What, policy wise, would you propose more specifically? By "welfare reform and divorce law reform", are you saying we should send a message to people looking to divorce harmful people in their lives that the government won't ameliorate problems caused by single parenthood, so maybe you should only divorce someone if you're really serious about it? What is meant by criminal justice reform?
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Serious Political and economic discussion thread
- Thread starter Diophantine
- Start date
I suspect the Democrats will still be very, very motivated, but not as motivated as they would have been had they been able to deny Kavanaugh the seat. Victory sparks follow-up and interest, defeat depresses. The attitude right now among Republicans though is they are super motivated to vote, to the point in the past two weeks some Democratic incumbents in Trump states are now trailing challengers that they were leading previously. Wave elections tend to occur when one side is hyper-motivated and the other is ambivalent (2008, 2010 and 2014 are good examples of this. 2008 is notable for being a presidential year where that usually doesn't occur.)
Specifically, welfare benefits are set up in such a way that if you are listed as dual income (married), you get less benefits than single income for the same family size. Additionally, benefits are based in part on the number of children so having another child out of wedlock for additional benefits is a real problem (see Ken Specht's answer). So there is pressure to be divorced, at least on paper for the purposes of obtaining government benefits. I do not know exactly what the reform would look like as it isn't my general area of political knowledge, however there should be more favor to married intact familes seeking benefits and you should get more benefits for being married to the father of a child than being single and having multiple children from multiple fathers.
RE: Divorce Law: No fault divorce should return to being illegal, or at least incur a fairly heavy financial penalty to dissuade it combined with an updated release form indicating the parties understand a civil marriage dissolution for no fault that would involve custody of children incurs it. The family court system should also be completely revamped as it has a legendary anti-male bias given the consistent pattern of massively disproportionate female filings and a presumption that fathers are an inferior provided for children to mothers.
RE: Criminal justice reform. Much of this would be specific to black incarceration rates, as the fatherless epidemic is worst in the black community. Gangs also prey on fatherlessness by providing male kinship and if not father figures than male peers, and gangs contribute to the vicious cycle of criminality. More of a community service or less severe penalties for fathers that committed non-violent crimes might be a possible consideration.
It's not an issue that would be easy to fix. Family breakdown is a society hobbling problem with no easy cause or solution. However, out-of-wedlock births are massively more common at every level of society than they were 40 years ago, which is a very worrying trend. It's also a nonpartisan concern that's been focused on by publications of every political stripe.
Where was due process thrown out?
kilometerman
Banned deucer.
Probably the whole "believe all women" epic meme
That doesn't have anything to do with due process.
kilometerman
Banned deucer.
"Automatically assume all those accused of rape" has nothing to do with due process how?
Because that doesn't involve due process at all? Due process has a specific legal meaning.
I just wanted to give my thoughts on the rising belief of Bolsonaro being called a fascist. mostly from this post that represents a bit of a biased perspective in Brazil’s political issues.
Have a good day!
I agree Bolsonaro does leave some offensive comments to several minorities, but calling him a fascist just because of that is extremely inaccurate in my opinion and widely disregards the definition of facism itself. Fascism is autocratic and ditatorial and Bolsonaro is neither. And yes the news you linked on your OP are very unfortunate, but they aren’t directly associated with Bolsonaro, he doesn’t encourage these extremist moves himself. It’d be like if someone were to call Haddad voters communists because a fraction of Haddad’s voters are actually communists. I’m not pretending Bolsonaro is a decent candidate because he most definitely isn’t, but I find it a bit odd to leave such a biased view in the OP. It would be nice of you to say how Haddad continues the role the workers’ party has played for 13 years in Brazil, fucking up the economy, health, and security of the country the process between Lula and Dilma. I’m not taking sides here becauss both options are terrible, but I’d just like to show the other side of our political crisis here in Brazil.Merriam Webster Dictionary said:
Have a good day!
Last edited:
It sure sounds like something straight out of the 1920's Nazi Party Platform recently referenced by user Deceit as an example of the excesses of socialism (lol), but I'm not drawing any conclusions. "Only those of German blood, whatever their creed, may be members of the nation. Accordingly, no Jew may be a member of the nation." And "All non-German immigration must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who entered Germany after 2 November 1914 shall be required to leave immediately . . ."
Ending birthright citizenship almost certainly violates the equal protection clause of the 14th ammendment of the Constitution, but he could probably end due process for people seeking citizenship the same way he ended the process for asylum seekers: by ordering/issuing new guidelines to agencies that impede the process of gaining citizenship for anyone that isn't 'American'. This could mean limiting the number of appeals someone has or adding requirements for naturalization to make it significantly more difficult than it already is.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-...p-and-the-mainstreaming-of-unimaginable-ideas
"When Trump said, on “Axios on HBO,” that the U.S. is the only country in the world where people obtain citizenship by virtue of being born, he lied. But it is true that in some countries birth does not automatically entitle people to citizenship. In Germany, for example, a newborn is considered a citizen only if at least one of the baby’s parents is a legal resident who has been in the country for more than eight years. This law is a source of shame for many Germans, precisely because it is rooted in ideas of a nation’s ethnic and cultural purity. These kinds of laws create an ever-growing class of disenfranchised people who live in Germany legally and can participate in the economy but not in national politics—and this is precisely Trump’s objective, too: to shut Americans whom he perceives as other out of the political system. Two years after claiming, obsessively and falsely, that millions of “illegal immigrants” voted in the Presidential election, Trump is taking steps to make immigrant votes illegal."
https://hmmdaily.com/2018/10/30/the...q8W84HVm-57we5xKW-xYFi1byOP3qD76iiFE7p4NOTVfE
"He declares the Fourteenth Amendment void, and the smarmy Axios reporter smiles along—and then, as the story moves out into the rest of the press, the status of his power to nullify the Fourteenth Amendment becomes “unclear.” "
"Our public conversation misses the fundamental point. The warnings and the rebuttals to the warnings have revolved around the drastic, epochal historical questions: Is this what it was like with the Nazis? Are we becoming the Third Reich? Is that where we’re headed?
What that line of debate overlooks is that going only halfway Nazi would be more than bad enough. Going a quarter of the way Nazi would be. What’s dangerous about authoritarian demagoguery, or ethno-nationalism with fascist overtones, or whatever you might call this brutish and corrupt government, isn’t merely teleological—that eventually, it could arrive at the most terrible endpoint, where the president grows a tiny mustache and they change the flag and the people who go into the camps are not just bureaucratic nonpersons but actually dead. The danger is also that right now, already, what’s happening is degrading and violent and evil. And it is getting worse."
Last edited:
Diophantine
Banned deucer.
RE: Brexit.
Theresa May's current Brexit plan:
There was a debate recently between 4 politicians about the state of Brexit and the plans that they were proposing.
The whole debate is here, if you would like to watch it.
James Cleverly of the Conservative Party (Deputy Chairman), who voted for Brexit, is essentially Theresa May's ambassador.
The Labour Party's Shadow Trade Secretary, Barry Gardner, who voted to remain, argues for a softer Brexit than the one that Theresa May has proposed.
Jacob Rees-Mogg, who is another Conservative Party Member of Parliament, proposes a "hard Brexit", even if it means "no deal".
The Green Party's Member of Parliament, Caroline Lucas, who voted to remain, argues for a second referendum.
The main points can be summarised as follows.
JRM, James Cleverly and Barry Gardner wish to respect the people's decision of 2016 and deliver Brexit.
Gardner wants to get as much from the EU as the UK can; Cleverly supports the above proposed plan and JRM wants Britain to have more control in the negotiations.
Their argument against a second referendum is that it would be disrespecting the people's vote.
Caroline Lucas argues that the public have access to more information since the first referendum, where many campaigners (on both sides) had gotten things wrong about the EU.
I wanted to know what people here thought about the whole Brexit situation. Should we have a second referendum? Do you see Britain as better off in the EU or not? Given that Brexit will happen, what would be the best way to go about it?
Theresa May's current Brexit plan:
- Provide certainty about the process of leaving the EU.
- Control of our own laws. Leaving the European Union will mean that our laws will be made in Westminster, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast.
- Strengthen the Union between the four nations of the United Kingdom.
- Deliver a practical solution that allows the maintenance of the Common Travel Area with the Republic of Ireland.
- Brexit must mean control of the number of people who come to Britain from Europe.
- Protect rights for EU nationals in Britain and British nationals in the EU. We want to guarantee rights of EU citizens living in Britain and the rights of British nationals in other member states, as early as we can.
- Protect workers’ rights. Not only will the government protect the rights of workers set out in European legislation, we will build on them.
- Free trade with European markets through a bold and ambitious free trade agreement with the European Union.
- New trade agreements with other countries. It is time for Britain to get out into the world and rediscover its role as a great, global, trading nation.
- The best place for science and innovation. We will welcome agreement to continue to collaborate with our European partners on major science, research and technology initiatives.
- Co-operation in the fight against crime and terrorism. We will continue to work closely with our European allies in foreign and defence policy even as we leave the EU itself.
- A smooth, orderly Brexit. We believe a phased process of implementation will be in the interests of Britain, the EU institutions and member states.
There was a debate recently between 4 politicians about the state of Brexit and the plans that they were proposing.
The whole debate is here, if you would like to watch it.
James Cleverly of the Conservative Party (Deputy Chairman), who voted for Brexit, is essentially Theresa May's ambassador.
The Labour Party's Shadow Trade Secretary, Barry Gardner, who voted to remain, argues for a softer Brexit than the one that Theresa May has proposed.
Jacob Rees-Mogg, who is another Conservative Party Member of Parliament, proposes a "hard Brexit", even if it means "no deal".
The Green Party's Member of Parliament, Caroline Lucas, who voted to remain, argues for a second referendum.
The main points can be summarised as follows.
JRM, James Cleverly and Barry Gardner wish to respect the people's decision of 2016 and deliver Brexit.
Gardner wants to get as much from the EU as the UK can; Cleverly supports the above proposed plan and JRM wants Britain to have more control in the negotiations.
Their argument against a second referendum is that it would be disrespecting the people's vote.
Caroline Lucas argues that the public have access to more information since the first referendum, where many campaigners (on both sides) had gotten things wrong about the EU.
I wanted to know what people here thought about the whole Brexit situation. Should we have a second referendum? Do you see Britain as better off in the EU or not? Given that Brexit will happen, what would be the best way to go about it?
it's gone tits up mate
this whole thing started as a way for cameron to get the anti-EU crowd in the tories to shut up, that backfired, and cameron threw up his hands and ran off
then may triggered article 50, started a general election 3 weeks later in hopes labour wouldn't come up with their own brexit plan in time so she'd get more seats so she wouldn't have to fight against the same hard-brexit tory crowd, and that backfired as well
the entire cause of this is the eton bourgeois being greedy fucks again
Diophantine
Banned deucer.
Agreed.
Though, for the sake of argument, do you think that as there was enough interest there was bound to be a vote on it (not necessarily a referendum)?
Furthermore, Theresa May triggering Article 50 was her doing the job she had been given: deliver Brexit as the people had voted.
Referendums are not and have never been legally binding -- this isn't even the first time we had a vote on staying in the EU for example (we had another back in the 90s I think?) -- so "deliver brexit as the people had voted" was bullshit in the first place. Hell, a significant number of people specifically voted leave just to tell the govt to go fuck itself because they thought it was an opinion poll and not because leaving was actually going to happen. The general public barely knows anything about how the EU works or what our role in it is, so asking them if we should stay in it or not was a retarded move in the first place. The whole point of electing representatives is because they know this stuff and the public doesn't.
I don't think a referendum was the right call. Sure, have polls and stuff on it, or maybe some other vote about "are you happy with how the EU is doing" might've gone over better (because I do agree that the EU has problems), then we could've pointed to those results, talked to the EU, and said "hey guys our people aren't happy, how can we improve the EU to make them happy", but everything else has been a huge mistake that nobody wants to admit was a mistake, so the whole country has been left swirling around in the shitter
The referendum was fundamentally pretty anti-democratic because it provided a binary question for which the definition of one side is totally ambiguous—i.e. it doesn’t actually reflect “the will of the people” at all. Honestly this is a pretty common pattern among referendums in general and quite frankly I don’t think the format of decision making has any place in any sane country-running plan.
As for the events following the vote… well, they’re exactly what the word “politics” would imply—people pushing their own completely selfish agendas and fighting power struggles instead of using their heads and trying to actually run+improve the country. And the result? Two years of the country sitting at a total standstill in economic turmoil.
At the end of… whatever the fuck this is, I actually think that it’s increasingly likely that Brexit won’t happen at all. And after that we can all breathe a sigh of relief and make a pact to never let Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Jacob Rees-Mogg anywhere near a public office seat ever again.
As for the events following the vote… well, they’re exactly what the word “politics” would imply—people pushing their own completely selfish agendas and fighting power struggles instead of using their heads and trying to actually run+improve the country. And the result? Two years of the country sitting at a total standstill in economic turmoil.
At the end of… whatever the fuck this is, I actually think that it’s increasingly likely that Brexit won’t happen at all. And after that we can all breathe a sigh of relief and make a pact to never let Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Jacob Rees-Mogg anywhere near a public office seat ever again.
I dont come from Britain since I'm a belgian citizen but i think it would be intersting if i give my point of view exterior on the brexit situation.
I think it would be better that the Brexit happens normally. Not for the EU but for Britain itself. No matter what type of accords it is or even if you dont get one, you have to leave.
I think a second referendum, without an exit first, would be terrible for the politic situation inside britain, The population stays divised on the subject even today, i've seen a poll about a second referendum on the Twitter europe elect page (i dont have access here but you can easily find it in scrolling), it would be 55% Remain / 45% Leave. I dont feel as I read above that it was just a punish vote against politicians, a lot of citizens strongly think today that it was still good choice.
If a new vote makes Remain in the head of the votes, the middle of the population will feel the democratie is broken. A situation like this could make something that i think you dont want to know. It's the case of France or in the Netherlands where the referendum of 2005 had been broken, these two countries have been still eurosceptists since. Especially France which could, even with a weaker economy, leads EU over Germany in the futur years with best natality of the continent and a nuclear part in the energy very advanced which means they will suffer less of a violent ecology transition. However, the lack of confidence in the politicians have done drastic changes in the country. The two mains political parties since the end of WW2 (centre-left and centre-right) have both almost totally disappeared in only five years to the benefict of three parties, far-right (eurosceptic), center (europhile) and far-left (eurosceptic). The yellow vests have also recently destabilised Macron in pointing notably the lack of democracy and the problems with the EU and the liberalism. This situation isn't specific to France, you know what happened in Italy, which is also an eurosceptic country.
If a brexit happens, you could in twenty five years start a new vote to come back in EU or move still further away if you want. It is still possible. On the other hand, I'm concerned that the Brexit would be a political poison for the next fifty years if a new referendum decides you dont leave. At every elections, the situation will be unsafe with the risk of a new brexit but with a leader far less mainstream. And i'm not sure come back will make the situation economic far better in these conditions, do you prefer invest in a country where you know it isn't in the EU or in a country where you dont know what it will do in the 5, 10 or 15 next years ? Furthermore, you cannot have back the situation such as it was before the Brexit. The only problem isn't only you will be humiliated or dont credible, the problem is also that you have done winners with this vote. Does France have an interest to see you come back ? Spain ? Italy ? Poland ? Does EU really support you ? Big doubts.
Also, but it's a less "important" point, dont think the economy situation is only due to Brexit. Yeah, it has the part of responsability obviously but the decrease of the growth (due to ecology) is a factor which hits all the europe.
To end this, I think the brexit is an unhealthy problem for the political situation of United Kingdom. I feel it imprisons all other discussions you can have because it has link between everything. In matter of education, ecology, equality or technology, i think you have big debates to discuss and it's really too bad you cannot advance with this problem of remain or leave. I understand your issues because I would myself have voted Remain if I lived in United Kingdom but I think it would be better for you if you accomplished the brexit until the end. For your people of course but also to try to have a new political area in the history of Britain, even if it is to come back in 25 years if EU still exists.
Thank you for reading ~
I think it would be better that the Brexit happens normally. Not for the EU but for Britain itself. No matter what type of accords it is or even if you dont get one, you have to leave.
I think a second referendum, without an exit first, would be terrible for the politic situation inside britain, The population stays divised on the subject even today, i've seen a poll about a second referendum on the Twitter europe elect page (i dont have access here but you can easily find it in scrolling), it would be 55% Remain / 45% Leave. I dont feel as I read above that it was just a punish vote against politicians, a lot of citizens strongly think today that it was still good choice.
If a new vote makes Remain in the head of the votes, the middle of the population will feel the democratie is broken. A situation like this could make something that i think you dont want to know. It's the case of France or in the Netherlands where the referendum of 2005 had been broken, these two countries have been still eurosceptists since. Especially France which could, even with a weaker economy, leads EU over Germany in the futur years with best natality of the continent and a nuclear part in the energy very advanced which means they will suffer less of a violent ecology transition. However, the lack of confidence in the politicians have done drastic changes in the country. The two mains political parties since the end of WW2 (centre-left and centre-right) have both almost totally disappeared in only five years to the benefict of three parties, far-right (eurosceptic), center (europhile) and far-left (eurosceptic). The yellow vests have also recently destabilised Macron in pointing notably the lack of democracy and the problems with the EU and the liberalism. This situation isn't specific to France, you know what happened in Italy, which is also an eurosceptic country.
If a brexit happens, you could in twenty five years start a new vote to come back in EU or move still further away if you want. It is still possible. On the other hand, I'm concerned that the Brexit would be a political poison for the next fifty years if a new referendum decides you dont leave. At every elections, the situation will be unsafe with the risk of a new brexit but with a leader far less mainstream. And i'm not sure come back will make the situation economic far better in these conditions, do you prefer invest in a country where you know it isn't in the EU or in a country where you dont know what it will do in the 5, 10 or 15 next years ? Furthermore, you cannot have back the situation such as it was before the Brexit. The only problem isn't only you will be humiliated or dont credible, the problem is also that you have done winners with this vote. Does France have an interest to see you come back ? Spain ? Italy ? Poland ? Does EU really support you ? Big doubts.
Also, but it's a less "important" point, dont think the economy situation is only due to Brexit. Yeah, it has the part of responsability obviously but the decrease of the growth (due to ecology) is a factor which hits all the europe.
To end this, I think the brexit is an unhealthy problem for the political situation of United Kingdom. I feel it imprisons all other discussions you can have because it has link between everything. In matter of education, ecology, equality or technology, i think you have big debates to discuss and it's really too bad you cannot advance with this problem of remain or leave. I understand your issues because I would myself have voted Remain if I lived in United Kingdom but I think it would be better for you if you accomplished the brexit until the end. For your people of course but also to try to have a new political area in the history of Britain, even if it is to come back in 25 years if EU still exists.
Thank you for reading ~
It's been a while since anybody's posted anything in this thread, so I guess I'll start some discussion here. The recent SNC-Lavalin scandal has obviously damaged Justin Trudeau's reputation greatly, and his approval ratings have fallen significantly. I, myself, have never liked Trudeau as a prime minister, but this just puts the nails in the lid of the coffin. What are your thoughts on this issue?
Canadian here, I don't really give a shit about the scandal, it's pretty much par for the course as far a low-end political scandals go and the remainder of the liberal track record has been passable. If there were a viable alternative I'd vote for them (as I did with the NDP last election) and may consider voting Green if May ever gets her head out of her ass, but the problem is that there isn't a viable alternative when the Conservative leader is Andrew fucking Scheer.
For the Americans out there, Scheer is straight from the Trump doctrine dressed up to be slightly more educated. His positions on every single form of human rights and his tactics of campaigning against the Liberals are disgusting. He's a morally reprehensible man and with this election it's my primary concern that whomever we elect isn't this repulsive demagogue.
I understand where you're coming from, but I truly believe that what Trudeau has done is even more morally questionable than how you described Scheer. Interfering with a criminal trial is obviously not something that one should do. Additionally, as the Prime Minister's office has tried to influence Wilson-Raybould and has tried to make her stay mostly silent on the matter, which again, is something that is completely unacceptable. I truly believe that voting for Scheer, while it may not necessarily be a good choice, is the best choice for this election. It's this simple: If someone does something unconstitutional, such as interfering with a criminal trial, they must face the consequences. That is my opinion in this case.
Vote for literally any one else then
Thing is, May has no chance of winning whatsoever, Singh is terrible (almost lost his by-election, mind you), Bernier fell short of expectations on this round of by-elections, and the Bloc Quebecois isn't getting any votes outside of Quebec.
voting for scheer is the worst possible thing that could happen to our country
i live in toronto, i've already seen the garbage that has come out of doug ford's office which anyone with half a brain could have seen coming if they paid attention to the debates, andrew scheer is cut from the exact same cloth and putting in his policies on a national level will be devastating to our countries human rights stances and actions towards the climate
i don't care how much you think trudeau needs to be punished, punishing the country (and rest of the world) by electing scheer is not the solution
just to be explicitly clear on this
scheer: opposes abortion, opposes transgender rights, opposes LGBT rights (marriage), opposes gun regulation, opposes paris accords (climate), defends residential schools, etc
his political stances and policy positions are beyond regressive, incredibly nationalist, and incredibly dangerous if they were to come from a position of power
listen to any of his political ads or his comments to the media and its the exact same shit doug ford did, and the same style that trump did
scheer: opposes abortion, opposes transgender rights, opposes LGBT rights (marriage), opposes gun regulation, opposes paris accords (climate), defends residential schools, etc
his political stances and policy positions are beyond regressive, incredibly nationalist, and incredibly dangerous if they were to come from a position of power
listen to any of his political ads or his comments to the media and its the exact same shit doug ford did, and the same style that trump did