

So let’s talk about the Trump economy.

The first thing you need to know is that the Trump tax cut caused a huge rise in the budget deficit, which the administration expects to hit $1 trillion this year, up from less than $600 billion in 2016. This tidal wave of red ink is even more extraordinary than it looks, because it has taken place despite falling unemployment, which usually leads to a falling deficit.

Strange to say, none of the Republicans who warned of a debt apocalypse under President Barack Obama have protested the Trump deficits. (Should we put Paul Ryan’s face on milk cartons?) For that matter, even the centrists who obsessed over federal debt during the Obama years have been pretty quiet. Clearly, deficits only matter when there’s a Democrat in the White House.

Oh, and the imminent fiscal crisis people like Erskine Bowles used to warn about keeps not happening: Long-term interest rates remain very low.

Now, the evidence on the effects of deficit spending is clear: It gives the economy a short-run boost, even when we’re already close to full employment. If anything, the growth bump under Trump has been smaller than you might have expected given the deficit surge, perhaps because the tax cut was so badly designed, perhaps because Trump’s trade wars have deterred business spending.

For now, however, Deficit Man is beating Tariff Man. As I said, we’ve seen good growth over the past year.

But the tax cut was supposed to be more than a short-run Keynesian stimulus. It was sold as something that would greatly improve the economy’s long-run performance; in particular, lower corporate tax rates were supposed to lead to a huge boom in business investment that would, among other things, lead to sharply higher wages. And this big rise in long-run growth would supposedly create a boom in tax revenues, offsetting the upfront cost of tax cuts.

None of this is happening. Corporations are getting to keep a lot more of their profits, but they’ve been using the money to buy back their own stock, not raise investment. Wages are rising, but not at an extraordinary pace, and many Americans don’t feel that they’re sharing in the benefits of a growing economy.

And this is probably as good as it gets.

I’m not forecasting a recession. It could happen, and we’re very badly positioned to respond if it does, but the more likely story is just a slowdown as the effects of the deficit splurge wear off. In fact, if you believe the “nowcasters” (economists who try to get an early read on the economy from partial data), that slowdown is already happening. For example, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York believes that the economy’s growth was down to 1.5 percent in the second quarter.

And it’s hard to see where another economic bump can come from. With Democrats controlling the House, there won’t be another big tax cut. The Fed may cut interest rates, but those cuts are already priced into long-term interest rates, which are what matter for spending, and the economy seems to be slowing anyway.

Which brings us back to the 2020 election.

Political scientists have carried out many studies of the electoral impact of the economy, and as far as I know they all agree that what matters is the trend, not the level. The unemployment rate was still over 7 percent when Ronald Reagan won his 1984 landslide; it was 7.7 percent when Obama won in 2012. In both cases, however, things were clearly getting better.

That’s probably not going to be the story next year. If we don’t have a recession, unemployment will still be low. But economic growth will probably be meh at best — which means, if past experience is any guide, that the economy won’t give Trump much of a boost, that it will be more or less a neutral factor.

And on the other hand, Trump’s awfulness will remain.

Republicans will, of course, portray the Democratic nominee — whoever she or he may be — as a radical socialist poised to throw the border open to hordes of brown-skinned rapists. And one has to admit that this strategy might work, although it failed last year in the midterms. To be honest, I’m more worried about the effects of sexism if the nominee is a woman — not just the sexism of voters, but that of the news media, which still holds women to different standards.

But as far as the economy goes, the odds are that Trump’s deficit-fueled bump came too soon to do him much political good.