US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2212

On August 19 2015 16:40 Falling wrote:
Hey Wegandi, please keep the TL boards clear of the labelling SJW nonsense. I have rarely seen it used but as an insulting epithet to those the labeller holds in contempt. As such, it has no place in our political discourse or any where else on TL.

On August 19 2015 22:58 Deathstar wrote:


SJW isn't an insulting epithet. It's an accurate term, which SJWs like Plansix wear proudly.

On August 19 2015 23:00 Plansix wrote:

No its totally a pejorative. If you notice the phrase in my sign is ironic, as I am against banning video games, flags and most forms of media. But nuance seems to be something you have issues with.

On August 19 2015 23:03 Deathstar wrote:

Why do you have trouble taking responsibility? You call yourself a SJW, "ironically" or not, in your sig.

On August 19 2015 23:31 KwarK wrote:

You could equally argue that I think that I am either an angel or a phone box. He explained the meaning of his sig to you and you are stubbornly clinging to ignorance.

Donald Trump has shaped the Republican presidential primary in his image.

Regardless of where his candidacy goes from here, his two months of active campaigning have already placed an irrevocable stamp on the nominating process. The businessman has not just determined the issues that his fellow candidates debate but had a suffocating effect on the race, draining attention from all of his rivals.

The most dramatic effect that Trump’s campaign has had already is to focus the Republican debate on immigration and dramatically shift the Overton Window – the politically viable spectrum of debate – on the issue. While the Republican base had long been opposed to comprehensive immigration reform and doomed any attempt for such legislation to pass on Capitol Hill, Trump has moved the debate dramatically. Where once Republicans contemplated whether it was appropriate for any illegal immigrant to be put on a path to citizenship, they are now focused on the merits of mass deportation and ending birthright citizenship.

Mark Krikorian, the head of the Center for Immigration Studies, a non-profit which seeks to reduce immigration into the United States, said Trump has had “a significant effect” on the discussion and heralded the candidate’s role.

Krikorian said that Trump had had a huge effect on the national conversation with his announcement speech, in which he gave his “usual Trumpist exaggerations” about “Mexico sending all its rapists to the United States”, in combination with the July murder of Kate Steinle, a 33-year-old San Francisco woman who was allegedly shot by an illegal immigrant with seven felony convictions who had previously been deported five times. In his opinion, the confluence of the two has already forced the House of Representatives to pass a bill cracking down on so-called “sanctuary cities”, where city ordinances prevent police from asking about the immigration status of those they arrest, as well as pushed Jeb Bush to harshly condemn them.

Trump’s immigration plan, unveiled on Sunday, has had further impact. It has already led Wisconsin governor Scott Walker to back a push to end “birthright citizenship”, a principle which almost all constitutional scholars think is enshrined in the 14th amendment. Krikorian noted that while Walker had initially staked out “a hawkish position [on immigration] ... he didn’t follow up” until now.

But Trump isn’t just pushing the field to talk about immigration in more strident terms. His presence in the race also changes other topics of debate. Two of the biggest non-Trump political news stories of the summer have been the Obama administration’s controversial nuclear deal with Iran and the emergence of hidden camera videos showing employees of Planned Parenthood discussing the sale of fetal tissue obtained through abortion for medical research. But, as Noah Rothman noted in Commentary last week, both of these issues have been buried by the Trump juggernaut, even though they are of vital concern to the Republican base. After all, these are not comfortable topics of discussion for the formerly pro-choice real estate mogul who gets his military advice from Sunday morning talk shows and they make for far less entertaining stories than Trump’s latest feud with a fellow candidate or television host.

On August 20 2015 02:44 KwarK wrote:
A birth within the United States is a birth within the United States. The newborns of current citizens have achieved nothing more worthy in their few seconds of existence than the newborns of non citizens and the idea of discriminating between newborns based upon the race of their parents is an anathema to me.

Also, as one of the few people in this topic who has legally immigrated into the United States, the process is literally Hitler. It already discriminates very strongly in favour of people with money, fluency in English, education and experience.

On August 20 2015 02:48 xDaunt wrote:

What sane immigration system wouldn't very strongly favor these people?

On August 20 2015 02:51 JinDesu wrote:
Perhaps not sane, but the one with a giant statue that says "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

On August 20 2015 02:53 KwarK wrote:

One that held it to be self evident that all men are created equal?

On August 20 2015 02:56 xDaunt wrote:

....which is why Americans are a bunch of communists. Oh, wait....

On August 20 2015 02:44 KwarK wrote:
A birth within the United States is a birth within the United States. The newborns of current citizens have achieved nothing more worthy in their few seconds of existence than the newborns of non citizens and the idea of discriminating between newborns based upon the race of their parents is an anathema to me.

Also, as one of the few people in this topic who has legally immigrated into the United States, the process is literally Hitler. It already discriminates very strongly in favour of people with money, fluency in English, education and experience.

On August 20 2015 03:02 KwarK wrote:

I'm basically allowed into America because I have rich parents and come from England. Oh, and I'm young enough and smart enough to find and understand the lengthy guides to how to navigate the paperwork without an immigration lawyer. The vast majority of Americans descend from people who would not be able to immigrate today. A lot of them wouldn't be able to immigrate today had they not been born here. I see a problem with that.