US Politics Thread

[britbox]

You have a point here -- I would only name it different (whenever you need to put an adjective to capitalism, it is not capitalism). I will give a much calmer second look to your post.

Don't shoot the messenger.

Stakeholder Capitalism

Reimagining our global economy so it becomes more sustainable and prosperous for all Our global economic system is broken. But we can replace the current picture of global upheaval, unsustainability, and uncertainty with one of an economy that works for all people, and the planet. First, we must...

www.google.com.au

 

[Kieran]

Here’s quick socialism lesson from a uni in Sweden for New Yorkers who are thinking to vote socialist.

It not only doesn’t work, but it can’t work because it’s opposed to the human instinct.

 

[Moxie]

It appears that I haven't been clear.

Lol! @Moxie you made me laugh out loud regarding blondes. I didn't say there weren't any blondes anymore, I said that we hopped over for long weekends to have fun, because of the hot blondes, that was mostly humour (mostly!), and had very little to do with the changes. The changes relate to an explosion in gang related crime in major Swedish cities that simply wasn't there 20 years ago. Just like stabbings weren't a thing on the streets of south London 20 years ago. So please calm your skin down, that's a rabbit hole I didn't dig, that's your doing

Oh, come on. I think you know I was going along with the gag when I said "not interested in middle-aged Englishmen." I was making fun of you because you, as you rightly admit, you were not in the least clear. How was anyone supposed to go from "hot Swedish girls" to "gang-related crime?" You failed to mention the gang-related crime, which apparently is your problem with Sweden now.

Here's the thing, it's not about race, it's not about skin colour. It's about a system, at least in the UK where there are no efforts to assimilate these people into the larger society. If anything the society, seemingly with government assistance is almost being coerced to accommodate the values of the newer entrants. It's weird, and frankly almost unheard of. I repeat, there are parts of the UK where sharia law is being practiced. That's not happening in the United States or Brazil as far as I'm aware, so you're welcome to feel how you folks feel, get back to me when things like that are happening where you live..

You missed the part where I said above that the US, and I would say Brazil, (but I'll let @mrzz speak for his own country,) have basically always been one of mixture and assimilation. That defines who were are, in many ways, at least here in the US. Which is very different from you in the UK, and other countries in Europe who tended to define as monocultural societies, with a dominant religion, until more recently. So you're suffering the pains of it, and not dealing with it very well, according to you. But please don't tell me that it's going to come back to haunt us, as it does you. Since we've been doing it a lot longer, I'd argue we do it a lot better.

But back to The Great Replacement theory, and the US, since this is the thread about US Politics, not UK politics: in the US, that theory is absolutely about race. Black and brown people have long been assimilated into this culture. Likewise, Asian people, Jewish and Muslim people, Catholics and Protestants. But there is a movement afoot to make people believe that this was ever supposed to be a White Christian Nation. The First Amendment to our Constitution establishes Freedom of Religion. There is no enshrined Christianity in our constitution. And, what, Iowans don't feel like Iowa is as "white" as it used to be? Well, who's going to pick that corn?

If you're making it about crime, which Trump is trying to do, crime has been down for decades in this country.

If you want to talk about crime, and divisiveness, Trump is trying to use the National Guard to control made-up crime in the US. This is illegal. The courts are fighting him, but just wait until the Supremes give him a complete pass.

 

[Federberg]

Oh, come on. I think you know I was going along with the gag when I said "not interested in middle-aged Englishmen." I was making fun of you because you, as you rightly admit, you were not in the least clear. How was anyone supposed to go from "hot Swedish girls" to "gang-related crime?" You failed to mention the gang-related crime, which apparently is your problem with Sweden now.

well first of all, I've always been an equal opportunity employer, so even if there were fewer blonds in Stockholm now, it wouldn't deter me. The hotness would be all that matters! As for your not being able to infer that my concern was about cultural degradation, whether crime related or something else, and not about hot blonds... I honestly don't know what to say to that

You missed the part where I said above that the US, and I would say Brazil, (but I'll let @mrzz speak for his own country,) have basically always been one of mixture and assimilation. That defines who were are, in many ways, at least here in the US. Which is very different from you in the UK, and other countries in Europe who tended to define as monocultural societies, with a dominant religion, until more recently. So you're suffering the pains of it, and not dealing with it very well, according to you. But please don't tell me that it's going to come back to haunt us, as it does you. Since we've been doing it a lot longer, I'd argue we do it a lot better.

You have completely missed the point that both @britbox and I have brought up. The re-allocation of resources away from tax payers. The fact that the police and media seem to treat immigrants better than locals. Hell if you have a Union Jack these days you're a member of the far right. But people can have Palestinian or other foreign flags waving with no concerns. This is NOT as simple as cultural assimilation problems. With all due respect the United Kingdom was doing that stuff a thousand years before America was a fart in a cow's ass. And even in the last few centuries the UK has had a well documented history. We have the Commonwealth don't forget. What we are talking about here, specifically is how the government is acting

If you're making it about crime, which Trump is trying to do, crime has been down for decades in this country.

lol! You have a way of trying to frame other people's responses in a very narrow way to suit your purposes. Crime is a concern for sure, but that's not the headliner here. I'll say it again for the cheap seats.. THERE ARE PARTS OF THE UK WHERE THEY ARE USING SHARIA LAW. When I said...

That's not happening in the United States or Brazil as far as I'm aware, so you're welcome to feel how you folks feel, get back to me when things like that are happening where you live..

it was because of that, but somehow you're talking to me about hot blondes and crime

 

[Federberg]

Here’s quick socialism lesson from a uni in Sweden for New Yorkers who are thinking to vote socialist.

It not only doesn’t work, but it can’t work because it’s opposed to the human instinct.

they can do the experiment a million times and the outcome will always be the same. I don't even believe the progressives even really believe in it. The fundamental problem is that they conflate their will and aspirations with the State. Those of us who are more conservative minded see the State at best as a necessary tool that must never be allowed to grow too significant otherwise it will do more harm than good..

 

[Kieran]

they can do the experiment a million times and the outcome will always be the same. I don't even believe the progressives even really believe in it. The fundamental problem is that they conflate their will and aspirations with the State. Those of us who are more conservative minded see the State at best as a necessary tool that must never be allowed to grow too significant otherwise it will do more harm than good..

Exactly. The most eye-popping part of the experiment was the demoralising effect it had on the most hard working students, that they also went into the downward spiral of losing motivation to make their lives better. Because, presumably, they can’t make their lives better under socialism.

The only people whose lives become better under socialism are the ruling class, who skim off whatever cream is available for themselves…

 

[Moxie]

well first of all, I've always been an equal opportunity employer, so even if there were fewer blonds in Stockholm now, it wouldn't deter me. The hotness would be all that matters! As for your not being able to infer that my concern was about cultural degradation, whether crime related or something else, and not about hot blonds... I honestly don't know what to say to that

Well, thank goodness for that, anyway. But don't blame your lack of clarity on me.

You have completely missed the point that both @britbox and I have brought up. The re-allocation of resources away from tax payers. The fact that the police and media seem to treat immigrants better than locals. Hell if you have a Union Jack these days you're a member of the far right. But people can have Palestinian or other foreign flags waving with no concerns. This is NOT as simple as cultural assimilation problems. With all due respect the United Kingdom was doing that stuff a thousand years before America was a fart in a cow's ass. And even in the last few centuries the UK has had a well documented history. We have the Commonwealth don't forget. What we are talking about here, specifically is how the government is acting

I don't ignore the fact that there was cultural mixing in the UK for centuries. But never so pronounced as now, which is what you are complaining about. But if I seem to ignore it, I'm trying to keep the conversation here about US politics. I'm telling you, we come from different cultures, and yours was much more of a mono-culture. Ours has always been mixed, so what people are trying to "return" to is a lie, a myth and basically racist.

lol! You have a way of trying to frame other people's responses in a very narrow way to suit your purposes. Crime is a concern for sure, but that's not the headliner here. I'll say it again for the cheap seats.. THERE ARE PARTS OF THE UK WHERE THEY ARE USING SHARIA LAW. When I said...

That's not happening in the United States or Brazil as far as I'm aware, so you're welcome to feel how you folks feel, get back to me when things like that are happening where you live..

it was because of that, but somehow you're talking to me about hot blondes and crime

If you were actually clear, I wouldn't have to guess. Don't give me shit for guessing wrong.

I heard your bit about Sharia Law. As above, I'm saying let's discuss UK politics on the appropriate thread. But, for the record, I looked it up. There is NO Sharia Law in the UK. There are Sharia Councils, but they are not binding by law, and cannot supersede UK laws. Apparently, there are Sharia Councils in the US, but people don't seem to be freaking out about them as much here. Attempts to dissolve them have been denied under Freedom of Religion.

There is a way to read what these councils do as benign. They council believers on the way to follow their faith. One issue is about divorce. I'm not going to pretend to know much about the Islamic faith or what it dictates. But think of it this way: the Catholic Church doesn't allow divorce, as an example, although divorce is legal in the US. Divorced Catholics are divorced in the eyes of the law, but not in the eyes of the Church. Therefore, a Catholic can divorce, but no longer participate in the sacraments of the Church. Likewise, Catholics go through pre-Cana counseling before marriage. I don't see anyone objecting to any of this.

Similarly, same-sex marriage is legal in the US. (For now.) That doesn't mean that your Church, Temple or Mosque has to agree to marry you. If you break the bonds with your faith, that's your choice. You may lose privileges or status with your faith, but the contracts with the State, and rights and privileges thereof are binding. This is why separation of Church and State, as enshrined here in the US, (for now) is important. We are not governed by one religion. We are not of one religion. And atheists have rights, too. There is a freedom to have no religion.

As far as you warning us: Oh, wait until it happens to you. I don't so much buy it. This is why I say we've been multicultural, all along. It matters that we're more used to it, and have been absorbing it forever. Ours is a much more fluid society. If we can withstand the onslaught of demagoguery from Trump.

 

[Federberg]

Well, thank goodness for that, anyway. But don't blame your lack of clarity on me.

I don't ignore the fact that there was cultural mixing in the UK for centuries. But never so pronounced as now, which is what you are complaining about. But if I seem to ignore it, I'm trying to keep the conversation here about US politics. I'm telling you, we come from different cultures, and yours was much more of a mono-culture. Ours has always been mixed, so what people are trying to "return" to is a lie, a myth and basically racist.

If you were actually clear, I wouldn't have to guess. Don't give me shit for guessing wrong.

I heard your bit about Sharia Law. As above, I'm saying let's discuss UK politics on the appropriate thread. But, for the record, I looked it up. There is NO Sharia Law in the UK. There are Sharia Councils, but they are not binding by law, and cannot supersede UK laws. Apparently, there are Sharia Councils in the US, but people don't seem to be freaking out about them as much here. Attempts to dissolve them have been denied under Freedom of Religion.

There is a way to read what these councils do as benign. They council believers on the way to follow their faith. One issue is about divorce. I'm not going to pretend to know much about the Islamic faith or what it dictates. But think of it this way: the Catholic Church doesn't allow divorce, as an example, although divorce is legal in the US. Divorced Catholics are divorced in the eyes of the law, but not in the eyes of the Church. Therefore, a Catholic can divorce, but no longer participate in the sacraments of the Church. Likewise, Catholics go through pre-Cana counseling before marriage. I don't see anyone objecting to any of this.

Similarly, same-sex marriage is legal in the US. (For now.) That doesn't mean that your Church, Temple or Mosque has to agree to marry you. If you break the bonds with your faith, that's your choice. You may lose privileges or status with your faith, but the contracts with the State, and rights and privileges thereof are binding. This is why separation of Church and State, as enshrined here in the US, (for now) is important. We are not governed by one religion. We are not of one religion. And atheists have rights, too. There is a freedom to have no religion.

As far as you warning us: Oh, wait until it happens to you. I don't so much buy it. This is why I say we've been multicultural, all along. It matters that we're more used to it, and have been absorbing it forever. Ours is a much more fluid society. If we can withstand the onslaught of demagoguery from Trump.

lol! As usual you're stubbornly ignoring what I've said. What weird debate classes you must have attended. I had to chuckle when I saw your comment about Sharia law. Of course constitutionally it doesn't supersede UK law, why do you waste your time with such vapidly obvious statements. I'm talking about what's happening in the real world. There are parts of the major cities where the police choose not to enforce their authority. That would be bad enough, but when we have an epic national scandal with the grooming of teenage girls by a specific immigrant community and politicians have actively tried to hide or minimise the crimes, and ALSO turn a blind eye to their self policing/adjudicating activities we have a PROBLEM. And then when anyone complains about it, they're accused of being racist! Let's get it straight, we are discussing this issue on this thread because some of us are pointing out the blindingly obvious harms of unchecked immigration. It's a perfect example.

Typical liberal, that you are, you're trying so hard to be progressive and understanding. It's like your ears are being chopped off, and instead of protecting yourself, you would rather waste time lecturing us to respect the fact that the perpetrator carrying knives has a particular cultural significance that requires our consideration

 

[Moxie]

lol! As usual you're stubbornly ignoring what I've said. What weird debate classes you must have attended. I had to chuckle when I saw your comment about Sharia law. Of course constitutionally it doesn't supersede UK law, why do you waste your time with such vapidly obvious statements. I'm talking about what's happening in the real world. There are parts of the major cities where the police choose not to enforce their authority. That would be bad enough, but when we have an epic national scandal with the grooming of teenage girls by a specific immigrant community and politicians have actively tried to hide or minimise the crimes, and ALSO turn a blind eye to their self policing/adjudicating activities we have a PROBLEM. And then when anyone complains about it, they're accused of being racist! Let's get it straight, we are discussing this issue on this thread because some of us are pointing out the blindingly obvious harms of unchecked immigration. It's a perfect example.

Typical liberal, that you are, you're trying so hard to be progressive and understanding. It's like your ears are being chopped off, and instead of protecting yourself, you would rather waste time lecturing us to respect the fact that the perpetrator carrying knives has a particular cultural significance that requires our consideration

I knew you'd give me shit for seeing the reasonable within it. Doesn't reflect well on you for not wanting to hear a reasonable argument. And you don't make your argument coherently against immigration. Frankly, I had to drag it out of you. And you DID say that Sharia Law is being practiced in the UK, did you not? Well, that's not true. So don't insult my debate skills, when you tell sneaky lies, and then say, well, obviously it doesn't supersede UK law. That isn't what you said. I don't live in the UK. How am I supposed to know, beyond what you say? Until I looked it up, and it wasn't true.

 

[britbox]

Two different issues here. Moxie - you're trying to package it as a simple yes/no immigration debate. Federberg is trying to explain to you what is actually happening on the ground.

There is a two-tier justice system evolving and also an "Immigrant" > "Taxpayer" preference system for resources. As for Sharia Law - of course there is no "official" Sharia law - but there is a very "unofficial" and active sharia law - otherwise the sharia councils would serve no purpose, and hence not exist.

The issues arises when there is a class of civilizations - i.e. White indigenous girls being systematically raped by Islamic Grooming gangs. The police DID turn a blind eye on an industrial scale. Weren't you all for the "Me Too" movement back in the day? So, it's far more convoluted than just saying "It's immigration, deal with it"....

My own view is different than both of yours - I think the problems are being orchestrated at a global level.

 

[Federberg]

I knew you'd give me shit for seeing the reasonable within it. Doesn't reflect well on you for not wanting to hear a reasonable argument. And you don't make your argument coherently against immigration. Frankly, I had to drag it out of you. And you DID say that Sharia Law is being practiced in the UK, did you not? Well, that's not true. So don't insult my debate skills, when you tell sneaky lies, and then say, well, obviously it doesn't supersede UK law. That isn't what you said. I don't live in the UK. How am I supposed to know, beyond what you say? Until I looked it up, and it wasn't true.

lol! I told no lies. You just have difficulty comprehending. The fact that Sharia law is being practiced doesn't mean that it's sanctioned officially by the government. I never said it was. That was your inference.

 

[Federberg]

Two different issues here. Moxie - you're trying to package it as a simple yes/no immigration debate. Federberg is trying to explain to you what is actually happening on the ground.

There is a two-tier justice system evolving and also an "Immigrant" > "Taxpayer" preference system for resources. As for Sharia Law - of course there is no "official" Sharia law - but there is a very "unofficial" and active sharia law - otherwise the sharia councils would serve no purpose, and hence not exist.

The issues arises when there is a class of civilizations - i.e. White indigenous girls being systematically raped by Islamic Grooming gangs. The police DID turn a blind eye on an industrial scale. Weren't you all for the "Me Too" movement back in the day? So, it's far more convoluted than just saying "It's immigration, deal with it"....

My own view is different than both of yours - I think the problems are being orchestrated at a global level.

I think our differences are both profound but also philosophical. I don't think there's collusion at the global level, however I do believe that the modern state has an intrinsic desire to centralise power. The results, in reality, amount to the same thing...

 

[Moxie]

Two different issues here. Moxie - you're trying to package it as a simple yes/no immigration debate. Federberg is trying to explain to you what is actually happening on the ground.

I don't know where you get that as my position, but I would call that a gross oversimplification of what I've ever said about immigration. In this part of the discussion, I have mostly just been trying to figure out where Federberg was going with his Great Replacement theory. He's telling me what's happening on the ground...in the UK. I'm telling him why it's not the same as the US.

There is a two-tier justice system evolving and also an "Immigrant" > "Taxpayer" preference system for resources. As for Sharia Law - of course there is no "official" Sharia law - but there is a very "unofficial" and active sharia law - otherwise the sharia councils would serve no purpose, and hence not exist.

The issues arises when there is a class of civilizations - i.e. White indigenous girls being systematically raped by Islamic Grooming gangs. The police DID turn a blind eye on an industrial scale. Weren't you all for the "Me Too" movement back in the day? So, it's far more convoluted than just saying "It's immigration, deal with it"....

This is not something I know about, ie your Islamic grooming gangs. However, I looked it up. According to reports, however, is not sexual abuse in the UK still perpetuated primarily by white men? (It is. You can find a chart and a link to data here. ) In any case, this has nothing to do with how I've ever argued the "me, too" movement around here. How can I be denying what women claimed happened to them if I never even heard of it? Try to remember what "me, too" ever was. All sexual violence against women is bad. All sexual violence against anyone is bad. It happens whether immigrants are involved, or not. But I can see that "white indigenous girls" getting raped by "Islamic Grooming gangs" certainly gets people's dander up.

 

[Moxie]

lol! I told no lies. You just have difficulty comprehending. The fact that Sharia law is being practiced doesn't mean that it's sanctioned officially by the government. I never said it was. That was your inference.

That is very disingenuous of you. You said it more than once, with no clarification, because you emphasizing it to me. You should have clearer. That's dishonest.

 

[britbox]

I don't know where you get that as my position, but I would call that a gross oversimplification of what I've ever said about immigration. In this part of the discussion, I have mostly just been trying to figure out where Federberg was going with his Great Replacement theory. He's telling me what's happening on the ground...in the UK. I'm telling him why it's not the same as the US.

This is not something I know about, ie your Islamic grooming gangs. However, I looked it up. According to reports, however, is not sexual abuse in the UK still perpetuated primarily by white men? (It is. You can find a chart and a link to data here. ) In any case, this has nothing to do with how I've ever argued the "me, too" movement around here. How can I be denying what women claimed happened to them if I never even heard of it? Try to remember what "me, too" ever was. All sexual violence against women is bad. All sexual violence against anyone is bad. It happens whether immigrants are involved, or not. But I can see that "white indigenous girls" getting raped by "Islamic Grooming gangs" certainly gets people's dander up.

Your data is severely flawed because the complaint is that the cases were not being investigated - Two Tier Justice. Those people will never be "defendants" and even enter your statistics because the cases never saw court. The scale of this was astonishing. We can agree that all sexual violence against woman is bad... and white indigenous girls getting raped by Islamic grooming gangs should certainly get peoples dander up... why shouldn't it?

 

[Federberg]

That is very disingenuous of you. You said it more than once, with no clarification, because you emphasizing it to me. You should have clearer. That's dishonest.

no it's NOT dishonest. This is what I emphasised..

THERE ARE PARTS OF THE UK WHERE THEY ARE USING SHARIA LAW

How does that say it's sanctioned by the government. So if I were to say, there are parts of country X where they practice female genital mutilation does that imply that the government of country X practices FGM? I am not responsible for your assumptions. If anyone is being dishonest it's you, and very prideful as well. Please get over yourself

 

[Federberg]

I don't know where you get that as my position, but I would call that a gross oversimplification of what I've ever said about immigration. In this part of the discussion, I have mostly just been trying to figure out where Federberg was going with his Great Replacement theory. He's telling me what's happening on the ground...in the UK. I'm telling him why it's not the same as the US.

This is not something I know about, ie your Islamic grooming gangs. However, I looked it up. According to reports, however, is not sexual abuse in the UK still perpetuated primarily by white men? (It is. You can find a chart and a link to data here. ) In any case, this has nothing to do with how I've ever argued the "me, too" movement around here. How can I be denying what women claimed happened to them if I never even heard of it? Try to remember what "me, too" ever was. All sexual violence against women is bad. All sexual violence against anyone is bad. It happens whether immigrants are involved, or not. But I can see that "white indigenous girls" getting raped by "Islamic Grooming gangs" certainly gets people's dander up.

I'm struggling with your point here. So let's just say you're right, that most sexual abuse in the UK is perpetrated primarily by white men. What the flounder does that have to do with whether the government is trying hide the fact that grooming gangs were active. Are you implying in some way that white male crimes should somehow mitigate the crimes of grooming gangs? This is absurd!

 

[Moxie]

Your data is severely flawed because the complaint is that the cases were not being investigated - Two Tier Justice. Those people will never be "defendants" and even enter your statistics because the cases never saw court. The scale of this was astonishing. We can agree that all sexual violence against woman is bad... and white indigenous girls getting raped by Islamic grooming gangs should certainly get peoples dander up... why shouldn't it?

Since I don't know this story, why don't you explain it, and not assume that everyone understands what you're talking about and what your complaint is. I don't see how "my" data is severely flawed, so you could explain that, too, please.

 

[Moxie]

I'm struggling with your point here. So let's just say you're right, that most sexual abuse in the UK is perpetrated primarily by white men. What the flounder does that have to do with whether the government is trying hide the fact that grooming gangs were active. Are you implying in some way that white male crimes should somehow mitigate the crimes of grooming gangs? This is absurd!

Dude, it doesn't take that much struggling. All I'm saying is that you guys keep trying to tell me why immigration is so terrible, but I'm saying this is just what Trump does, this example: he calls immigrants "rapists", basically saying 'brown men are coming here to rape your women,' when most of 'your women' get abused on a home-grown basis. It's a scare tactic. Not that it's not a problem, or a horror. All crime is problem to be dealt with. However, it should be of concern in the same proportion that is is committed. Trump told us he was going to toss out criminals. Well, there weren't really enough for his taste, so he's had to make things up, and toss out perfectly law-abiding, hard-working people. I can't tell you what goes on in the UK, or other European countries, relative to what you say, but here, immigrants tend to be well-behaved and to keep their heads down, for obvious reasons.

 

[Federberg]

lol! You're too funny. Both @britbox and I have told you that the concern is how the State... in the Uk is responding to immigration stresses. Whether it's allocating resources to immigrants fresh off the Channel boats in preference to tax payers, or trying to hide the facts about grooming gangs. We've said it over and over again.

You say that we should be concerned in the same proportion to who is committing the crime. Well here's the thing, the white dudes are being prosecuted and if they're found guilty they go to jail. The grooming gangs? They're trying to pretend it's not happening. Do you get it now??