The Official Former President Trump thread

[Crossbill]

3 hours ago, strichener said:

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

I think the heart of his argument was to give an example of where a UK vote (and one that was almost universally praised for its conduct) included people who did not have UK citizenship.  

It was your contention that UK elections should only allow UK citizens to vote and that any foreigners who wanted to take part in our democracy should take up UK citizenship before getting that chance.  So, here's the implicit question - Do you think that non-UK citizens who were eligible for the Scottish referendum (Commonwealth, ROI and EU citizens) should have been excluded, and the franchise limited to UK nationals only?

[strichener]

1 hour ago, Crossbill said:

I think the heart of his argument was to give an example of where a UK vote (and one that was almost universally praised for its conduct) included people who did not have UK citizenship.  

It was your contention that UK elections should only allow UK citizens to vote and that any foreigners who wanted to take part in our democracy should take up UK citizenship before getting that chance.  So, here's the implicit question - Do you think that non-UK citizens who were eligible for the Scottish referendum (Commonwealth, ROI and EU citizens) should have been excluded, and the franchise limited to UK nationals only?

No, and they aren't from other elections either, the franchise for the 2014 referendum only varied from normal Scottish elections in that 16-18 years olds could vote, the idea that it was any more inclusive for people resident in Scotland doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

Post-brexit I would expect the EU citizens to fall outside the scope of the franchise but it will be one of the issues that will be negotiated.  The other two categories are based on the historical separation of Ireland from UK and that people from the Commonwealth citizens classed as "British Subjects" - I have no issue with either of these.

Edited September 6, 2017 by strichener
Clarity

[Crossbill]

Then I'm clearly missing something   

What was the point of this statement?

 

13 hours ago, strichener said:

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

Oh, and EU citizens are not eligible to vote in UK general elections.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Crossbill

[strichener]

21 minutes ago, Crossbill said:

Then I'm clearly missing something   

What was the point of this statement?

 

Oh, and EU citizens are not eligible to vote in UK general elections.

Foreign nationals encompasses far more than the EU and commonwealth citizens and that post was a follow up to another post that quite clearly mentioned Americans, Mexicans and Canadians.  You are of course correct regarding the UK general elections, I was explicitly referring to Scottish elections which were comparable to the Scottish only referendum.

[John Lambies Doos]

Foreign nationals encompasses far more than the EU and commonwealth citizens and that post was a follow up to another post that quite clearly mentioned Americans, Mexicans and Canadians.  You are of course correct regarding the UK general elections, I was explicitly referring to Scottish elections which were comparable to the Scottish only referendum.

Yet more backtracking because you made an arse of a comment this morning *sigh*

[TheProgressiveLiberal]

12 hours ago, strichener said:

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

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?

West Virginia. It's $8.75 exactly. I misremembered. 

Yes, I know that white collar jobs generally follow the actual immigration laws. I don't have much first hand experience on the specific issue of white collar immigration. I remember in high school our church was looking for a new youth pastor. Our fellowship was organized on a North American basis, so one of the applicants was Canadian. He won the vote by the church and the youth so he was offered the job. It took two years of haggling with the US government to get him his work permit. I know it can be hard if you actually follow the law, though I suspect there's a system that bigger corporations have to make it a bit easier than a small church. I was specifically talking about kitchen work in restaurants in the post you've quoted. These are small local business owned by foreign people. If you think they give two fucks about American laws you would be incorrect. They generally consider America to be an extremely over regulated society and have contempt for our rules. I've also personally worked in warehouses and factories where it was obvious that they weren't checking the provided social security numbers too closely. I went to high school in rural Indiana (f**k tha Colts and Peyton Manning) and my parents still live there, so I have first hand accounts from friends/family of how agribusiness operates with hiring illegals as well. There are tomato farms that require seasonal labor and a big egg processing plant in their half of the county which specifically hire Hispanics. The businesses get around the local labor market prices by advertising in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas for workers, and of course there are whole operations to get people fake social security numbers down there. They come and do work for the minimum wage that you'd have to pay something around $15-20/hr to get white or black Americans to do. Even if they're not all illegal, the ones who aren't are the children of illegal immigrants. It's an example of how unchecked illegal immigration can distort the labor market a 1000 miles from the Mexican border decades after the immigration happens.

Edited September 7, 2017 by TheProgressiveLiberal

[strichener]

9 hours ago, John Lambies Doos said:

 

Yet more backtracking because you made an arse of a comment this morning *sigh*

Which part was back-tracking?

Was it this one:

" Foreign nationals encompasses far more than the EU and commonwealth citizens and that post was a follow up to another post that quite clearly mentioned Americans, Mexicans and Canadians."

On 05/09/2017 at 21:45, strichener said:

 

Surely this would be the same as Americans, Mexicans, Canadians etc. that are in the UK working, they are still liable to taxation regardless of UK Citizenship.

Nope wasn't that one.  So it must have been this one:

"You are of course correct regarding the UK general elections, I was explicitly referring to Scottish elections which were comparable to the Scottish only referendum. "

11 hours ago, strichener said:

No, and they aren't from other elections either, the franchise for the 2014 referendum only varied from normal Scottish elections in that 16-18 years olds could vote, the idea that it was any more inclusive for people resident in Scotland doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

Not that one either.  *shrugs shoulders*

[John Lambies Doos]

Start at the beginning strichener *sigh*
Like you say; everyone will have their own judgement

[Jmothecat2]

What happens when a white person escapes handcuffs, steals a police car and a shotgun and goes on a 100 mph joyride, attempting to evade heavily armed yank cops. Somehow she doesn't get shot at.

[NotThePars]

She's probably got a career to think about. Can't blame the polis for taking that into consideration.

[TheProgressiveLiberal]

3 hours ago, Jmothecat2 said:

What happens when a white person escapes handcuffs, steals a police car and a shotgun and goes on a 100 mph joyride, attempting to evade heavily armed yank cops. Somehow she doesn't get shot at.
 

There was a recent study be a black Harvard economist named Roland Fryer that suggested that white people are more likely to be shot under the same circumstances than a black person. Black people face more of every other type of physical force from police. He said it was the most shocking result of his career. 

The problem is that you have to look beyond the shooting at the exact circumstances that lead up to the shooting. Black people are much more likely to commit crime and much more likely to try and fight a police officer when confronted. Nothing can be done about the racial disparities in police shootings as long as those are the facts.

[MSU]

41 minutes ago, TheProgressiveLiberal said:

There was a recent study be a black Harvard economist named Roland Fryer that suggested that white people are more likely to be shot under the same circumstances than a black person. Black people face more of every other type of physical force from police. He said it was the most shocking result of his career. 

The problem is that you have to look beyond the shooting at the exact circumstances that lead up to the shooting. Black people are much more likely to commit crime and much more likely to try and fight a police officer when confronted. Nothing can be done about the racial disparities in police shootings as long as those are the facts.

Except it wasn't a study, it was a working paper and it wasn't peer-reviewed. Semantics, perhaps, but when people like the NY Times describe it as a Harvard study, it affords it a heft and a credibility it hasn't really earned. That aside, Fryer based his findings on data from 10 different police departments from three states, all in the south, and mostly large cities which is going to skew the numbers somewhat. It's probably also worth pointing out that "the same circumstance" you mention is really "after being stopped by the police." So even if white people are more likely to be shot after being stopped by the police than black people, it kinda ignores the fact that black people are far more likely to be stopped by the police in the first place. You might be able to kick a cat five feet and I might be able to kick it two feet, but if you only do it once and I do it non stop for an hour, which one of us is the biggest c**t?

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

The American police don't deserve to be white knighted by anyone.

The first part in a pretty astonishing 3 part story on how police in New York treat folk unable to defend themselves (ie the poor and ethnic minorities): 

https://medium.com/@ShaunKing/soul-snatchers-how-the-nypds-42nd-precinct-the-bronx-da-s-office-and-the-city-of-new-york-7454a5a43924

It's a really really long (but good) read, but the gist of it is that the NYPD set their officers arrest quotas, and to meet these they persecute the same (often completely innocent) people in the same communities over and over and over again. They coerce, threaten and beat people into making false witness statements against others, all to meet their quotas.

Three days after Trump's inauguration, the NYPD quietly made a $75 million settlement for over 900,000 wrongful arrests and summonses between 2007 and 2015 where the police had utterly failed to give any legal justification for their actions.

NINE. HUNDRED. THOUSAND.

 

Edited September 7, 2017 by Carl Cort's Hamstring

[welshbairn]

Quite enjoying Trump fucking with the Republicans by going with the Democrats on raising the debt ceiling. If he really wants to stir up Washington and drain the swamp he should side with them on healthcare, infrastructure and an immigration plan. What a hoot!

[banana]

13 hours ago, Jmothecat2 said:

What happens when a white person escapes handcuffs, steals a police car and a shotgun and goes on a 100 mph joyride, attempting to evade heavily armed yank cops. Somehow she doesn't get shot at.
 

Do you have evidence that the police action in this instance is characteristic of or unusual for that specific department? That there are mitigating circumstances (for better or worse) for the police actions in this instance that have nothing to do with race? Or is this video cherrypicking for ideological rage?

If unusual and with no particular mitigating circumstances, the likely reason for such an unusual difference would very likely be that this 'person' (sneaky omission) is a woman, who are on average treated with relative kid gloves at every step of the justice system.

[mjw]

woman

[banana]

Exactly, sjw!

Any other reasoned, learned, logical and truthful posters in the house?

Edited September 8, 2017 by banana

[mjw]

Exactly, sjw!
Any other reasoned, learned, logical and truthful posters in the house?

Oh look he's back with his wee names/insults.
The Bennett of the politics forum.

[banana]

13 minutes ago, mjw said:

Oh look he's back with his wee names/insults.

Don't give out shit if you can't take it in return, imho

Anything of substance to add to the convo?

Edited September 8, 2017 by banana

[banana]

1 hour ago, kilbowie2002 said:

Its my understanding that a moving vehicle wouldn't be shot at in those circumstances.

Is that a state law/policy in particular that you know of? What's the reasoning given?