Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[Cheron]

From what I understand, the rules are that you need proof to be a citizen, which is a necessary criterion for benefits of citizenship like a passport. Since the proof of citizenship is in doubt, then additional proof is requested. And if sufficient additional proof can't be found, then there is no proof that the person in question is a citizen, so he simply can't be afforded the benefits by the rules.

This is not particularly difficult reasoning.

Actually, that reasoning includes a fallacy. For legal certainty, there needs to be an established and comprehensive method of proof. Indeed, there is: the birth certificate. To refute that it should be proven that a given individual certificate is nonvalid, which (according to the cited article and the one you linked) didn't happen. Instead they inferred from a smaller sample size to the whole, i.e. applied statistics to infer (binary) truth states of specific cases.

[Japper007]

By the actual metric of victory, electoral votes were 304 to 227.

Yes, but if "Nationalists" are supposed to be winning over "globalism" (whatever that means according to you, it's not even a real political movement at all)  shouldn't Trump have easily won the popular vote, rather than won on a technicality because the US electoral system weighs country hicks more than city dwellers for some bizarre reason ("local representation" or whatever, I mean you're choosing the president not a guy for the city council)

[MJW (ya that one)]

From what I understand, the rules are that you need proof to be a citizen, which is a necessary criterion for benefits of citizenship like a passport. Since the proof of citizenship is in doubt, then additional proof is requested. And if sufficient additional proof can't be found, then there is no proof that the person in question is a citizen, so he simply can't be afforded the benefits by the rules.

This is not particularly difficult reasoning.

Actually, that reasoning includes a fallacy. For legal certainty, there needs to be an established and comprehensive method of proof. Indeed, there is:  the birth certificate. To refute that it should be proven that a given individual certificate is nonvalid, which (according to the cited article and the one you linked) didn't happen. Instead they inferred from a smaller sample size  to the whole, i.e. applied statistics to infer (binary) truth states of specific cases.

The US only needs to be 50% sure. I'm assuming the midwife in question has faked birth certificates in the past (why else question certificate?). That pushes it well over 50%.

[ipecac]

Guys guys guys, I think I've realized something about the person who constantly defends eliminationist policies and posts neo nazi memes... wait for it... maybe they're a nazi? I dunno, you can't be too judgemental about these kinds of things, it would deeply hurt their feelings if they were accused of being nazis.

I dunno, this might be more effective if you weren't crying 'Nazi' and 'fascist' all the time.

[ipecac]

Yes, but if "Nationalists" are supposed to be winning over "globalism" (whatever that means according to you, it's not even a real political movement at all)  shouldn't Trump have easily won the popular vote,

What I have said is that nationalism is unstoppable, and globalism is losing. Which means that globalism will keep losing by higher and higher margins and in more places.

The direction of the momentum is shown by how Trump flipped key blue states and nearly flipped others.

rather than won on a technicality because the US electoral system weighs country hicks more than city dwellers for some bizarre reason ("local representation" or whatever, I mean you're choosing the president not a guy for the city council)

Bizarre to you, probably because you're ignorant of the background and the reasoning. The USA is a federation of states, so since the very beginning there has been a balancing act between more population giving states more say (House of Representatives) and every state having equal say (the Senate).

[ipecac]

The US only needs to be 50% sure. I'm assuming the midwife in question has faked birth certificates in the past (why else question certificate?). That pushes it well over 50%.

Yes, the article notes that many midwives admitted in court to fakery. Which means that the 'US Citizens' being 'persecuted' often can't even be certain themselves if they are legally citizens.

[Commodore]

Yes, but if "Nationalists" are supposed to be winning over "globalism" (whatever that means according to you, it's not even a real political movement at all)  shouldn't Trump have easily won the popular vote,

What I have said is that nationalism is unstoppable, and globalism is losing. Which means that globalism will keep losing by higher and higher margins and in more places.

The direction of the momentum is shown by how Trump flipped key blue states and nearly flipped others.

rather than won on a technicality because the US electoral system weighs country hicks more than city dwellers for some bizarre reason ("local representation" or whatever, I mean you're choosing the president not a guy for the city council)

Bizarre to you, probably because you're ignorant of the background and the reasoning. The USA is a federation of states, so since the very beginning there has been a balancing act between more population giving states more say (House of Representatives) and every state having equal say (the Senate).

The confusion here is probably between "nation" and "These United States", the whole point of which at first was to be a bunch of American Nations in confederation. Multi-nation empires do seem to be on the way out, but I wouldn't call the trend unstoppable. The three(ish) nations that make up Syria seemed to be heading for a crack up, but the small nation (Allawite) that rules the empire (Arab and Kurd) seems to be winning over the others.

[ipecac]

The confusion here is probably between "nation" and "These United States", the whole point of which at first was to be a bunch of American Nations in confederation. Multi-nation empires do seem to be on the way out, but I wouldn't call the trend unstoppable. The three(ish) nations that make up Syria seemed to be heading for a crack up, but the small nation (Allawite) that rules the empire (Arab and Kurd) seems to be winning over the others.

From a worldwide perspective, the important clash here isn't between nation and empire, but nationalism and globalism, a clash taking place that at least on the ideological level is approaching the magnitude of 'communism vs democracy' of the past century.

Multi-nation empires form and then eventually fall apart in a fairly predictable cycle as they get bloated, and they form every now and then.

[Japper007]

From a worldwide perspective, the important clash here isn't between nation and empire, but nationalism and globalism, a clash taking place that at least on the ideological level is approaching the magnitude of 'communism vs democracy' of the past century.

Really huh? Where is this battle being fought? Who fights it? Cold War magnitude is a tall bar to set yourself for your non-existant (so far) ideological clash. You could maybe convince me of a civil war in the US (one your side is losing) but a global ideological clash? NO.

[ipecac]

From a worldwide perspective, the important clash here isn't between nation and empire, but nationalism and globalism, a clash taking place that at least on the ideological level is approaching the magnitude of 'communism vs democracy' of the past century.

Really huh? Where is this battle being fought? Who fights it? Cold War magnitude is a tall bar to set yourself for your non-existant (so far) ideological clash. You could maybe convince me of a civil war in the US (one your side is losing) but a global ideological clash? NO.

Denmark going rightwards, Italy shutting doors to migrants, AfD gaining ground, Le Pen gaining ground every election, as is the 'far-right' party in Sweden, both leaders of the two parties in the UK having to outwardly support Brexit, rumblings in New Zealand - we've been through all this before, but you desperately pretend all this hasn't happened.

But let's take a step back. There you are in full denial, and I'm trying to convince someone in full delusion, which is frankly a waste of my time.