US Politics III - Page 25 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-06-2017, 03:43 PM   #481
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
I also don't get this constant whataboutism with the Clintons.

If it's some sort of effort to showcase our hypocrisy as AEON claims that's pretty funny given that most people posting on the thread don't even appear to be Americans and it would be a fair guess to say that the Clintons are considered centre-right (generously) by most of that group. Would I have without a moment's hesitation supported Hillary over Trump, a man who is totally unhinged, unprepared and unfit to lead? You bet. But do I actually support her or her policies writ large? No. And same goes for Bill Clinton, who is actually even worse when it came to triangulating. So this whole "but the Clintons wanted a wall too!" is so stupid, like hello we wouldn't vote for them either. Who gives a shit if they want a wall or not?
That's a very fair response Anitram. Thank you. I was under the assumption that most here endorsed Hillary (not just as anti-Trump, but were actually With Her). Thank you for pointing out that most here think the Clintons are too far to the Right.

...interesting...
__________________

AEON is offline  
Old 09-06-2017, 03:51 PM   #482
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 06:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
That's a very fair response Anitram. Thank you. I was under the assumption that most here endorsed Hillary (not just as anti-Trump, but were actually With Her). Thank you for pointing out that most here think the Clintons are too far to the Right.

...interesting...
I can't speak on behalf of everybody. I don't think that most American posters on this board who tend to vote along the Dem ticket think the Clintons are too far right. I get the sense they consider them to be pragmatists mostly.

But it's been fairly well discussed here that for the rest of the Europeans/Australians/Canadians, etc, most don't find the Clintons to be particularly progressive. You have to keep in mind that we all come from the perspective we understand and if the Clintons ran in many of our nations they would not be seen as representative of the liberal/leftist parties at all.

Edited to add: Regarding supporting Hillary outright vs. just as against Trump, I can give you my view. Yes, I would have voted for her even in the primaries, over Bernie Sanders. But again, this is not a personal endorsement of her, it is that at the time, I looked at the probablw opposition (Trump or Cruz likely) and did not think that Bernie could beat them. So again it was not a vote in a vacuum - I am pretty sure a good chunk of Hillary supporters were driven to her because of perceived electability. Turned out to be wrong, but that was the thinking at the time.
__________________

anitram is offline  
Old 09-06-2017, 03:56 PM   #483
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 05:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Sorry, I thought you stated that one of the reasons for not stopping illegal immigration was the negative impact on the economy (price of labor would rise, therefore the price of goods would rise)
No not a reason, but to show the implications it has and that both sides can be hurt if not taken care of correctly. The difference between a comprehensive plan and a half-assed wall and ban plan.









Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Are you sure I'm the one that brought up that point about the smart phones?
I brought up the phone, you said you'd find a way to build your own.



Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
I recall a back-and-forth where I agreed that both parties for responsible for this.
Well after I corrected your faulty implication, yes you came around.



Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
I have not shared which candidate received my vote - or if I even voted at all.
Just haven't found a single person that defends his vile behavior that didn't, but you're right it's possible there's one.



Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
BVS, what an ugly thing to say... does this mean we're not friends anymore?
Don't lie or twist and we'll be cool.
BVS is offline  
Old 09-06-2017, 05:26 PM   #484
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,663
Local Time: 04:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
No, and fuck off


Please find a better way of expressing your displeasure than telling other posters to fuck off.
Diemen is offline  
Old 09-06-2017, 06:11 PM   #485
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post

Edited to add: Regarding supporting Hillary outright vs. just as against Trump, I can give you my view. Yes, I would have voted for her even in the primaries, over Bernie Sanders. But again, this is not a personal endorsement of her, it is that at the time, I looked at the probablw opposition (Trump or Cruz likely) and did not think that Bernie could beat them. So again it was not a vote in a vacuum - I am pretty sure a good chunk of Hillary supporters were driven to her because of perceived electability. Turned out to be wrong, but that was the thinking at the time.
I can certainly understand and respect that line of thinking. It is rare that anyone on any side gets the candidate they really want.

My view is that Trump got lucky in the primaries. Yes, Trump has his base, but the mainstream candidates stayed in too long - dividing mainstream votes. Had Rubio dropped out earlier, Ted Cruz would have probably been the candidate...and he would have lost to Hillary. Only Trump had the ability to turn those "brexit" states from the Rust Belt (and Sanders just might have beaten Trump because of his ability to hold these states...perhaps)

What was so unusual about the Democratic primaries...is how few candidates there were. I guess there were six originally, but it sure seems like there were only two. And as we have learned since then, the DNC pretty much tanked Sanders.
AEON is offline  
Old 09-06-2017, 07:07 PM   #486
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 05:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
I can certainly understand and respect that line of thinking. It is rare that anyone on any side gets the candidate they really want.

My view is that Trump got lucky in the primaries. Yes, Trump has his base, but the mainstream candidates stayed in too long - dividing mainstream votes. Had Rubio dropped out earlier, Ted Cruz would have probably been the candidate...and he would have lost to Hillary. Only Trump had the ability to turn those "brexit" states from the Rust Belt (and Sanders just might have beaten Trump because of his ability to hold these states...perhaps)

What was so unusual about the Democratic primaries...is how few candidates there were. I guess there were six originally, but it sure seems like there were only two. And as we have learned since then, the DNC pretty much tanked Sanders.


Well not exactly; the Dem party had about a normal size pool, and the GOP had a clown car. Let's not forget Sanders moved to the D party only in order to run on a major ticket, so it's a little revisionist to try and paint this as a party turning on one of their own.
BVS is offline  
Old 09-07-2017, 12:27 AM   #487
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,475
Local Time: 06:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
I can certainly understand and respect that line of thinking. It is rare that anyone on any side gets the candidate they really want.

My view is that Trump got lucky in the primaries. Yes, Trump has his base, but the mainstream candidates stayed in too long - dividing mainstream votes. Had Rubio dropped out earlier, Ted Cruz would have probably been the candidate...and he would have lost to Hillary. Only Trump had the ability to turn those "brexit" states from the Rust Belt (and Sanders just might have beaten Trump because of his ability to hold these states...perhaps)

What was so unusual about the Democratic primaries...is how few candidates there were. I guess there were six originally, but it sure seems like there were only two. And as we have learned since then, the DNC pretty much tanked Sanders.



Trump crushed the GOP field. No one was beating him, no matter who dropped out.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 09-07-2017, 01:12 AM   #488
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Trump crushed the GOP field. No one was beating him, no matter who dropped out.
I guess you're right. I am still hopeful for the next JFK caliber leader. A near-perfect combination of patriotism, capitalism, and...a dash globalism.
AEON is offline  
Old 09-07-2017, 02:52 AM   #489
Blue Crack Addict
 
Babydoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Berlin, Germany.
Posts: 22,280
Local Time: 11:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
They are only recently - with the rise of crime from the "refugees" - given more air time.
Wouldn't be better for the refugees and these host nations, if these refugees went somewhere in the Middle East? Why send them into a culture that obviously clashes with theirs. It doesn't seem fair to them - or those receiving them.
Why is refugees in quotes?

And I'm still waiting for a response to my previous posts.
Babydoll is offline  
Old 09-07-2017, 02:57 AM   #490
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babydoll View Post
Why is refugees in quotes?

And I'm still waiting for a response to my previous posts.
The quotation marks are to identify and correct that I had mistakenly called them "immigrants" in an earlier post. I have been known to make mistakes...from time to time....

I'm looking over your posts....I'm not clear what you are asking me....
AEON is offline  
Old 09-07-2017, 03:40 AM   #491
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,729
Local Time: 11:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Thank for clarifying, I believe I was responding to a general"Europe" comment, and I could have been more specific.

That is a good thing in my opinion.

While I find those comments revolting, they should be permitted - and certainly not worthy of any prison time. Also, their side of the story also claims they are not permitted to question anything about the holocaust (locations, numbers, methods...the normal things that historians change as new evidence is found)

Again, their side of the story is that they are certainly not given the same permits and protections as other demonstrators. They are only recently - with the rise of crime from the "refugees" - given more air time.

anecdote here - I was at a bar in Maui last year drinking with a German college professor. He was liberal on most issues and he was amazed that Trump was winning primaries...When he found out I'm an Army officer, we discussed Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria....and how much he hated the Bush doctrine.

When the topic of conversation came to the refugees, he got quite vocal and loud about what was happening to his country and felt like his people didn't get the chance to even vote on the option to let them in. And, then he whispered, "it's the Jews."

I was shocked he went there, but he went there. This liberal German college professor...

Wouldn't be better for the refugees and these host nations, if these refugees went somewhere in the Middle East? Why send them into a culture that obviously clashes with theirs. It doesn't seem fair to them - or those receiving them.
Despite the EU, there is no one Europe, so there is no "situation in Europe".

I'm not sure if you are aware much about the current governments in Hungary and Poland. I'm not saying it's a bad thing per se if the government is on your side, but in this case: Victor Orban is openly peddling anti-semitism and strong xenophobia. The Polish government is trying to follow in his footsteps. Hungary has been rounding up and imprisoning refugees, including children, in inhumane conditions. Orban is employing openly hostile language against refugees, claiming once again our European culture will be imperilled by their arrival and so on (“We may lose our European values, our very identity, by degrees like the live frog allowing itself to be slowly cooked to death in a pan of water”). There’s never talk about how Europe can help them, how we can accommodate them while trying to improve conditions in Syria or Iraq, only dog whistling and generating fears that somehow our delicate culture will be swept away and replaced by Islam once refugees are allowed inside. If you don’t want to be called racist, don’t argue in racist terms. Discuss the challenges, not some phantastical doomsday scenarios. Most refugees are way too tired to take away your religion or culture. Quite a number of them aren’t even Muslim.

As a German, I find the naiveté in this freedom of speech absolutism to be astonishing. I don’t expect you to understand my perspective. Maybe you will should the worst-case in the Trump scenario ever materialise. I hope it won’t come to any of that. Let me just recommend this essay as food for thought: https://medium.com/@juliaserano/refu...e-f24c1bff513f

Below a few passages:
Quote:
A second point Fish makes — one which haunts many legal cases and debates regarding “free speech” — is that nobody would dare say that we are entitled to “freedom of action.” Sure, we generally have the freedom to do as we wish, but only up to the point where our actions infringe upon the rights and autonomy of others. I may be free to drive a car, but if I run through a red light, or drive way over the speed limit, or purposefully crash my car into a crowd of counter-protesters (as one Nazi did in Charlottesville), then most people would agree that I have crossed a line and should be sanctioned accordingly.
Given these facts, the only way that the ideal of “free speech” makes any sense is if we presume that “speech” is entirely distinct from “action” — that is, speech is imagined to be an entirely abstract collection of utterances and ideas that are incapable of directly harming other people or infringing upon their rights. And frankly, this view of speech is naive and flat-out incorrect.
We do not speak to simply listen to the sounds of our own voices. We almost always speak with intention, with the hopes that our words will have tangible consequences.
[…]
People often use speech acts to suppress other people’s freedom of speech. […] Throughout human history, dominant majority groups have often freely expressed hatred and bigotry toward minority and marginalized populations with the intended effect of silencing them and making it unsafe for them to peaceably assemble or have a collective voice.
“Hate speech” is a catch-all term to describe language that promotes hatred or hostility toward people based upon their race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and possibly other characteristics.
[…]
The standard free-speech-absolutist response to hate speech is to simply call for “more speech” to counter it. More speech can be helpful in situations like the recent “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, where far more U.S. citizens condemned all the Nazi slogans, symbolism, and slurs than supported them. Although it must be said that the turnout of hundreds of white nationalists, the firearms they brandished, and the terrorist act one of them committed, are likely to make some people hesitant to speak out against them in the future.
But what about the suppression of my speech as a young trans person? Back then, trans people had some allies, to be sure, but they (like us) constituted a tiny minority of the population. And I can tell you first hand that the “more speech” strategy actually does far more harm than good when greater numbers of people hate your minority group than accept you. In such cases, calls for “more speech” simply enable and promote hate speech against you, rather than mitigating it.
Calls for “more speech” also suffer from the misconception that we, as a society, are all in the midst of some grand rational debate, and that marginalized people simply need to properly plea our case for acceptance, and once we do, reason-minded people everywhere will eventually come around. This notion is utterly ludicrous. Prejudice and discrimination are not driven by rationality or reason. They are primarily cognitive biases.
[…]
Slippery slope arguments are generally considered to be logical fallacies — here is an academic paper detailing why. The TL;DR version is that slippery slope arguments presume that we are incapable of distinguishing between different things. […]
The free speech absolutists’ slippery slope argument typically goes something like this: “If we censor transphobic speech (or other forms of hate speech), then what’s next Julia? What if people start banning things that you want to say?”
For starters, who said anything about “banning” or “censoring”? Free speech absolutists love to toss around those terms because they evoke an Orwellian dystopia of massive government suppression, which I am most certainly not advocating. What I am proposing does not in any way involve “banning” or “censoring” or government intervention. I am talking about me (and potentially other people) making the personal decision to refuse to tolerate blatant and purposeful expressions of transphobia (and other expressions of hate speech). […]
Second, this slippery slope argument attempts to shift the conversation from whether we (as individuals) should refuse to tolerate transphobia (and other forms of hate speech) to some imaginary scenario where the “thought police” come after people for saying relatively benign things.
[…]
Most free speech absolutists have a huge blind-spot that they stubbornly refuse to acknowledge: They have generally lived lives where virtually everything that they think or say falls within the realm of tolerated discourse. Perhaps a few of their opinions or word choices are considered by some to be “unsavory” or “edgy,” but none of it dooms them to the status of abomination or pariah. So they are unable to see constitutive intolerance — the fact that some people and ideas (such as trans identities and perspectives several decades ago) have been excluded from that discourse a priori. Then, when the status quo eventually shifts, and things that people could previously freely say (such as making transphobic remarks) are suddenly met with protest, it feels like an attack on “free speech” to them.
That’s quite a bit. The whole essay is well worth a read.

So what are we talking about here? Well, what you are advocating is that in the country where there once was a thriving Jewish population of half a million, and where this religious group now has fewer members in the country than there are even Buddhists (by 1990, there were only some 30,000 Jews living in Germany, it’s now slightly over 100,000), the remaining members should again be intimidated by violent speech, and the denial that the crime that set out to annihilate them never happened. As argued in the essay, speech is not merely blabbing on. It has meaning, it has consequences, and more than 2000 houses (intended to house refugees) didn’t burn down over the past two years in the absence of speech, but because of speech.

You are equivocating vast conspiracy theories of “the Holocaust never happened”, brought forward by anti-semites, with new evidence gathered by historians about the Holocaust which, if anything, prove it was even worse. Denial of the Holocaust is not brought forward by people who are sympathetic with Jews (or any of the other groups of victims of the Nazis), but who are annoyed the job wasn’t fully done.

After 1945 and up until the late 60s, when the first post-war generation came of age and started to question why history always ended in 1933, why there was a wall separating a fifth of their country, why there were no Jews around even though there were so many Jewish people represented in German culture and academia pre-1933, and why their fathers were so terribly depressed and regularly hanging themselves, there actually was a strong attempt to just keep silent about WWII, the Holocaust and all the other inconvenient facts about the Nazi era. It had to be brought to the fore, and in order to protect the remaining Jews (and Sinti & Roma etc.) it was impossible not to protect them from hate speech, hate symbols and the denial of the atrocities committed against them.

“Their side of the story” has been pulled from their arses, to be honest. The last European country with a major reform in terms of the rights of assembly was Spain. Spain has been very hard hit by the recession and austerity politics. Youth unemployment soared. As a result, youths took to the streets to protest against the harsh austerity policies. To quell the protests, the then right-wing government introduced what has been dubbed the “gag law” imposing fines on any forms of peaceful demonstrations, and even hindering registered protests by threatening fines for deviations from the routes, or for vaguely defined “serious offences” which include, among others, protesting in front of the Parliament. Hidden away in this law was also this perk: “The law also consolidates the practice of summary expulsion of migrants from the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla to Morocco, restricting the right to seek asylum and violating the principle of and the prohibition of collective expulsions.” (Source: https://www.fidh.org/en/region/europ...icts-the-right)

Elsewhere, the right to assembly has not undergone major changes. It was possible to register for a demonstration even if it was critical of immigration. Cities would make sure the streets would be closed to traffic, and police would accompany your march to make sure everyone is safe. The city cleaning services will even clean up after them. And it doesn’t cost you a cent. I’m not aware of any country in Europe since 1990 where people were unable to voice their opinions, as long as they were peaceful, didn’t carry illegal symbols or contained speeches that called for violence or constituted any of the limited restrictions on the freedom of speech.

What people are complaining is that they cannot protest without being pestered by counter-protestors (tough luck) and that they cannot say the most outrageous things (i.e. call for the persecution and death of other people).
There is no reason to put refugees in quotes. The vast majority are. And as for the migrants, that we look down upon: Enjoying your smartphone? We don’t mind our luxurious lives. But as soon as the people start showing up who we have to thank for the low prices of our gadgets, we start criminalising them.

There’s crime by refugees and migrants. No doubt. About three percent of society are committing crimes. You know how many refugees have been found to be criminal? Around three percent. Wondrous.

Every third woman in a EU-wide survey stated they had experienced any form of sexual harassment. Suddenly, all sexual crime is being attributed to immigrants and refugees. The overall crime rates are not rising out of control anywhere in Europe. There are legitimate and important arguments to be made about sleepers among refugees, about different attitudes on sexual liberties etc. There are a lot of topics. And they are being debated at lengths. But what is not ok is to generalise, criminalise, and call for violence against people. That’s not expressing concern, it’s not trying to genuinely figure out solutions, and it’s not merely opinions that you might have, or might not have. Let’s discuss crime, but then let’s discuss it holistically. There’s no point in scapegoating.

Anti-semitism is not exclusively right-wing. There are many on the left buying into the same shit. It’s not surprising to me that you would encounter an otherwise liberal-minded professor who still thinks the Jews are the great evil behind everything. At the same time you will find conservative professors who will passionately defend Jews. We need to get out of the simplistic view that conservative automatically encompasses all these views, and being left-progressive is this fixed set of attitudes.

Of the 65 million refugees, 48 million are internally displaced persons (technically, they don’t even count as refugees). There are more Syrians displaced inside Syria, than there are exiles. Further, 97% of refugees are not getting any further than the neighbouring countries. The Kurdistan Region of Iraq is hosting 250,000 Syrian refugees, and more than one million Iraqis (these are IDPs). The population of Kurdistan is estimated at 5.5 million. The population of Lebanon grew by 25%. All of them Syrian refugees. Turkey and Jordan also host millions of Syrians. Kenya, Iran and Pakistan are completing the top five of host nations to refugees. Refugees are fleeing the Assad regime (ISIS is not as large a factor). Lebanon is factually controlled by Hezbollah. Hezbollah is a large factor in why Assad is still in power. It’s short of a miracle the refugees in Lebanon are still living in relative safety. Nonetheless, there is no shortage of stories of violence, intimidation and abuse of refugees. If you are openly anti-Assad, you can’t stay in the country.

The refugees are living in camps, in the streets, or in unfinished buildings. Only if they are lucky can they afford proper apartments. I’ve been in plastic tents in 50°C heat (122°F). Families of up to 15 are living in there, from toddlers to elderlies, all crammed together. Kids were playing pool billiard in one of these tents. I could barely stand it a minute in there, they are living in it. During winter, it gets muddy and freezing. Nonetheless, only a tiny fraction of these people are even thinking of going to Europe.

Those who do make it outside, are going voluntarily. At least in the sense that no one is putting a gun to their head (anymore). They are not being forced to come to Europe. They are attempting the journey, knowing that they will face police and border guards who are pushing them back (which is illegal), beating them, insulting them, and robbing them. Knowing that they will have to pay their life savings to a smuggler who will put them on a rubber boat to navigate waters this boat is not made for. Having imprinted on their minds the image of Aylan, yet seeing no other way than putting their own children in such a boat.

I would also not suggest it to anyone, but it’s not like they need my advice. The people who are attempting to come to Europe either are so unbelievably desperate that any “clashes” with a different culture cannot possible be imagined to be worse than what they are enduring, or the differences are not as stark to begin with. Despite all, exile is tough. Treating a traumatised person in the country of their origin is a challenge. Treating a traumatised person who on top of that is living in exile is a double-challenge. But despite all this, it is them who are adapting. It is not us.

The EU aspires to be the strongest economic zone in the world by 2020. That was quite optimistic even before Brexit, but it shows what potential the region sees for itself to begin with. It counts more than 500 million citizens. If two or three million refugees are threatening our prosperity, our culture and our safety, maybe we should be a little more surprised why the Middle East, Africa and Asia haven’t taken over world domination decades ago.
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 09-07-2017, 03:50 AM   #492
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,729
Local Time: 11:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
There is plenty of dispute out there...
Which economic studies in particular? Because there is a wealth of research which is backing up the point of immigrants (incl. refugees) being a net plus.
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 09-07-2017, 03:54 AM   #493
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,729
Local Time: 11:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
What about you, BVS? How much do you enjoy the benefits of cheap labor? I personally hope that I wouldn't buy cheap cotton from the South in 1857...

As for 2017, I would certainly pay more for lettuce (which I rarely eat) and a made-bed in order not to take advantage of illegal immigrants and their willingness to work ungody hours for pennies on the dollar....but that's me...

I rarely shop at those stores and I would think that our awesome, creative population would find a way to provide the goods and services people want at the price they are willing to pay...otherwise those goods are not true goods and those services are not true services....

Community gardens help reduce the cost of vegetables because of cutting out transportation and storage costs - that's one example. Think outside the box...that's what we do...


No, it's worse. Thank for pointing that out.


Not true, the dry-waller gets paid at market rate (the good ones get paid more), and hopefully, will have some spare income to buy the goods and services that others create (as opposed to being unemployed, uninsured, depressed with zero disposable income).
It's all you, you, you. But I'm afraid you are not representative of society as a whole. Fields have been rotting because no Americans were willing to do the fruit picking. And if prices go up and services become unaffordable, you might be cool with it. But the real question is: How many will not?
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 09-07-2017, 04:32 AM   #494
Refugee
 
kiwilad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Malmsbury Villa
Posts: 1,474
Local Time: 11:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
I also don't get this constant whataboutism with the Clintons.

If it's some sort of effort to showcase our hypocrisy as AEON claims that's pretty funny given that most people posting on the thread don't even appear to be Americans and it would be a fair guess to say that the Clintons are considered centre-right (generously) by most of that group. Would I have without a moment's hesitation supported Hillary over Trump, a man who is totally unhinged, unprepared and unfit to lead? You bet. But do I actually support her or her policies writ large? No. And same goes for Bill Clinton, who is actually even worse when it came to triangulating. So this whole "but the Clintons wanted a wall too!" is so stupid, like hello we wouldn't vote for them either. Who gives a shit if they want a wall or not?
Just wanted to +1 this - such a perfectly articulate post. As a politically centrist New Zealander, I found both the Clintons to be considerably to the right of my country's major centre-right party. I wouldn't vote for them.
Unless the only other option was as bad as Trump.
kiwilad is offline  
Old 09-07-2017, 04:49 AM   #495
Refugee
 
kiwilad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Malmsbury Villa
Posts: 1,474
Local Time: 11:20 AM
Vincent Vega, that mammoth post... That would have taken some time to write. And the experiences, knowledge, perspectives are jolting.
You just broadened my mind and, I think, improved me.
Thank you.
kiwilad is offline  
Old 09-07-2017, 04:53 AM   #496
Blue Crack Addict
 
Babydoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Berlin, Germany.
Posts: 22,280
Local Time: 11:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwilad View Post
Vincent Vega, that mammoth post... That would have taken some time to write. And the experiences, knowledge, perspectives are jolting.
You just broadened my mind and, I think, improved me.
Thank you.
A couple of hours this morning, yes, lol.
Babydoll is offline  
Old 09-07-2017, 09:47 AM   #497
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: nazi punks fuck off
Posts: 21,975
Local Time: 05:20 PM
fuck borders.

https://www.economist.com/news/world...ould-be-bribed

Quote:
If borders were open
A world of free movement would be $78 trillion richer


Yes, it would be disruptive. But the potential gains are so vast that objectors could be bribed to let it happen

Print edition | The World If
Jul 13th 2017

A HUNDRED-DOLLAR BILL is lying on the ground. An economist walks past it. A friend asks the economist: “Didn’t you see the money there?” The economist replies: “I thought I saw something, but I must have imagined it. If there had been $100 on the ground, someone would have picked it up.”

If something seems too good to be true, it probably is not actually true. But occasionally it is. Michael Clemens, an economist at the Centre for Global Development, an anti-poverty think-tank in Washington, DC, argues that there are “trillion-dollar bills on the sidewalk”. One seemingly simple policy could make the world twice as rich as it is: open borders.

Workers become far more productive when they move from a poor country to a rich one. Suddenly, they can join a labour market with ample capital, efficient firms and a predictable legal system. Those who used to scrape a living from the soil with a wooden hoe start driving tractors. Those who once made mud bricks by hand start working with cranes and mechanical diggers. Those who cut hair find richer clients who tip better.

“Labour is the world’s most valuable commodity—yet thanks to strict immigration regulation, most of it goes to waste,” argue Bryan Caplan and Vipul Naik in “A radical case for open borders”. Mexican labourers who migrate to the United States can expect to earn 150% more. Unskilled Nigerians make 1,000% more.

“Making Nigerians stay in Nigeria is as economically senseless as making farmers plant in Antarctica,” argue Mr Caplan and Mr Naik. And the non-economic benefits are hardly trivial, either. A Nigerian in the United States cannot be enslaved by the Islamists of Boko Haram.

The potential gains from open borders dwarf those of, say, completely free trade, let alone foreign aid. Yet the idea is everywhere treated as a fantasy. In most countries fewer than 10% of people favour it. In the era of Brexit and Donald Trump, it is a political non-starter. Nonetheless, it is worth asking what might happen if borders were, indeed, open.

To clarify, “open borders” means that people are free to move to find work. It does not mean “no borders” or “the abolition of the nation-state”. On the contrary, the reason why migration is so attractive is that some countries are well-run and others, abysmally so.

Workers in rich countries earn more than those in poor countries partly because they are better educated but mostly because they live in societies that have, over many years, developed institutions that foster prosperity and peace. It is very hard to transfer Canadian institutions to Cambodia, but quite straightforward for a Cambodian family to fly to Canada. The quickest way to eliminate absolute poverty would be to allow people to leave the places where it persists. Their poverty would thus become more visible to citizens of the rich world—who would see many more Liberians and Bangladeshis waiting tables and stacking shelves—but much less severe.

If borders were open, how many people would up sticks? Gallup, a pollster, estimated in 2013 that 630m people—about 13% of the world’s population—would migrate permanently if they could, and even more would move temporarily. Some 138m would settle in the United States, 42m in Britain and 29m in Saudi Arabia.

Gallup’s numbers could be an overestimate. People do not always do what they say they will. Leaving one’s homeland requires courage and resilience. Migrants must wave goodbye to familiar people, familiar customs and grandma’s cooking. Many people would rather not make that sacrifice, even for the prospect of large material rewards.

Wages are twice as high in Germany as in Greece, and under European Union rules Greeks are free to move to Germany, but only 150,000 have done so since the beginning of the economic crisis in 2010, out of a population of 11m. The weather is awful in Frankfurt, and hardly anyone speaks Greek. Even very large disparities combined with open borders do not necessarily lead to a mass exodus. Since 1986 the citizens of Micronesia have been allowed to live and work without a visa in the United States, where income per person is roughly 20 times higher. Yet two-thirds remain in Micronesia.

Despite these caveats, it is a fair bet that open borders would lead to very large flows of people. The gap between rich and poor countries globally is much wider than the gap between the richest and less-rich countries within Europe, and most poor countries are not Pacific-island paradises. Many are violent as well as poor, or have oppressive governments.

Also, migration is, in the jargon, “path-dependent”. It starts with a trickle: the first person to move from country A to country B typically arrives in a place where no one speaks his language or knows the right way to cook noodles. But the second migrant—who may be his brother or cousin—has someone to show him around. As word spreads on the diaspora grapevine that country B is a good place to live, more people set off from country A. When the 1,000th migrant arrives, he finds a whole neighbourhood of his compatriots.

So the Gallup numbers could just as well be too low. Today there are 1.4bn people in rich countries and 6bn in not-so-rich ones. It is hardly far-fetched to imagine that, over a few decades, a billion or more of those people might emigrate if there were no legal obstacle to doing so. Clearly, this would transform rich countries in unpredictable ways.

Voters in destination states typically do not mind a bit of immigration, but fret that truly open borders would lead to them being “swamped” by foreigners. This, they fear, would make life worse, and perhaps threaten the political system that made their country worth moving to in the first place. Mass migration, they worry, would bring more crime and terrorism, lower wages for locals, an impossible strain on welfare states, horrific overcrowding and traumatic cultural disruption.

Open questions
If lots of people migrated from war-torn Syria, gangster-plagued Guatemala or chaotic Congo, would they bring mayhem with them? It is an understandable fear (and one that anti-immigrant politicians play on), but there is little besides conjecture and anecdotal evidence to support it. Granted, some immigrants commit crimes, or even headline-grabbing acts of terrorism. But in America the foreign-born are only a fifth as likely to be incarcerated as the native-born. In some European countries, such as Sweden, migrants are more likely to get into trouble than locals, but this is mostly because they are more likely to be young and male. A study of migration flows among 145 countries between 1970 and 2000 by researchers at the University of Warwick found that migration was more likely to reduce terrorism than increase it, largely because migration fosters economic growth.

Would large-scale immigration make locals worse off economically? So far, it has not. Immigrants are more likely than the native-born to bring new ideas and start their own businesses, many of which hire locals. Overall, migrants are less likely than the native-born to be a drain on public finances, unless local laws make it impossible for them to work, as is the case for asylum-seekers in Britain. A large influx of foreign workers may slightly depress the wages of locals with similar skills. But most immigrants have different skills. Foreign doctors and engineers ease skills shortages. Unskilled migrants care for babies or the elderly, thus freeing the native-born to do more lucrative work.

Would open borders cause overcrowding? Perhaps, in popular cities like London. But most Western cities could build much higher than they do, creating more space. And mass migration would make the world as a whole less crowded, since fertility among migrants quickly plunges until it is much closer to the norm of their host country than their country of origin.

Would mass immigration change the culture and politics of rich countries? Undoubtedly. Look at the way America has changed, mostly for the better, as its population soared from 5m mainly white folks in 1800 to 320m many-hued ones today. Still, that does not prove that future waves of immigration will be benign. Newcomers from illiberal lands might bring unwelcome customs, such as political corruption or intolerance for gay people. If enough of them came, they might vote for an Islamist government, or one that raises taxes on the native-born to pamper the newcomers.

Eyes on the prize
There are certainly risks if borders are opened suddenly and without the right policies to help absorb the inflow. But nearly all these risks could be mitigated, and many of the most common objections overcome, with a bit of creative thinking.

If the worry is that immigrants will outvote the locals and impose an uncongenial government on them, one solution would be not to let immigrants vote—for five years, ten years or even a lifetime. This may seem harsh, but it is far kinder than not letting them in. If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access to welfare benefits? Such levies could also be used to regulate the flow of migrants, thus avoiding big, sudden surges.

This sounds horribly discriminatory, and it is. But it is better for the migrants than the status quo, in which they are excluded from rich-world labour markets unless they pay tens of thousands of dollars to people-smugglers—and even then they must work in the shadows and are subject to sudden deportation. Today, millions of migrants work in the Gulf, where they have no political rights at all. Despite this, they keep coming. No one is forcing them to.

“Open borders would make foreigners trillions of dollars richer,” observes Mr Caplan. A thoughtful voter, even if he does not care about the welfare of foreigners, “should not say...‘So what?’ Instead, he should say, ‘Trillions of dollars of wealth are on the table. How can my countrymen get a hefty piece of the action?’ Modern governments routinely use taxes and transfers to redistribute from young to old and rich to poor. Why not use the same policy tools to redistribute from foreign to native?” If a world of free movement would be $78trn richer, should not liberals be prepared to make big political compromises to bring it about?
DaveC is online now  
Old 09-07-2017, 10:47 AM   #498
Blue Crack Addict
 
Babydoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Berlin, Germany.
Posts: 22,280
Local Time: 11:20 PM
Way too long to post here, but an excellent piece:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...m_source=atltw
Babydoll is offline  
Old 09-07-2017, 12:04 PM   #499
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Vega View Post
Despite the EU, there is no one Europe, so there is no "situation in Europe".
....
That's a hell of a post and a lot to take in. Thank you for being so patient and thoughtful. Your knowledge on the immigration crisis is obvious, and your personal experience certainly adds credibility to your response.

There is nothing you have posted here that I can really respond to - some of it is new information, some of it I simply agree with, and some of it (very little) is opinion that we will have to respectfully agree to disagree.

I did make some assumptions, as we all do, in order to even have a discourse in anything outside one's career. I have always assumed antisemitism was found in the ultra-right end of the political spectrum (nationalism gone too far)...

And I do agree, especially in America, we tend to quickly put things into the either/or camp (left/right; liberal/conservative; Democrat/Republican). I also have many views that would be considered "liberal" - but I generally only engage on topics I disagree with in here - for no other reason than it is boring.

Again, thank you for the wonderful, informative post. Take Care.
AEON is offline  
Old 09-07-2017, 12:15 PM   #500
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveC View Post
Is this the entire article? I don't see where he addresses what would happen to the poor countries if suddenly everyone looking for work up and left...

Also , aren't there over 7 billion people who could dramatically improve their economic situation by moving to either North America or Western Europe? How is this plan scalable? And what about the impact of the nations suddenly being flooded with cheap labor? Once the word got out, the people would arrive (already destitute) before they found the job...creating a tremendous tax burden on those citizens to pay for the care for those that will replace them at their job...
__________________

AEON is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×