The Official Former President Trump thread

[Crossbill]

1 minute ago, Baxter Parp said:

Was he not registered to vote?

Don't know about that, but he is not a citizen of the Commonwealth, ROI or EU, so he was not eligible.

[strichener]

4 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

Was he not registered to vote?

Americans are not eligible to register for a vote.

Edited September 6, 2017 by strichener

[John Lambies Doos]

Don't start this picking and choosing shite.  You picked a vote where you thought it was based on residency and you were patently wrong.

You should perhaps consider the bolded part of your post.

 

It was based on residency; not based on citizenship only as you alluded

 

[John Lambies Doos]

I think he is right based on (d), is he not?  One of my friends who has lived in Scotland all his life but was born in the US did not get to vote.

Thank you

[strichener]

29 minutes ago, John Lambies Doos said:

 

It was based on residency; not based on citizenship only as you alluded

 

 

29 minutes ago, John Lambies Doos said:

 

Thank you

 

I am assuming that these were posted tongue-in-cheek or you have a serious problem with comprehension?

[John Lambies Doos]

I am assuming that these were posted tongue-in-cheek or you have a serious problem with comprehension?

 Oh ffs Your quote 2 pages back.

'If a foreign national wishes to make the UK their home then they are quite welcome to apply for citizenship to demonstrate this.'

 

To that I quoted ' Dare I say the 2014 referendum?'

 

You said ' that's not relevant as the 2014 referendum was based on citizenship '

 

I said, 'no it wasn't based on British citizenship as my cousin who is not a UK citizen voted'

 

You then completely change your tact by introducing EU and Commonwealth citizenship; which was not your original point. Your original point was that people were welcome to become UK citizens if they wanted to have a voice/vote etc.

I alluded this was not the case in 2014 which my friend is correct.

 

You twisted this all around as you were initially wrong; and now you can't admit it.

So don't give me a fuckin lecture on comprehension. Multiqouting maybe

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[strichener]

1 minute ago, John Lambies Doos said:

 

Oh ffs

Your quote 2 pages back.

'If a foreign national wishes to make the UK their home then they are quite welcome to apply for citizenship to demonstrate this.'

 

To that I quoted ' Dare I say the 2014 referendum?'

 

You said ' that's not relevant as the 2014 referendum was based on citizenship '

 

I said, 'no it wasn't based on British citizenship as my cousin who is not a UK citizen voted'

 

You then completely change your tact by introducing EU and Commonwealth citizenship; which was not your original point. Your original point was that people were welcome to become UK citizens if they wanted to have a voice/vote etc.

I alluded this was not the case in 2014 which my friend is correct.

 

You twisted this all around as you were initially wrong; and can't admit it.

 

 

 

OK, comprehension issues it is. 

You use of quotation marks is misleading as neither of the two phrases that I have highlighed and that you have decided to "quote" were actually what was posted.

At no point did you state " 'no it wasn't based on British citizenship as my cousin who is not a UK citizen voted"  What you did state was that "Anyone over 18 living there over a year could vote". 

Any twisting occuring here is a consequence of you having no understanding of the UK's (or most countries) electoral franchise.

3 hours ago, strichener said:

You may but I don't see the relevance.  There was still a citizenship requirement for voting.

 

3 hours ago, John Lambies Doos said:

 

There most certainly was not. Anyone over 18 living there over a year could vote. My cousin from Tipperary got a vote. She is not a British citizen; there's your relevance

 

^Outright denial that were was any citizenship requirement.

2 hours ago, strichener said:

You are not correct.  The requirements were quite clearly set out in the Scottish Independence Referendum (Franchise) Act 2013.

To save you the bother, here is the relevant extract:

^Proof of citizenship requirement

1 hour ago, Crossbill said:

I think he is right based on (d), is he not?  One of my friends who has lived in Scotland all his life but was born in the US did not get to vote.

^Someone confirming that residency was not sufficient to allow someone to vote.

55 minutes ago, John Lambies Doos said:

 

It was based on residency; not based on citizenship only as you alluded

 

^You attempting to change your position by again posting something that I have not stated.

Quite clearly there were citizenship requirements for voting in the 2014 referendum as the extract from the relevant enabling act shows.  This isn't me going on about EU, Commenwealth etc. as even sub-section (b)(i) would require citizenship.

 

[Crossbill]

JLD, I think you are absolutely correct in your first point that the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum was indeed an example of where the voting franchise was extended beyond a requirement for UK citizenship.  But the statement 'Anyone over 18 living there over a year could vote' is not right - there was a citizenship requirement as Strichener has pointed out, just not a UK only one.

 

You've kind of given him an easy escape route on semantics.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Crossbill

[John Lambies Doos]

^You attempting to change your position by again posting something that I have not stated.

Quite clearly there were citizenship requirements for voting in the 2014 referendum as the extract from the relevant enabling act shows.  This isn't me going on about EU, Commenwealth etc. as even sub-section (b)(i) would require citizenship.

 

 

Forget the quote marks clearly there as indicators.

 

I'll make this simple.

 

Strichener: Jist of comment, if people living in UK want to have say/vote they can become UK citizens

 

JLD: Alludes that that was not case in 2014.

 

Strichener: Alludes that it was as you had to be Citizen (remember based on your opening gambit we are talking UK citizen)

 

JLD: Nonsense, my cousin voted she is not British Citizen

 

Strichener.. Introduces EU and Commonwealth citizenship. Process CPK going negative here.

 

JLD: Alluded that Strichener was wrong reference his opening gambit.

 

Strichener: Too stubborn to admit this, moves to insult mode and trys to weasel out.

 

 

 

[John Lambies Doos]

JLD, I think you are absolutely correct in your first point that the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum was indeed an example of where the voting franchise was extended beyond a requirement for UK citizenship.  But the statement 'Anyone over 18 living there over a year could vote' is not right - there was a citizenship requirement as Strichener has pointed out, just not a UK only one.  

You've kind of given him an easy escape route on semantics.

 

 

Good summary, I even gave him another opportunity to move on when I criticised myself for not multi quoting.

Yet he keeps coming and coming. Rootcause: He was wrong; as was I on the 18 one year thing. No problem saying that.

 

 

 

[NotThePars]

f**k the big issues I live for the arguments over pedantry and semantics.

[strichener]

2 hours ago, Crossbill said:

JLD, I think you are absolutely correct in your first point that the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum was indeed an example of where the voting franchise was extended beyond a requirement for UK citizenship.  But the statement 'Anyone over 18 living there over a year could vote' is not right - there was a citizenship requirement as Strichener has pointed out, just not a UK only one.

 

You've kind of given him an easy escape route on semantics.

Only it isn't semantics, it was the very heart of JLD's argument.  Every UK election extends beyond UK citizenship for the moment.

[strichener]

2 hours ago, John Lambies Doos said:

 

Good summary, I even gave him another opportunity to move on when I criticised myself for not multi quoting.

Yet he keeps coming and coming. Rootcause: He was wrong; as was I on the 18 one year thing. No problem saying that.

 

 

 

It wasn't just on the 18 one year thing, it was also that you stated that there was "most certainly not" any citizenship requirements.

[welshbairn]

Anyway, back to Trump.

Quote

2012: “It doesn't work that way.”

Trump appeared on “Fox and Friends” and disagreed with the entire premise that undocumented immigrants steal jobs:

Obviously, the concept is that you throw everybody out and everybody else gets a job, but it doesn't work that way. A lot of the jobs that these people have, a lot of other people don't want. You know that and I know that, and you see it all the time. Whether it's picking grapes or doing something else, you have jobs that a lot of people aren't going to want, so I don't think it's as complicated as that. We really have to come up with a solution, and we also have to have a solution with compassion. We have to show some compassion. We can't just throw everybody out.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/09/06/trumps-daca-flip-flops-are-remarkable-even-for-him/?utm_term=.9c3eb1923a53

[John Lambies Doos]

It wasn't just on the 18 one year thing, it was also that you stated that there was "most certainly not" any citizenship requirements.

Strichener. As stated I was wrong on a couple of points, but can you admit that you were wrong in questioning me bringing up the circumstances of the 2014 against your original point.? Go on, everyone can read it.
Where you wrong Strichener; are you man/woman enough to admit this?

[Granny Danger]

Trump's DACA decision, aimed at appeasing his core voters, is pissing of US businesses.  Go on yersel Donny.

[TheProgressiveLiberal]

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

Anyway, back to Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/09/06/trumps-daca-flip-flops-are-remarkable-even-for-him/?utm_term=.9c3eb1923a53

What is your personal belief on the economics of whether immigrants take jobs from Americans or British people?

One interesting article about Britain I read said that after Brexit your government is going to make UK firms advertise openings in Britain first. Corbyn said he was going to support this. In the EU giving preference to British workers was banned, so firms would advertise in Poland and British workers wouldn't even see the job opening.

[welshbairn]

5 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

Ian Dunt‏Verified account @IanDunt 2h2 hours ago

Vince Cable reveals that when he was business sec, May suppressed nine reports showing immigration did not hit wages or jobs.

 

[TheProgressiveLiberal]

So, I work at a place where Americans come in and ask if we are hiring. If we are hiring they are told that we are not. Advertising for open positions is only done in areas with high illegal immigrant populations. There are employment agencies that specialize in this and there are independent busing companies which bring the people from the big cities to their jobs throughout America. Equivalent jobs at American owned firms are 100% staffed by Americans. The pay for the illegal immigrants is less than minimum wage, which is $8/hr. Pay for Americans in the same job generally starts at $9-12/hr and can go up from there. The people who do these jobs in my town are generally young people from small towns in a 2 hour radius where the economy has collapsed. Definitely people on the low end of our society. Most are the types that have trouble even maintaining car ownership. 

I'm going to need you to get more specific with your argument. I've read some of the academic literature on this subject. It goes both ways, though I suspect in academia it's not a good career move to be the guy who argues against immigration. 

[strichener]

2 hours ago, John Lambies Doos said:

 

Strichener. As stated I was wrong on a couple of points, but can you admit that you were wrong in questioning me bringing up the circumstances of the 2014 against your original point.? Go on, everyone can read it.
Where you wrong Strichener; are you man/woman enough to admit this?

Yes everyone can read it, I will leave it up to others to judge.

17 minutes ago, TheProgressiveLiberal said:

So, I work at a place where Americans come in and ask if we are hiring. If we are hiring they are told that we are not. Advertising for open positions is only done in areas with high illegal immigrant populations. There are employment agencies that specialize in this and there are independent busing companies which bring the people from the big cities to their jobs throughout America. Equivalent jobs at American owned firms are 100% staffed by Americans. The pay for the illegal immigrants is less than minimum wage, which is $8/hr. Pay for Americans in the same job generally starts at $9-12/hr and can go up from there. The people who do these jobs in my town are generally young people from small towns in a 2 hour radius where the economy has collapsed. Definitely people on the low end of our society. Most are the types that have trouble even maintaining car ownership. 

I'm going to need you to get more specific with your argument. I've read some of the academic literature on this subject. It goes both ways, though I suspect in academia it's not a good career move to be the guy who argues against immigration. 

Which state are you in where the minimum wage is $8/hr?

I was also in one of our offices in the US and they had a notice up about a vacancy due to them wanting to fill it with a non-US citizen.  Is it not normally the case that employers have to take these steps before hiring non-US employees?