|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted July 04, 2016 09:36 AM |
|
|
But SERIOUS, now. Who in their right mind can vote for Trump? A man who tells everyone that he'll WALL up the border to Mexico. (I mean, it didn't work in Berlin, even though it was lighted and patroled and a lot smaller.) And that Mexico will pay it. With the trade deficit. Yeah, sure, what else?
And the guy is - supposedly - a billionaire. Can a billionaire, especially an egocentric one like he is, can such a man even imagine what goes on in the "common people"? I don't think so.
I mean, why is the American people so fixated on Dems and Reps? Faced with these presidential candidate choices, don't you have a historical chance to expand the Two-Party-System? Standard Rep voters going for the Libertarians this time and standard Dem voters for Green?
After all, Gary Johnson is basically a saner and more serious version of Trump, while Jill Steen is a saner and ethical version of Hillary. So why not flip Reps and Dems the finger for not even trying to find an acceptable candidate?
|
|
Ebonheart
Famous Hero
Rush the rush
|
|
posted July 04, 2016 09:43 AM |
|
|
Jolly this is all based on how you reason and what you feel. But the world is a big place and we all see things very differently ("One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter").
As for the system, it could ofc change but it seems that is the preferred model atm. I hope that Sweden's model will change to the Swiss one.
I believe your last line is easy to answer: Trump and Hillary are the faces for each party atm. The people "trust" them and only see them, which can explain why the other candidates are simply out of reach.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 04, 2016 10:14 AM |
|
|
Being able to stop mass immigration looks now as being the first priority in any election, both EU/US, and will certainly aggravate in the next years. Thus the question for me is "who right in his mind can't see it?".
Then the modalities to fight against: wall, atomic bomb, flood, gas chambers, cut of welfare or else are proposals defining each candidate, is he realistic or not, and so help people to decide where their vote goes. From what I've read in Hillary speeches about it, is nothing but "compassionate speech". She keeps saying immigration is broken and needs to be fixed but carefully avoids saying how, and this is exactly the failed policy followed by Bush jr and Obama. There wasn't a single reform concerning immigration under their presidency.
Then the argument "he is a billionaire so he can't understand the common people" could work if only the whole system wasn't rotten and centered on smoke and mirrors, thus allow only extremely rich people to successfully run a campaign.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 04, 2016 10:44 AM |
|
|
You know how most people immigrate into the US? They get in on a temporary visum - and just stay in the country.
And if you'd care to look at the demographics in Europe - Europe NEEDS immigrants, because otherwise there will be no one left to pay the pensions in another one or two generations.
Now sure, you'd like to pick: extremely qualified people, docile and non-religious who just shut the hell up and work, but you can't always pick.
And the problem isn't immigration. The problem is what makes people immigrate - obviously no one likes to give something up voluntarily which means, the immigrants are actually refugees - on the run.
Fun question: if the US hadn't invaded Iraq, would there be so many refugees? Probably not from Syria. Still, even before that lots of refugees from North Africa were trying to land in Italy. It's not exactly paradise the people live in, and that's actually not different from having a really nice neighborhood with fine houses and shops that is surrounded by slums and ghettos.
You cannot just wall off, you have to help getting rid of the worst slums and ghettos in the world, because if you don't, people will try and leave and come to the fine neighborhood. "Globalization" is true for social problems and wealth distribution as well, not just for being able to eat exotic stuff from far-away countries and go there on a holiday, and if we want to solve the problems we have to make the whole world a better place. Not just the block you happen to live in.
And you should know it, because you cannot wall off against screw-ups like Tschernobyl either. leaking nuclear waste drums in the Channel are a source of trouble for everyone as well. Isolationism hasn't been an option for a long time now. It's like holding the hands to the ears, singing, "I can't hear you, I can't hear you".
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 04, 2016 11:32 AM |
|
|
The decline in birthrates certainly deserves a serious response. But it is by no means clear what it should be – nor that it should be the same for each country, as you suggest.
Letting population decline is one of the option. We are already crowded, some countries as Greece are packed sardines style. Then for the pensions, we could maintain them at current levels by increasing the upper limit of the working-age population to roughly 75 years of age. Work more than 35 hours, work better. Fight absenteeism, one of the principal illnesses in EU.
A second option is carefully picking who enters. And of course it can be done, if each country restores its national borders and controls each passing by. This doesn't mean isolationism, this means taking care and being responsible. Take for example Canada, when being more selective, has brought in a more productive and assimilable type of immigrant than most of the European states, which instead have acquired large numbers of poorly educated Muslims, who huddle in sullen and resentful enclaves. Admitting even more Islamic peasants isn't going to help Europe's economies.
A third option is having more babies. This is each civilization ultimate test: is it self-reproducing? Or does it contain a fatal flaw condemning it to extinction?
At this point, the best that Europe can say in its own defense is that it has not yet begun to fight but instead procrastinating with the leftist euro moralistic preaches. Crack down the crime and restore security, this is encouraging the desire of having kids. Clean up the schools from poorly educated migrants who keep all the class going down because of language problems, and people will thrust again universal education. Give huge taxes to couples having babies, instead of offering free health care to illegals, which costs billions. Start a campaign telling citizens it is their patriotic duty to have more kids, although most Europeans are probably too self-destructively sophisticated to respond to this. And who knows what else, we need to invent surviving solution which don't go through lose of identity, insecurity and discontent, which are the first factors leading to a nation programmed death.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Ebonheart
Famous Hero
Rush the rush
|
|
posted July 04, 2016 12:11 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
And if you'd care to look at the demographics in Europe - Europe NEEDS immigrants, because otherwise there will be no one left to pay the pensions in another one or two generations.
Now sure, you'd like to pick: extremely qualified people, docile and non-religious who just shut the hell up and work, but you can't always pick.
This is such a retarded thesis because it spells D.O.O.M. If the entire concept of securing pensions and the future rests on immigration, you have created a loop to hell. This means you must always increase the population to sustain the future, but the snag here is that you have a cap on how many humans you can have in the country, as well as the world. The problems must be solved without needing a single person entering the country, period.
JollyJoker said:
And the problem isn't immigration. The problem is what makes people immigrate - obviously no one likes to give something up voluntarily which means, the immigrants are actually refugees - on the run.
Immigration is only one of many problems, yet one of the biggest ones. Because at this rate, you will create a immigration chain. First they come to us, then people move away and on and on it goes.
JollyJoker said:
You cannot just wall off, you have to help getting rid of the worst slums and ghettos in the world, because if you don't, people will try and leave and come to the fine neighborhood. "Globalization" is true for social problems and wealth distribution as well, not just for being able to eat exotic stuff from far-away countries and go there on a holiday, and if we want to solve the problems we have to make the whole world a better place. Not just the block you happen to live in.
The problems down there have been going on for centuries.
If we want to solve the problems, it means solving it at their place, which means immigration must stop, and here's the next thorn in the side: They might not want to solve it. Many times have aid and proposals of order been suggested and denied, and it is not so strange, because if we were told to change our ways to theirs we would laugh and ask if they are insane? They see us just the same way, as someone foreign trying to change their ways of living.
JollyJoker said:
And you should know it, because you cannot wall off against screw-ups like Tschernobyl either. leaking nuclear waste drums in the Channel are a source of trouble for everyone as well. Isolationism hasn't been an option for a long time now. It's like holding the hands to the ears, singing, "I can't hear you, I can't hear you".
This isolation example of yours, it sounds just like what all the media and politicians are doing right now - well I guess it is ok then?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 04, 2016 01:15 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 13:23, 04 Jul 2016.
|
Ebonheart said:
The problems down there have been going on for centuries.
If we want to solve the problems, it means solving it at their place, which means immigration must stop, and here's the next thorn in the side: They might not want to solve it. Many times have aid and proposals of order been suggested and denied, and it is not so strange, because if we were told to change our ways to theirs we would laugh and ask if they are insane? They see us just the same way, as someone foreign trying to change their ways of living
1- Up until now, Western intrusion in the region have mostly been imperial and it created problems rather than trying to solve them. It even fed the existing conflicts with the classical "divide and conquer" strategy, put aside aiding them.
2- While it is true that people can be more reactionary to change if it comes from, directly or indirectly, foreign sources (especially, if that change has its origins in outsiders who are seen as hostile by the locals), in the long-run, there is no duality of "our ways and their ways." Social evolution applies everywhere, a lot of the things you see as "their way" used to be also your way, put aside medieval times, even a regular person from the Victorian Era would think a lot similarly with a conservative Muslim about many subjects. I don't mean that social evolution eventually produces the same result everywhere, but in any society, traditions and customs die out when the social conditions that produce them change. This usually happens gradually, which is healthier, but sometimes it can also take on a faster pace such as in revolutions, uprisings, civil war etc. The Muslim world can't hold on to their feudal traditions forever, but the more hostile the intrusions are in the Middle-East, more of them will perceive "the wind of change" as an oppression. Do you know which one is the most populated Muslim country in the world? Indonesia. But you don't see many Indonesian suicide bombers or introvert Indonesian immigrants, do you? Because their region is not constantly in war today. They have their problems just like anyone else and they adapt to new conditions, gradually changing just like anyone else.
One thing is certain, despite the cultural differences, global problems should be handled globally and when neo-liberal economics is the way it is, most problems will continue to be global. Think of 19th century, industrialism sprints out of Europe, the world changes forever, it brings civil war, revolution, uprisings in the U.S.A., Japan, Russia... All of these countries had traditionalists (last samurais, if you will) who wanted to stick with "their way of life," the centuries old agricultural customs and traditions of their communities. But they couldn't. Culture is, yes, a significant factor but it's never static and it constantly molds over change.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Ebonheart
Famous Hero
Rush the rush
|
|
posted July 04, 2016 02:26 PM |
|
|
Indeed, so let em be there and do not intervene until they are ready to change. Because we can and shall not force our beliefs onto them in their country. However, should they seek to work, trade or anything else with us, they need to decide what is more important.
You are peddling water atm Artu. We might have had a similar past but not anymore, and that's the crux here. We changed because we saw certain errors or things being wrong, while they did not. Until they come to the same conclussion, it is best to leave em be and only intervene if they go outside their borders with their beliefs etc. And a very important thing to remember is that it is they who needs to show they have thought this through, not the other way around. Like you said yourself, in Indonesia conflicts may erupt but you got no suicide bombers, however there is a small difference. They have realised that what ISIS does, does not bring what they seek - THAT is the difference.
There are many details here in your last line, key details that must be taken into consideration.
The first thing is actually the term "Global problem". For example an environmental disaster affects many and is a problem. But the source of the problem can wary. It can be many countries doing pollution, or it can be one mad country tampering with nuclear weapons. These sort of details matters and will determine how many countries will feel obliged to intervene.
As for the history example of yours. This might sound cold and blunt, but our history is cowered in blood and death. It's the way we reason when we can't reason. The last samurais are no exception, when something comes and wants to change things there are only two options: Fight or evolve/change - sometimes evolve to fight.
Humans are just like grasshoppers fighting for a fixed territory.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 04, 2016 02:37 PM |
|
|
Well, what you seem to by-pass is, when it comes to state politics, neither Europe nor the U.S. even consider that kind of isolationism. Their economy is global, the resources, the trade deals, the international banks, it's all an interactive network which you can't just shut down. Can you give up on industrialism right at the moment and return to farming potatoes, with this many people accustomed to a certain standard created by industrialism itself? Globalism is an "infrastructural destiny" as of now, so the question is how will we be handling it rather than if we'll join it or not.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Ebonheart
Famous Hero
Rush the rush
|
|
posted July 04, 2016 03:00 PM |
|
|
I do not by-pass that Artu, but everything can be changed.
The current leaders may not consider it, but that can change. But I assure you, the network can be shut down entirely or partially - we can create, so we can destroy. The real question is what parts should be dealt with and how.
Another very important question is if we are truly ready for globalism and what it truly means?
I must admit though Artu, you got good counter arguments.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 04, 2016 06:56 PM |
|
|
Tomorrow President Obama will be campaigning with Hillary, a woman who is under FBI investigation and who could be charged with multiple felonies. So the head of the executive branch is standing with a woman being investigated by the executive branch. Can you say "conflict of interests?"
Some criticize Trump's border wall policy. Yet we see Israel's wall has been a success. We see the White House is planning to increase the height of the White House wall. If walls do not help why are they making WH wall higher? We see elites with walls around their estates. Why?
Hillary plans to bring in 5 times more Muslim refugees that Obama's plan. We see mass rapes by "refugees" across Europe. How is bringing in more Sharia-Law believers (Most Muslims from that area want Sharia) a good idea? There have been a number of sexual assaults in the US by"refugees" but the mainstream media & US government tries to keep these quiet.
A government's primary job is the protection of it's citizens.
As for declining populations in Europe perhaps encourage women not to kill so many humans in the womb. Mass immigration by cultures that are at odds with Western culture is a bad idea. Such people will not assimilate and will only cause more trouble than their labor is worth.
|
|
Kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 04, 2016 07:13 PM |
|
Edited by Kayna at 19:29, 04 Jul 2016.
|
|
These ideological package deals that forces us to vote for either one block of good and bad ideas or another block of good and bad ideas will never allow us to reach a true utopia. If anything, a showdown between Trump and Hillary should prove that. A true system to represent the people would allow us to independently vote on each and every question. If democracy taught us anything, is that these political middle men cannot be trusted, that democracy is flawed.
|
|
Ebonheart
Famous Hero
Rush the rush
|
|
posted July 04, 2016 07:55 PM |
|
|
Direct Democracy > All.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 04, 2016 08:13 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 20:14, 04 Jul 2016.
|
Elodin said:
Some criticize Trump's border wall policy. Yet we see Israel's wall has been a success. We see the White House is planning to increase the height of the White House wall. If walls do not help why are they making WH wall higher? We see elites with walls around their estates. Why?
Are you seriously comparing the walls of a palace to a wall that will go all the way along the border and supposedly protect every inch of it? That's like:
- I have a solution for the climate problem, we will build a tent above our country.
- That sounds like a real stupid idea.
- Well, if tents don't work, why did you take one with you when you went camping last month!
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Ebonheart
Famous Hero
Rush the rush
|
|
posted July 04, 2016 08:32 PM |
|
|
Indeed the example of his is a bit off.
Perhaps a better one would be how Australia deals with refugees and which has been a success?
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted July 04, 2016 08:42 PM |
|
Edited by markkur at 20:59, 04 Jul 2016.
|
JollyJoker said:
Markkur, your rights to follow your belief end where they involve others, simply because everyone has the same rights. You can do everything you deem correct FOR YOURSELF - but not for others. Same thing as with muslims by the way.
So everything that is supposed to be binding for everyone is a matter of compromise, and no amount of talk, religious or otherwise, can change that.
JJ C'mon. Not you too.
I posted "a-freakin' link" to a guy that talks about America's decline because of Morals...which is one third of the TRIANGLE! I warned non-believers about his Faith(that's so nasty to some here) because I think no matter where you stand in life and believe about life, he mentions at least some things that are important today. Hell, most of what I read today is NOT by people that share my Faith and yet I don't have a rage-fest every time I do read posts and then call for a ban.
And then I am told it does not belong in this thread Politics?!
It's simple and I do hope no one has problems with making "short leaps of logic" when they are NOT grand mysterious statements that need think-tanks to solve.
In the end "my version of Freedom" covers you and Artu but "your version" does not cover me nor other Christians in the arena of Politics.
I did not expect ANY heat or I would have just posted this from our 2-time first President.
George Washington from his "1796 Farewell-Address" to my nation not Germany nor Turkey nor any other nation.
...Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that a man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert theses great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion...
OK, now look at America today and tell me we are a wonderful Nation that has little problem with morality. Our Capitol is a cesspool.
The People of this nation (all kinds banded together) HAVE to take the Politics back from immoral men and women...period, this "corruption", if morality is too unpleasant. Also, one more time, our problems across the board center on...GREED.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
Gryphs
Supreme Hero
The Clever Title
|
|
posted July 04, 2016 09:11 PM |
|
|
markkur said:
OK, now look at America today and tell me we are a wonderful Nation that has little problem with morality. Our Capitol is a cesspool.
The People of this nation (all kinds banded together) HAVE to take the Politics back from immoral men and women...period, this "corruption", if morality is too unpleasant. Also, one more time, our problems across the board center on...GREED.
That hardly calls for religion as the cure. This same crap has been happening since the US was founded (when religion still mattered) it could be argued to be the nature of the beast. I sincerely doubt an ideology that breeds fanatics is the antidote.
____________
"Don't resist the force. Redirect it. Water over rock."-blizzardboy
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 04, 2016 09:12 PM |
|
|
Markkur said:
In the end "my version of Freedom" covers you and Artu but "your version" does not cover me nor others who believe that as a Christian I have a right to be one and whether you both like it or not in Politics and election.
I haven't implied anything that could be reasonably interpreted as you do not have a right to be a Christian or you can not vote by the guidance of your faith. However, as a Christian, if you link a Christian who claims "this nation is God's miracle," your link will be harshly criticized. It's not that you don't have a right to link him, it's just that his perspective is narcissistic, irrational and ridiculous, I'm guessing even for many Christians. Morality has nothing to do with believing God will directly answer every prayer of yours because you are on "his side." A sermon(-like) speech is not a political analysis and my opinion is that his perspective is totally irrelevant to actually understand both politics of today or the historical reasons why the U.S. came into existence. My problem with him is not that he's faithful, my problem with him is that he tries to explain everything with his personal faith.
And while victimizing Christianity like this, please remember that in your country, it is still considered political suicide for a candidate to be openly atheist, a lot of politicians still pretend to be religious even if they're not, because "that's just how politics is!"
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted July 04, 2016 09:46 PM |
|
|
artu said:
I haven't implied anything that could be reasonably interpreted as you do not have a right to be a Christian or you can not vote by the guidance of your faith. However, as a Christian, if you link a Christian who claims "this nation is God's miracle," your link will be harshly criticized.
I asked all to sift through and look to the main theme...morals. I did not think it would be so hard to handle. I do the reverse of this feat often.
It's about Morals man.
artu said:
And while victimizing Christianity like this, please remember that in your country, it is still considered political suicide for a candidate to be openly atheist, a lot of politicians still pretend to be religious even if they're not, because "that's just how politics is!"
And have you asked me what I think about that? No, but I have family that differ from me to varying degrees from a little to a lot and if they wanted to improve secular administrations? I would never oppose that.
I cannot make my answer any clearer than I already have. Every person in the U.S. must have the right to believe what they will. I would not block anyone running for office. That is NOT freedom.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted July 04, 2016 09:56 PM |
|
|
Gryphs said:
markkur said:
OK, now look at America today and tell me we are a wonderful Nation that has little problem with morality. Our Capitol is a cesspool.
The People of this nation (all kinds banded together) HAVE to take the Politics back from immoral men and women...period, this "corruption", if morality is too unpleasant. Also, one more time, our problems across the board center on...GREED.
That hardly calls for religion as the cure. This same crap has been happening since the US was founded (when religion still mattered) it could be argued to be the nature of the beast. I sincerely doubt an ideology that breeds fanatics is the antidote.
Oh good grief, I am not calling for Religion to dominate Politics; Fact - the founding fathers had to flee England because of Religious-Tyranny.
Today, for years candidates have only used the Religion card for Votes, just like many other ploys and have been despicable leaders.
I am writing something for another thread that will clear up what I advocate so there can be no misunderstandings.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
