Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Excuse me, but no.
First of all, most presidents drink quite a lot. And even despite that? He was more of a lightweight than someone who drunk a lot.
Second of all, Grant was a good man. It was his overall good quality of trusting people that got him in that position in the first place. Have you actually read about him?
He trusted a few politicians, allowed them around him... then they cut him open and ruined his presidency.
If anything, it shows more of a problem with the government at large back then, rather than one with the presidency.
Here, educate yerself:
edited 6th Jan '13 10:57:06 AM by cutewithoutthe
The first act of the new group of congressional republicans? to try and stop "anchor babies."
Yeah the actual consequences of the law matter.
We could stop illegal immigration from Latin America practically overnight by a) coming down on the big agriculture companies that use illegal immigrants, and b) putting into place a government-run temporary stay program for migrant workers in the style of what Japan, China, and Korea do for their English teachers. But they'd never go for that.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.The 14th Amendment is clear. These "people" are being racist assholes.
And we've seen in several places what happens to the agricultural industry when you drive off migrant workers: it crashes because no American wants to spend their day picking fruit.
I think Bachmann tried that last week.
edited 6th Jan '13 11:07:14 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Radical Taoist: We'd also crush the agriculture industry. Americans are too proud to spend their days working on farms for the most part.
Unless we go with the idea of establishing a program where young city kids are sent to work on the fields in the summer we probably wouldn't be able to survive without the immigrants.
Fighteer: What, specifically, in the 14th amendment prevents this? My school didn't cover the later ones as extensively as the first ten.
edited 6th Jan '13 11:10:21 AM by Kostya
Whatever they do it's a gesture and they know it. A: It's never going to pass the Democratic controlled Senate. B: It would never pass a Presidential veto because C: Their grasp on the House is weaker by 11 members than it was before the election.
edited 6th Jan '13 11:11:40 AM by tricksterson
Trump delenda est![]()
Yes but it's also a gesture that wastes our goddamn time and money. I believe it costs around 1 million for congress to vote so they've effectively wasted that money on pointless political posturing.
Who said it wasn't? That's part of the reason some people want them to be granted citizenship. Then they're entitled to the protections American workers are.
edited 6th Jan '13 11:12:00 AM by Kostya
@Kostya: The 14th Amendment says that if you're born in the United States, you are a citizen of the United States. No buts, no exceptions.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The 14th amendment says that if you're born in the US, you're a US citizen. So basically you can't deny them citizenship without amending the constitution. The constitution says nothing about the nationality of your parents and was in fact designed to give immigrant's children citizenship because for most of US history up to that point, that was a big part of how the country got new people.
edited 6th Jan '13 11:17:53 AM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickSo if that law is passed, the Supreme Court could rule it unconstitutional really really quickly, right?
This sounds like a slippery slope type situation. If you begin restricting citizenship, you might eventually end up with a Switzerland situation. Basically the Swiss Bureau of Immigrations actively attempts to block citizenship attempts to people from the Middle East and some other countries. They actually do the same thing to foreign doctors hoping to work in Switzerland as well.
edited 6th Jan '13 11:22:16 AM by Zendervai

"Who controls the past now, controls the future, who controls the present now, controls the past" George Orwell.
I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.