U.S. Politics

[Seat68]

So its the 14th amendment, Is america OK with the removal of amendments? I get the feeling that you could remove any amendment and you know, a lot of free thinking Americans will be completely fine with it. Or is it just the 14th?

[sne]

Obviously not Trump himself who chooses the music but ffs

Quote

Pharrell Williams has ordered Donald Trump to stop playing his music at rallies, after his upbeat song Happy was played at a Trump event in Indiana just hours after a mass shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue.

“Pharrell has not, and will not, grant you permission to publicly perform or otherwise broadcast or disseminate any of his music,” reads the letter from the R&B star’s lawyer Howard King.

“On the day of the mass murder of 11 human beings at the hands of a deranged ‘nationalist’, you played his song Happy to a crowd at a political event in Indiana,” the letter continues. “There was nothing ‘happy’ about the tragedy inflicted upon our country on Saturday and no permission was granted for your use of this song for this purpose.”

Trump was criticised for making jokes about a “bad hair day” in the immediate wake of the shooting. At the Indiana rally, however, he forcefully condemned the attack, calling it “an antisemitic act” and adding: “We just don’t seem to learn from the past.”

Williams’ cease-and-desist letter follows a similar order in August from Steven Tyler, frontman of Aerosmith, whose lawyers said: “Mr Trump is creating the false impression that our client has given his consent for the use of his music, and even that he endorses the presidency of Mr Trump.”

Other musicians who have forbidden Trump to use their music include Adele, Neil Young, the Rolling Stones and Queen. REM’s Michael Stipe said in 2015: “Do not use our music or my voice for your moronic charade of a campaign.”

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/oct/30/pharrell-williams-donald-trump-happy-pittsburgh-synagogue-shooting?CMP=twt_a-music_b-gdnmusic&fbclid=IwAR3wnOA1brFBePTOL3M5KFZBXZHjnOWF2AB1c9xZnsXbBF2_XkpQvT9x6Zo

[NurembergVillan]

1 hour ago, LakotaDakota said:

Like most of the rest of the world then... Being born somewhere does not automatically grant you citizenship. Only about 30 countries do this and even then most of them require at least one parent to have been born there.

Google "Jus soli" It is only really North/South/Central America that currently does this

My daughter was born in Canada - we're both British and were on working visas - and when we returned to the UK she was allowed entry on a tourist visa until she had a British passport.

She's officially Canadian/British, not British/Canadian.

At some stage in the future she's going to be pissed off we moved her away and her brother will be pissed off that she can move back over there and he can't!

[LakotaDakota]

24 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said:

My daughter was born in Canada - we're both British and were on working visas - and when we returned to the UK she was allowed entry on a tourist visa until she had a British passport.

She's officially Canadian/British, not British/Canadian.

At some stage in the future she's going to be pissed off we moved her away and her brother will be pissed off that she can move back over there and he can't!

That wouldn't happen anywhere outside of The Americas though. Seems like a sensible decision by the rest of the world for the kid to just assume the legal citizenship of their parents.

If it wasn't already part of the constitution and someone (even Obama at the height of his power) suggested introducing it now you would have a pretty tough time trying to convince anyone it was a good idea. Not really sure a law established 150 years ago to protect the rights of children born to slaves is meant to be applied to people hopping the border to have a kid in the states

[NurembergVillan]

2 minutes ago, LakotaDakota said:

That wouldn't happen anywhere outside of The Americas though. Seems like a sensible decision by the rest of the world for the kid to just assume the legal citizenship of their parents.

If it wasn't already part of the constitution and someone (even Obama at the height of his power) suggested introducing it now you would have a pretty tough time trying to convince anyone it was a good idea. Not really sure a law established 150 years ago to protect the rights of children born to slaves is meant to be applied to people hopping the border to have a kid in the states

It makes sense for Canada because their population is too small to sustain a country of that size.

[Xann]

 

[peterms]

[Chindie]

The Jacob Wohl saga that broke yesterday is hilarious.

A Trump brown noser, Mueller, an 'intelligence agency' and a rape allegation, and hilarity ensues. Pay special attention to who 'works' for the agency...

[tonyh29]

12 hours ago, peterms said:

at the risk of being a pedant  .. he would also be an immigrant as his ancestors got there from the Beringia land bridge

[peterms]

20 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

at the risk of being a pedant  .. he would also be an immigrant as his ancestors got there from the Beringia land bridge

Nothing wrong with pedantry.  And in the same spirit, immigration implies the existence of a state or some other territory defined for administrative or other purpose, otherwise it's just population movement.  In the case of American Indians, I suppose they would say they had defined tribal areas, and the invaders would say they didn't recognise them as sovereign territories.

[blandy]

1 minute ago, peterms said:

Nothing wrong with pedantry.

Actually, I think you'll find there is

 

[LakotaDakota]

Quite looking forward to being in Atlanta on election day nex week. Polls pretty much dead even, Talk of mass voter supression over the "exact match" id policy, Obama heading there Friday to drum up support for Stacey Abrams who could become the first black female governer. Will be one of the more interesting places to be.

Edited October 31, 2018 by LakotaDakota

[mjmooney]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

at the risk of being a pedant  .. he would also be an immigrant as his ancestors got there from the Beringia land bridge

Not to mention that the plains Indians moved west into that area after losing out in local wars in the east, where the incoming Europeans backed their rivals. Once they mastered horsemanship, the farming tribes in the west were toast. 

Similar story with the Zulus in southern Africa. A rampaging military culture until they came up against superior firepower. 

You can't just roll back history. What you can (try to) do, is make things equitable for everybody in a given country right NOW. 

[peterms]

Interesting piece on voter suppression.

How to Punish Voters

Quote

Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, the chief elections official in the state, is a pioneer of present-day voter suppression. Mr. Kemp has a record of making it harder for people to register to vote, and more difficult for those voters to remain on the rolls. Since 2012, his office has canceled more than 1.4 million voter registrations. In July 2017, over half a million people — 8 percent of the state’s registered voters — were purged in a single day. As of earlier this month, over 50,000 people’s registrations, filed before the deadline to vote in the coming midterm election, were listed as on hold. Seventy percent had been filed by black applicants.

Even as Mr. Kemp claims his draconian voting policies are intended to prevent fraud, it’s clear that his real aim is to weaken black voting power in a state where political affiliation is largely dictated by race. He has warned his fellow Republicans about Democrats “registering all these minority voters.”

...

When residents in Quitman County, Ga., elected a majority-black school board for the first time in 2010, Mr. Kemp’s office and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation sent armed investigators to interrogate residents about voter fraud and ultimately charged 12 organizers. One Quitman resident, Debra Dennard, was charged with two felonies for helping her partly blind father fill out his absentee ballot. Lula Smart was accused of assisting voters by carrying their sealed absentee ballots to the mailbox. She was charged with 32 felony counts. If convicted, she faced over 100 years in prison...

 

[Dom_Wren]

On 30/10/2018 at 09:08, LakotaDakota said:

Like most of the rest of the world then... Being born somewhere does not automatically grant you citizenship. Only about 30 countries do this and even then most of them require at least one parent to have been born there.

Google "Jus soli" It is only really North/South/Central America that currently does this

But isn't that exactly what it does in the US? And imo is how it should be.

And who says that "Being like the rest of the world then" Is a.) good or b.)right?

So at what point can the citizenship be revoked? I the parents have been here 40 years and the legally born US citizen child is now a congress member/doctor/lawyer/law abiding contributing member of society, you are now going to revoke said citizenship? 

I dont know your interaction/history with immigrants/immigration situations, but i have personally been thru it and have had many interactions and have valued personal relationships with people that this would have touched, and i say its complete bollocks mate.

 

[LakotaDakota]

31 minutes ago, Dom_Wren said:

But isn't that exactly what it does in the US? And imo is how it should be.

And who says that "Being like the rest of the world then" Is a.) good or b.)right?

So at what point can the citizenship be revoked? I the parents have been here 40 years and the legally born US citizen child is now a congress member/doctor/lawyer/law abiding contributing member of society, you are now going to revoke said citizenship? 

I dont know your interaction/history with immigrants/immigration situations, but i have personally been thru it and have had many interactions and have valued personal relationships with people that this would have touched, and i say its complete bollocks mate.

 

I don't think anyone would be advocating revoking exicting citizenships, merely changing the law for new births. I am back in the states for the next couple of weeks, If my wife was to give birth there (she won't) our child would automaticaly be an american citizen simply for being born there on a two week trip which is rediculous

[villakram]

28 minutes ago, Dom_Wren said:

But isn't that exactly what it does in the US? And imo is how it should be.

And who says that "Being like the rest of the world then" Is a.) good or b.)right?

So at what point can the citizenship be revoked? I the parents have been here 40 years and the legally born US citizen child is now a congress member/doctor/lawyer/law abiding contributing member of society, you are now going to revoke said citizenship? 

I dont know your interaction/history with immigrants/immigration situations, but i have personally been thru it and have had many interactions and have valued personal relationships with people that this would have touched, and i say its complete bollocks mate.

 

These things never apply retro-actively as that is impractical for the reasons you state. Remember, a country is a legal construction and the rights the denizens of said country have are in essence arbitrarily awarded by the control system the society constructs to run said country.

It is a perfectly reasonable thing for a country to do: to require people to have legal permission to be in the country, in order to avail of all of the protections of the laws of that country.

The way this has been reported is very interesting. Constant talking about birthright citizenship, minus the illegal status context.

This conversation is w.r.t. to illegal immigrants. Perhaps that is the problem people should be looking to solve/ameliorate rather than clambering over each other to express outrage. Is the this thin edge, and eventually they'll look to restrict citizenship to all types of people? Perhaps. Non-US born citizens already have less rights than natural born citizens in the eyes of the security state. 

It is election season after all. Interpreting events with this knowledge in hand is important... and the caravan hasn't even arrived yet. Next week could be a complete mess.

[bickster]

Actually, the important thing in this citizenship debate is that Trump says he can do it by Executive Order. He's wrong, he can't and he knows it. He's just using it to stir up the base before the mid-terms. For him to change the constitution on this would probably take longer than he'll be in office for (and I'm assuming he'll at least last the full term)

The whole debate is meaningless. Even Paul Ryan said it wasn't possible to change the constitution by Executive Order.

[Straggler]

33 minutes ago, bickster said:

Actually, the important thing in this citizenship debate is that Trump says he can do it by Executive Order. He's wrong, he can't and he knows it. He's just using it to stir up the base before the mid-terms. For him to change the constitution on this would probably take longer than he'll be in office for (and I'm assuming he'll at least last the full term)

The whole debate is meaningless. Even Paul Ryan said it wasn't possible to change the constitution by Executive Order.

He could still try and do it with an executive order.  What are the Dems going to do about it, fight it all the way to the Supreme Court?  Brett Kavanaugh is going to love the opportunity to stick it to the Dems.  The only reason he can't do it by executive order is because there are institutions in place that will not allow it.  If none of those institutions stop it then Trump can change the constitution with a pen and a bit of paper.  Is Paul Ryan really going to stand up to Trump if he does do it?  I'd say that Ryan will stfu and protect whatever cushy private sector job he is taking up that will require good access to government as will the rest of the spineless pols.  This is more me spitballing what he could or couldn't do, I don't think that he will do it, he spouts lies all day every day so we don't need to take him at his word on this either.

[villakram]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

Actually, the important thing in this citizenship debate is that Trump says he can do it by Executive Order. He's wrong, he can't and he knows it. He's just using it to stir up the base before the mid-terms. For him to change the constitution on this would probably take longer than he'll be in office for (and I'm assuming he'll at least last the full term)

The whole debate is meaningless. Even Paul Ryan said it wasn't possible to change the constitution by Executive Order.

Yes, but by issuing the EO, he will force the case all the way to the (his?) SC. The language used in the constitution is open to some legal interpretation.

Yes, doing it now is politics 101.