US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4865

On September 01 2016 05:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
It was a Lose/lose for both. And nothing will stop Nieto from leaking anything to the Mexican press after Trump leaves.

Also Trump is now advocating a wage increase, and manufacturing staying in the Hemisphere. So much for bring them back to the US.

On September 01 2016 05:40 Doodsmack wrote:
"It is the Democratic Party that is the party of slavery, the party of Jim Crow and the party of oppression."

- D. Trump, 8/30/16 (absurdity self-explanatory)

On September 01 2016 05:42 Ravianna26 wrote:
"Make Mexico pay for the wall" was just a way of saying that Mexico needs to do their part in stopping illegal immigration into the United States.

On September 01 2016 05:51 LegalLord wrote:
A lot of Trump's statements are hyperbolic and stupid when taken at face value, but valuable in that they address an issue most mainstream politicians don't talk about.

On September 01 2016 05:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The financial calamity of 2008 laid bare ugly problems in the global economic order. The mess has now festered into a political crisis that jeopardizes the link between market-driven economies and representative democracy.

So argues Martin Wolf, the most influential living British economics writer, in a Wednesday column for the Financial Times titled “Capitalism and Democracy: The Strain is Showing.” Fixing the economic norms most English-speaking people refer to as “capitalism,” Wolf argues, will be difficult. But a first step requires rethinking what elites have referred to for three decades as “free trade” or “globalization.”

“Those of us who wish to preserve both liberal democracy and global capitalism must confront serious questions,” Wolf writes. “One is whether it makes sense to promote further international agreements that tightly constrain national regulatory discretion in the interests of existing corporations. My view increasingly echoes that of Prof Lawrence Summers of Harvard, who has argued that ‘international agreements [should] be judged not by how much is harmonised or by how many barriers are torn down but whether citizens are empowered.’ Trade brings gains but cannot be pursued at all costs.”

The global economic order of the past three decades has privileged a few elites ― who have seen their incomes and political power expand ― at the expense of a far greater number of working people ― who have seen their incomes stagnate and their political influence wane. Global economic rules allow jobs to be offshored and capital to be reallocated in ways that do not benefit the vast majority of people who vote in elections. The idea that markets promoting individual choice are compatible with democratic forms of government has become an open question, according to Wolf.

These words are an intellectual assault on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership ― two major international pacts spearheaded by President Barack Obama. Public controversy surrounding TTIP is largely constrained within the European Union at the moment, but the TPP has become one of the most important issues of the 2016 U.S. presidential election ― though it rarely receives coverage on cable news.

The TPP is modeled on the North American Free Trade Agreement and World Trade Organization treaties that preceded it. The deal would grant corporations the right to challenge the laws and regulations of sovereign governments before a secretive international tribunal. Labor unions, environmental activists and other representatives of civil society would not be afforded the same privilege. The agreement is widely viewed as an effort to give multinational corporations greater influence over political decision-making.

Wolf and Summers are not revolutionaries armed with hammers and sickles. They are deeply respected by and embedded within the global economic elite, so much so that both are viewed with skepticism ― and in Summers’ case, often outright hostility ― by American progressives.

Source

On September 01 2016 05:36 On_Slaught wrote:


It's common knowledge he said he wants to deport families. When asked about children who were legally born here he said he wants to keep families together, but they have to go.

On September 01 2016 05:54 xDaunt wrote:

Trump's comments on NAFTA are a good example of this. Speaking of which, because of this trip, Trump is going to be able to come back to the US and say that he was able to get Mexico to the table to renegotiate NAFTA. The importance of this shouldn't be underestimated.

On September 01 2016 05:54 xDaunt wrote:

Trump's comments on NAFTA are a good example of this. Speaking of which, because of this trip, Trump is going to be able to come back to the US and say that he was able to get Mexico to the table to renegotiate NAFTA. The importance of this shouldn't be underestimated.

On September 01 2016 05:58 ticklishmusic wrote:


It's a rather large leap from "Trump mentions NAFTA in prepared remarks after meeting the Mexican President" to "Trump got Mexico to the table to renegotiate NAFTA".

On September 01 2016 05:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:


Except that not what either said. Trump said he wants to keep manufacturing in the Hemisphere. Nothing about bringing jobs back to the United States.

On September 01 2016 05:14 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Nieto just said he and Trump agreed on how good NAFTA was for both nations...

On September 01 2016 05:36 On_Slaught wrote:


It's common knowledge he said he wants to deport families. When asked about children who were legally born here he said he wants to keep families together, but they have to go.

The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution indicates that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship for nearly all individuals born in the United States, provided that their parents are foreign citizens, have permanent domicile status in the United States, and are engaging in business in the United States except performing in a diplomatic or official capacity of a foreign power.

As of 2015, there has been no Supreme Court decision that explicitly holds that persons born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are automatically afforded U.S. citizenship Edward Erler, writing for the Claremont Institute, said that since the Wong Kim Ark case dealt with someone whose parents were in the United States legally, it provides no valid basis under the 14th Amendment for the practice of granting citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. He goes on to argue that if governmental permission for parental entry is a necessary requirement for bestowal of birthright citizenship, then children of illegal aliens must surely be excluded.