Planet Rugby Forum

Flockwitt wrote:The issues with the tarrifs are starting to make themselves felt. There's that nail maker that's had to lay off staff, and lo and behold, they've suddenly realized more expensive steel means everything that's made of it like bridges and other essential pieces of infrastructure are now facing cost over runs and budget problems. But I reckon it's the indirect stuff that's going to bite more down the track. The US farmers are even more screwed than before, remember when it was only a month ago even Trump said he was having second thoughts about the TPP because of the hurt it was doing them... well a chunk of the counter tarrifs affect farmers directly and as for how the deal maker is going to make any sort of a deal is going to help the farmers and replace TPP in the midst of a trade war or in the atmosphere after one... won't be happening. It'll be 2019 and 2020 that the US farmers are going to start pointing out that it's not just steel workers that need a helping hand and won't be taking too kindly to a "... all that I've done for you" attitude.

Saint wrote:

Flockwitt wrote:The issues with the tarrifs are starting to make themselves felt. There's that nail maker that's had to lay off staff, and lo and behold, they've suddenly realized more expensive steel means everything that's made of it like bridges and other essential pieces of infrastructure are now facing cost over runs and budget problems. But I reckon it's the indirect stuff that's going to bite more down the track. The US farmers are even more screwed than before, remember when it was only a month ago even Trump said he was having second thoughts about the TPP because of the hurt it was doing them... well a chunk of the counter tarrifs affect farmers directly and as for how the deal maker is going to make any sort of a deal is going to help the farmers and replace TPP in the midst of a trade war or in the atmosphere after one... won't be happening. It'll be 2019 and 2020 that the US farmers are going to start pointing out that it's not just steel workers that need a helping hand and won't be taking too kindly to a "... all that I've done for you" attitude.

Fake news. Trade wars are easy to win - Donald said so

J Man wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:This is really really long and I haven't come close to reading it all yet, but it might be the most important article yet written in the Trump era, not the least for the fact that it is a target aimed right at the only people likely to read it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... cy/559130/

I'm about one third through the article (it's bloody massive!). I don't see how Trump is in any way the answer to the problems highlighted in the article. What is the answer? Get rid of assortive mating? How?

RuggaBugga wrote:

zt1903 wrote:

Blake wrote:

zt1903 wrote: Further, the hypocrisy of the Democrats is accentuated insofar as they clearly have no intention of resolving the immigration issues through the legislative branch, they appear to believe that it helps them politically.

That's what I find so amusing about American politics. Both sides are accusing each other of not fixing problems because it gives them a platform to beat the other with.

They say Republicans can't / won't reform immigration, because they need MS13 and Muslim immigrant threats to fire up and mobilise their base.

And here you say the Democrats don't want to reform immigration policy because what? They benefit from Republicans picking on minorities? That's an interesting point of view I hadn't encountered before.

I’m not saying that the Republicans are above playing politics, they clearly do it. However, on this issue they are clearly trying to legislate. It is plain as day that the Dems don’t want to play, Schumer has made it quite clear.

The cynical view is that Democrats don’t want to fix immigration because a) they get to make the GOP look like the nasty oarty and b) illegals vote overwhelmingly for the Dems.

A core of Republicans also don’t want to fix it because business likes the cheap labour.

How do all these illegals manage to vote?

In spite of substantial public controversy, very little reliable data exists concerning the frequency with which non-citizen immigrants participate in United States elections. Although such participation is a violation of election laws in most parts of the United States, enforcement depends principally on disclosure of citizenship status at the time of voter registration. This study examines participation rates by non-citizens using a nationally representative sample that includes non-citizen immigrants. We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections. Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.

Santa wrote:Non-citizen votes in US elections

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9414000973

In spite of substantial public controversy, very little reliable data exists concerning the frequency with which non-citizen immigrants participate in United States elections. Although such participation is a violation of election laws in most parts of the United States, enforcement depends principally on disclosure of citizenship status at the time of voter registration. This study examines participation rates by non-citizens using a nationally representative sample that includes non-citizen immigrants. We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections. Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.

shanky wrote:So, Donald has said he ‘won’t ask’ any of his SCOTUS nominees about their position on Roe V Wade, but will, nonetheless, be nominating ‘a conservative’.

The uber-populist in action. Can’t blame him really. Removing people’s abortion rights sounds great in theory, but political-suicide in practice.

Even ‘cocaine Mitch’ is probably sweating on that one.



As an aside, Roe v Wade should be over-turned. It was judicial activism in the extreme. Asking Congress to make an actual Law to once-and-for-all decide the issue would be a laughable concept though. So, it stays.

Saint wrote:The only serious, credible research performed on the subject points to there being very little (almost zero) cases of illegal voting by non-citizens or illegal immigrants.

On the other hand, you can find significant numbers of people denied voting due to being incorrectly removed from the voter rolls.

zt1903 wrote:

shanky wrote:So, Donald has said he ‘won’t ask’ any of his SCOTUS nominees about their position on Roe V Wade, but will, nonetheless, be nominating ‘a conservative’.

The uber-populist in action. Can’t blame him really. Removing people’s abortion rights sounds great in theory, but political-suicide in practice.

Even ‘cocaine Mitch’ is probably sweating on that one.



As an aside, Roe v Wade should be over-turned. It was judicial activism in the extreme. Asking Congress to make an actual Law to once-and-for-all decide the issue would be a laughable concept though. So, it stays.

To be fair Roe v Wade, at this point in time is pretty much settled law. And there’s really no compelling reason for SCOTUS to look at it again in the near future.

I don’t really get why people are concerned about Trump nominating a conservative as conservatives on the court trend away from the judicial overreach that you mention. Conversely it is the more liberal justices that have tended towards the idea of SCOTUS as a super-legislature.

zt1903 wrote:

Saint wrote:The only serious, credible research performed on the subject points to there being very little (almost zero) cases of illegal voting by non-citizens or illegal immigrants.

On the other hand, you can find significant numbers of people denied voting due to being incorrectly removed from the voter rolls.

That’s just not true.

At best the case is unproven, mostly because it’s not really been seriously looked at.

For example, Nate Silver has shown that where voter id is introduced then registered voters drop by 2.5%. It doesn’t make sense for this to be disenfranchised legal voters given how easy it is to have a valid form of id so some, most or all of this could be illegal voting.

The reality is that there is a significant risk of illegal voting, given the many millions of them that are in the US, and that it is fairly easy for people to do so.

Rinkals wrote:Before I applied for UK citizenship I was contacted by a Tory official about my vote. When I explained that I wasn't a citizen he told me that I was on the voter's roll.


I don't know what the voter registration is like in the USA but It is conceivable that non citizens got to vote

shereblue wrote:

Rinkals wrote:Before I applied for UK citizenship I was contacted by a Tory official about my vote. When I explained that I wasn't a citizen he told me that I was on the voter's roll.


I don't know what the voter registration is like in the USA but It is conceivable that non citizens got to vote

FYI, you don't have to be a citizen to vote in "local" elections

Rinkals wrote:

shereblue wrote:

Rinkals wrote:Before I applied for UK citizenship I was contacted by a Tory official about my vote. When I explained that I wasn't a citizen he told me that I was on the voter's roll.


I don't know what the voter registration is like in the USA but It is conceivable that non citizens got to vote

FYI, you don't have to be a citizen to vote in "local" elections

I'm pretty sure it was for a general election, but I remember specifically being told that I was on the voter's roll.

Taffia wrote:

Rinkals wrote:

shereblue wrote:

Rinkals wrote:Before I applied for UK citizenship I was contacted by a Tory official about my vote. When I explained that I wasn't a citizen he told me that I was on the voter's roll.


I don't know what the voter registration is like in the USA but It is conceivable that non citizens got to vote

FYI, you don't have to be a citizen to vote in "local" elections

I'm pretty sure it was for a general election, but I remember specifically being told that I was on the voter's roll.

You may qualify as a commonwealth citizen automatically

Rinkals wrote:

shereblue wrote:

Rinkals wrote:Before I applied for UK citizenship I was contacted by a Tory official about my vote. When I explained that I wasn't a citizen he told me that I was on the voter's roll.


I don't know what the voter registration is like in the USA but It is conceivable that non citizens got to vote

FYI, you don't have to be a citizen to vote in "local" elections

I'm pretty sure it was for a general election, but I remember specifically being told that I was on the voter's roll.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

shanky wrote:

zt1903 wrote:

shanky wrote:So, Donald has said he ‘won’t ask’ any of his SCOTUS nominees about their position on Roe V Wade, but will, nonetheless, be nominating ‘a conservative’.

The uber-populist in action. Can’t blame him really. Removing people’s abortion rights sounds great in theory, but political-suicide in practice.

Even ‘cocaine Mitch’ is probably sweating on that one.



As an aside, Roe v Wade should be over-turned. It was judicial activism in the extreme. Asking Congress to make an actual Law to once-and-for-all decide the issue would be a laughable concept though. So, it stays.

To be fair Roe v Wade, at this point in time is pretty much settled law. And there’s really no compelling reason for SCOTUS to look at it again in the near future.

I don’t really get why people are concerned about Trump nominating a conservative as conservatives on the court trend away from the judicial overreach that you mention. Conversely it is the more liberal justices that have tended towards the idea of SCOTUS as a super-legislature.

Agreed. The problem is political, not judicial.

The fundies will be expecting just such an appointment. Trump will be doing well to avoid having to give them one

Not sure that is true. He's not really beholden to the funides. That's what gives him much of his power. The long list looks sort of reasonable. I think he might surprise all and go fairly moderate. After all he's not a hard line Conservative himself and this might not be his last appointment.

c69 wrote:Trump blows hot about the FART act

Attila the Stockbroker wrote:F.A.R.T.
(Fair and Reciprocal Tariff Act)

As the latest trump
exploded from the febrile rectum
of the loathsome demagogue
enveloping all before him
in another stinking fog
of bigotry and hatred
he turned to the cameras
and spoke.
‘My fellow Americans:
During my election campaign
I made you a promise:
AMERICA FIRST.
I am following through on that promise.
I repeat:
I am following through.

Kiwias wrote:

zt1903 wrote:

Kiwias wrote: So on one hand Obama is being accused of being this brutal president deporting more illegal immigrants than any president before him, while on the other hand the Democrats are accused of wanting an open border and free entry to anyone.

Make your minds up, kiddies.

Well your strawman was never my argument.

Rather my view was that the media, and many politicians, are hypocritical to attack Trump when the previous guys were doing much the same.

Further, the hypocrisy of the Democrats is accentuated insofar as they clearly have no intention of resolving the immigration issues through the legislative branch, they appear to believe that it helps them politically.

I think the point is that it is not the same.

Saint wrote:

zt1903 wrote:

Saint wrote:The only serious, credible research performed on the subject points to there being very little (almost zero) cases of illegal voting by non-citizens or illegal immigrants.

On the other hand, you can find significant numbers of people denied voting due to being incorrectly removed from the voter rolls.

That’s just not true.

At best the case is unproven, mostly because it’s not really been seriously looked at.

For example, Nate Silver has shown that where voter id is introduced then registered voters drop by 2.5%. It doesn’t make sense for this to be disenfranchised legal voters given how easy it is to have a valid form of id so some, most or all of this could be illegal voting.

The reality is that there is a significant risk of illegal voting, given the many millions of them that are in the US, and that it is fairly easy for people to do so.

The closest thing to any research which proved illegal voting was the Harvard study which seemed to indicate a fairly significant percentage (as high as 4 to 5 percent). However, further study discovered that the basic questionnaire was so badly written that US citizens were identifying themselves as illegal immigrants

The trouble with voter I'd laws is that they tend to require very specific forms of I'd which voters may not carry with them - hence the drops in voting rates

Rinkals wrote:The gist of Santa's post seems to be that Obama was only able to unfairly defeat the gallant Republican filibuster by the illegal use of a non citizen voting bloc.

Saint wrote:

zt1903 wrote:

Saint wrote:The only serious, credible research performed on the subject points to there being very little (almost zero) cases of illegal voting by non-citizens or illegal immigrants.

On the other hand, you can find significant numbers of people denied voting due to being incorrectly removed from the voter rolls.

That’s just not true.

At best the case is unproven, mostly because it’s not really been seriously looked at.

For example, Nate Silver has shown that where voter id is introduced then registered voters drop by 2.5%. It doesn’t make sense for this to be disenfranchised legal voters given how easy it is to have a valid form of id so some, most or all of this could be illegal voting.

The reality is that there is a significant risk of illegal voting, given the many millions of them that are in the US, and that it is fairly easy for people to do so.

The closest thing to any research which proved illegal voting was the Harvard study which seemed to indicate a fairly significant percentage (as high as 4 to 5 percent). However, further study discovered that the basic questionnaire was so badly written that US citizens were identifying themselves as illegal immigrants

The trouble with voter I'd laws is that they tend to require very specific forms of I'd which voters may not carry with them - hence the drops in voting rates

zt1903 wrote:

Saint wrote:

zt1903 wrote:

Saint wrote:The only serious, credible research performed on the subject points to there being very little (almost zero) cases of illegal voting by non-citizens or illegal immigrants.

On the other hand, you can find significant numbers of people denied voting due to being incorrectly removed from the voter rolls.

That’s just not true.

At best the case is unproven, mostly because it’s not really been seriously looked at.

For example, Nate Silver has shown that where voter id is introduced then registered voters drop by 2.5%. It doesn’t make sense for this to be disenfranchised legal voters given how easy it is to have a valid form of id so some, most or all of this could be illegal voting.

The reality is that there is a significant risk of illegal voting, given the many millions of them that are in the US, and that it is fairly easy for people to do so.

The closest thing to any research which proved illegal voting was the Harvard study which seemed to indicate a fairly significant percentage (as high as 4 to 5 percent). However, further study discovered that the basic questionnaire was so badly written that US citizens were identifying themselves as illegal immigrants

The trouble with voter I'd laws is that they tend to require very specific forms of I'd which voters may not carry with them - hence the drops in voting rates

Voter id is usually something like a social security card and a driving license, which is not particularly onerous.

zt1903 wrote:

Saint wrote:

zt1903 wrote:

Saint wrote:The only serious, credible research performed on the subject points to there being very little (almost zero) cases of illegal voting by non-citizens or illegal immigrants.

On the other hand, you can find significant numbers of people denied voting due to being incorrectly removed from the voter rolls.

That’s just not true.

At best the case is unproven, mostly because it’s not really been seriously looked at.

For example, Nate Silver has shown that where voter id is introduced then registered voters drop by 2.5%. It doesn’t make sense for this to be disenfranchised legal voters given how easy it is to have a valid form of id so some, most or all of this could be illegal voting.

The reality is that there is a significant risk of illegal voting, given the many millions of them that are in the US, and that it is fairly easy for people to do so.

The closest thing to any research which proved illegal voting was the Harvard study which seemed to indicate a fairly significant percentage (as high as 4 to 5 percent). However, further study discovered that the basic questionnaire was so badly written that US citizens were identifying themselves as illegal immigrants

The trouble with voter I'd laws is that they tend to require very specific forms of I'd which voters may not carry with them - hence the drops in voting rates

Voter id is usually something like a social security card and a driving license, which is not particularly onerous.

houtkabouter wrote:The democrats win illegal votes and the republicans deny prisoners the vote.

The system is so dirty, I don't see either side doing anything productive about it because it's in their interest to leave it alone. They just make noise over it blaming each other.

Gerrymandering is a much, much bigger problem than both of the above.

zt1903 wrote:Interesting (aka deeply troubling) piece in the NYT.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/30/us/p ... court.html

And to be clear, troubling because the NYT is advocating against the first amendment.

zt1903 wrote:Interesting (aka deeply troubling) piece in the NYT.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/30/us/p ... court.html

And to be clear, troubling because the NYT is advocating against the first amendment.

zt1903 wrote:Interesting (aka deeply troubling) piece in the NYT.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/30/us/p ... court.html

And to be clear, troubling because the NYT is advocating against the first amendment.