EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5149
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
BallinWitStalin
1177 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States41995 Posts
You're like a Christian crying "if Jesus isn't real then who wrote the Bible!?!?" at an atheist. The atheist will think you're an idiot and even other Christians will think "shut the fuck up, you're making us all look stupid". When you do shit like conflate personal finance at an individual or household level and the national finances of the United States and conclude that the US should stop spending money nobody is thinking "good point". Everybody, whether they agree with your conclusion or not, is thinking "wow, he thinks that national economic policy should be governed by the same principle as his pawpaw used to pay off their trailer". There are plenty of good arguments for fiscal conservatism and absolutely none of start with the premise "households and nations of three hundred millions basically work the exact same way so whatever is proven to be good for one of them must necessarily be right for the other". You're not equipped for this discussion and the sooner you realize that and educate yourself the better. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + After Clinton denied having a relationship with Flowers on 60 Minutes, she held a press conference in which she played tape recordings she had secretly made of phone calls with Clinton.[3] Clinton subsequently apologized publicly to Mario Cuomo for remarks he made about the then-Governor of New York on the tapes. During the press conference, Flowers was famously asked several questions by "Stuttering John" Melendez of the Howard Stern Show if she was planning to sleep with any other candidates before the election, along with if Clinton used a condom and if there ever was a threesome. She responded by laughing at Stuttering John's prank whereas her advisor wanted to ignore him by trying to answer other questions. News reports at the time speculated that the taped phone conversations between Flowers and Clinton could have been doctored;[3][4] Flowers had sold the original tapes to Star and they were never lab-tested.[5] Clinton aides James Carville and George Stephanopoulos backed this claim as well.[6] Stephanopoulos later claimed in a 2000 interview with journalist Tim Russert that "Oh, it was absolutely his voice, but they were selectively edited in a way to – to create some – some impression."[7] In December 1996, Flowers talked about her sexual relationship with Clinton on The Richard Bey Show. The show was canceled the following day. Bey later attributed a direct connection between the two consecutive events.[8] In a deposition in January 1998, while denying Kathleen Willey's sexual accusations against him, Clinton admitted that he had a sexual encounter with Flowers.[1] In 1998, Flowers admitted that she had made a total net profit of $500,000 by publicizing her alleged affair with Clinton to Penthouse, Star Magazine and other news sources.[9] In his 2004 autobiography My Life, Clinton acknowledged testifying under oath that he had a sexual encounter with Flowers. He stated it was only on one occasion in 1977 Wikipedia | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
Well said, NYT. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
On September 26 2016 13:13 BallinWitStalin wrote: I won't comment on the quality of the study because I don't care about this topic enough to bother checking out the article, but I interpreted the graph just fine. I'm actually super unclear as to what you "think" the graph displays at "first sight", it seems pretty intuitive to me. I thought the graph was just fine, I was able to interpret it correctly instantaneously.... Edit: Like, do you think the graph is saying at first glance (in France, for example) that the public perceives 39% of the population as muslims? Because that is a super un-intuitive way to interpret that graph and would be confusing as fuck if it was actually structured that way... Alright, this was more a btw detail... And simply put, the orange numbers correspond to the orange piece of the pie, that would make sense, right? Not the orange + red piece of the pie like the orange numbers represent now. That's the issue I had with it, and you're right it would be wacky otherwise, and good job for being able to interpret like that instantaneously, but having taken courses that taught data presentation skills, that is poorly done. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On September 26 2016 08:29 FiWiFaKi wrote: My fear is not getting blown up by a bomb, my fear is that a generation or two from now you'll have a sizeable chunk of the population believing in something completely different than what you learned that define your country. Maybe this is just my upbringing as part of an immigrant family, but I personally just don't see why this is a problem. Perhaps it's just a fundamental disconnect in how we view the world, but I just don't see how current American values as they are today are so sacrosanct that the possibility of my descendants being exposed to different ones is somehow a worse state for the world to be in. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
On September 26 2016 13:32 KwarK wrote: You're like a Christian crying "if Jesus isn't real then who wrote the Bible!?!?" at an atheist. The atheist will think you're an idiot and even other Christians will think "shut the fuck up, you're making us all look stupid". E.g. https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100605130428AAMPnK7 Christians: 1 Atheists: 0 | ||
Xxio
Canada5565 Posts
On September 26 2016 13:32 KwarK wrote: "households and nations of three hundred millions basically work the exact same way so whatever is proven to be good for one of them must necessarily be right for the other". Who are you quoting? | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
Momus. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
On September 26 2016 13:55 TheYango wrote: Maybe this is just my upbringing as part of an immigrant family, but I personally just don't see why this is a problem. Perhaps it's just a fundamental disconnect in how we view the world, but I just don't see how current American values as they are today are so sacrosanct that the possibility of my descendants being exposed to different ones is somehow a worse state for the world to be in. I am also an immigrant, Slovakia to Canada when I was eight. Firstly I think there's a lot of foreign influence, you know, the local citizen are happy with the way things are, and they mind their own business and enjoy life... In this cause, it's often the white people that lived here. Then you have other groups of people, whether these are Israeli, Arabic, Russian, Chinese, Indian (just to name a few I'm familiar with), and they tend to stay in groups. There's things that won't line up with their values, and in general these people will have stronger opinions about what to change, so naturally the rest of the people will be like meh okay, won't fight it. I think a good example of this is women being unhappy with the patriarchy and whatnot, and making groups, and rallying to fight for change... I'm sure a lot of guys didn't like it, but you don't have that forum, that way to unite, and so while I'm under the impression that many men were against it, it was like a meh what can I do. Anyway, more male advocacy groups have been popping up in the last few years, and that's a product of more significant male dissatisfaction. So that's the first thing, the native citizen don't get involved in the process in most cases as they are fairly happy, and the people who want a lot of change get involved... Now these can be often vocal minorities that try to turn large groups of people. The fact that Trump is winning with white people 60-40 in a two way race with no other options maybe makes a statement of how our public perception of what's right has been shaped by many vocal minorities. The next thing is the issue of assimilation. I'm a proud Canadian, I associate myself with the people, and while we won't ever agree on everything (if I did I wouldn't be here), in general yes, Canadian values are my values. Sure, I can still read and write in Slovak, and I celebrate one or two Slovak holidays, but I've embraced the new society I'm a part of, and let it define to a large extent who I am. Some people actively opposite becoming Canadian (or American), one culture that tries very hard to stay its own is Quebec that I'm familiar from here. I find that most immigrants that come to Canada or US as adults will associate themselves with their home nationality more... But the second generation immigrants, especially the European ones quite quickly embrace the culture here (except French lol). Chinese, Korean, and Indian are two other ones that from my experience come here for a better life, and embrace the values that allowed it to happen, particularly the children of the immigrants (my girlfriend's parents are chinese). On the other side of things, Middle East nationalities, Jewish, to an extent Black (although since there's so few Black people here, they have less communities to hold on to), and in general most religious regions try really hard to hold onto their previous way of life and not embrace the values of their new nation. Again, I'm not talking about giving everything up, keep some of what makes you you, but if you're immigrating to this wonderful country US/Canada, from some shithole with a corrupt government you were from (my Pakistan friends say this all the time lol), then hey, try to learn some of what made this region successful. For the reasons I discussed, that the vocal minority can sway a large swath of native citizen... It becomes similar to foreign influence, and I think that's something you want to avoid. Some of it is daydreamers trying to change the world for the better, without realizing how subtle some of the things about are society are, but are in such ways for a reason, possibly devised hundreds of years back and unrecorded... It just became the way things were done. So it's the tried and true versus the "it might work, but it's an extremely complex situation... And we don't know what will happen"... So let's take it easy, and really take our time thinking about whether this change will be positive. I guess that's the classical conservative in a nutshell, but the idea is that we're open to change, and we want change, but some people just want it a lot quicker, and we need to be like wow there. It's like the Dad telling his rebellious teenager, nope, we're still going to celebrate Christmas. Lastly (there's more, but the big ones off the top of my head, but I haven't really had time to properly think about this question before, so I appreciate you asking it)... Is that you want to pass on the information you lived with, the information that your generation and the generations before you came up with. Compared to every point in history, I don't think there's been a time when there's been so little respect for elders, but anyway. It's the more selfish, hey I hope you follow in my footsteps, and take some of what I've taught you and at least understand it. A religious community isn't going to be happy if one of its members renounces their religion, or a scientists daughter becomes an artist (he'll accept it eventually, but he doesn't really have a choice)... It's that kind of thing. Where the old ideas are looked at and then improved, and actually recognized that hey this was effective, but instead we're in this generation where we are telling people that hey, every single person that lived 50 years ago or more, was an awful awful person, a bigot, and we have nothing to learn from them. So automatically, you discard any credibility that these people may have, and you try to fabricate a new world on theory... Theory that can't analyze all the complexities of the world. So the way I want change to happen is where the native citizens acknowledge old ideas, why it was the way it was, look at the advantages and disadvantages, and improve them from there, and with caution. Not to be affected by foreign influences (unless learning from them), and not to discard the previous knowledge and wisdom. I don't know if my post was well structured, ranty, or whatever... But I tried my best to put my thoughts into words, and why I view the situation way I do. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
On September 26 2016 11:31 ChristianS wrote: So hold on, let's see if I'm understanding you right. This, as I understand it, is what's been said so far: -You started by saying that yes, Trump says crazy shit (I assume that includes racist comments like "Mexicans are rapists"), but it's all good because it works to bring attention to important issues that people otherwise ignore. -Regarding the quote of him claiming to hold a racist belief and treat other people on the basis of that belief back in the 90's, you say that sure, he said that, and you don't necessarily agree with that, but the 90's is a long time ago and everybody was a bit racist back then, and surely he's changed since then. -I ask, if he claimed to hold a racist belief in the 90's, and people don't usually change their minds on such beliefs at his age, and he's made no indication that he's changed his mind on those beliefs, and he still says racist shit, why do you think he's not racist? And you say that he's a successful businessman, and to be a successful businessman you have to be meritocratic, so if he's meritocratic he can't be racist. (This logic, if valid, would appear to prove that anyone who has succeeded in business must, therefore, not be racist) -Then you cite as one of your worries the fact that, according to census data and predictive modeling, the US will no longer be majority white in ~30 years, and you see this as concerning. First of all, I ask again: wouldn't it be easier for you to just admit that a guy who's said and done racist things in the past, made no indication that he regrets those racist things or has tried to become not racist, and continues to say racist things, is probably a racist? Second of all, you do understand that "we don't hate anyone, we just think the US ought to remain majority white" is what basically every white supremacist ever has said? I'll reply to your last part first: "we don't hate anyone, we just think the US ought to remain majority white" is what basically every white supremacist ever has said? I think that almost every person in the world would rather be surrounded by more people like him than not. Like I said in my post, it doesn't have to be a color (though I will ask the reader this - would you date/marry a person of your skin color, would you date/marry a person who is white/chinese/hispanic/native/black/indian/middle eastern/philipino?... If you said yes to all of them, good on you, most people wouldn't. It's an easy point to drive the notion that we have some inherent bias towards certain groups)... The things that really matter are the beliefs and values (though some very small amount will sometimes depend on skin color, as hopefully demonstrated through the above example), and the culture that is derived from it... Skin color is only a correlating factor, as like people like to stick together, whether that's gay communities, black communities, church communities, etc... And hence it's like that black people will be fairly similar if they stick together. The big takeaway here is that people don't prefer certain people because of their skin color, but because of their values that are frequently strongly correlated to skin color due to the discussed reason. So sure, the white supremacist said that we want more white people, but the chinese said that I wish more chinese lived here, the Christian said i wish more people were Christian, the feminist said that I wish more people were feminists. As for your other post, with your logic that opinions can't change from age 50 to age 70, then probably 95% of the people in the US that are age 70 would be disqualified from being president on that criteria alone (I welcome some historic statistics of racism vs year of different age groups going back to WW2). He might have some slight personal racism inside of him, but I don't get the impression that it's affected his campaign, the message he's sending, or the decisions he'd make in office. Some things are business, some things are personal... Bill Clinton's affair was personal (or should have been), and his vice didn't take away his professional performance in office. In my eyes you're grasping at straws. Trump's whole life, much like Hillary's, has been very well documented... Nobody in the world is a saint, and I can guarantee you that anyone with as much exposure as Trump or Hillary... We'd be able to dig up so much dirt on any of these people. The good news is, we're able to also dig up a lot of the good they've did, and I think for Trump, he did immense good. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17852 Posts
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/indigenous/canada-still-discriminating-against-first-nations-kids-1.3474592 http://www.tolerance.cz/courses/papers/hutchin.htm http://www.amnesty.ca/our-work/issues/indigenous-peoples/indigenous-peoples-in-canada/discrimination-against-first-nations https://unchronicle.un.org/article/discrimination-aboriginals-native-lands-canada Seems that the First Nations citizens themselves, and their advocacy groups, disagree with you... In particular, the last link is quite interesting, as it shows that a lot of the problems facing African Americans in the US, are faced by First Nations citizens in Canada. E: also, your looking down on Quebecois as a group that "resists integration" is pretty ignorant of their culture. Might as well say it's the English who resist integration into French Canada. Or does numerical superiority mean they should just suck it up and accept their English overlords? | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
Yes, especially as someone from a city surrounded by many First Nation's tribes, as a whole, we don't like them at all (not me specifically, just speaking for the overwhelming majority), just something that needs to be put up with because we're people and not monsters. I am not looking down on the Quebecois lol. They're a part of Canada, always have been, and they've fought hard for their rights. We've worked together through thick and thin. I've spent half a dozen years too many learning how Canada came to be, and the history of every group in Canada, and remembering the names of some 50 First Nation's tribes in Canada, so please don't assume. That said, if you're going to bring immigrants to the English speaking part of your country... Don't bring the Quebecois. In Canada, they are a part of us, just like the Natives are, so of course we can't just throw them out (of course there's plenty of conflict too, and Quebec was very close to leaving Canada it the past). But if you don't have them, these people wouldn't be at the top of your list, though the ones who are wanting to immigrate and have such high standards of living would probably be very open-minded, otherwise they wouldn't be immigrating. On what I just mentioned, I think that's an extremely good reason why we love European immigrants so much in any Western country. Anyway, I'm trying to state facts, I'm trying to get them across quickly and crisply, I'm not trying to incite an emotional reaction, and this is the last thing I want to spend time justifying. | ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On September 26 2016 15:17 FiWiFaKi wrote: Apologies, I should have been more careful with my terminology, and didn't mean to offend the First Nations of Canada. By "Native citizen" I was referring to European settlers who've lived in western society for a couple generations or more (or any settlers in Canada that lived that live the Western lifestyle, just so happens they are almost all originally European). The lifestyle that they passed down to the rest of us. Yes, especially as someone from a city surrounded by many First Nation's tribes, as a whole, we don't like them at all (not me specifically, just speaking for the overwhelming majority), just something that needs to be put up with because we're people and not monsters. But you did, you called white people native citizens. They arent, they are immigrants just like everyone else. The only people that can stake a claim to native are first nations. The fact that you even made the careless slip means you werent even thinking about them. Which is slipup your average Harper horny nationalist makes, and the only thing they always have to walkback on. I guess it must the PC culture, some of it rubs off. I have been living in Canada for just over a year. I think it is the highest form of absurdity to suggest that any and all citizens acclimate their values to whatever you think the "native values" are. Follow the law, friendly to people and your neighbor, be a good upstanding citizen, contribute to society and pay your taxes. If thats your idea of it, fine, we are in agreement. Beyond that who you choose to associate with, how you do it and when you do it is upto you.. If your culture is strong celebrate it, if you find the aspects of culture new to you appealing enjoy them aswell. Dont like something? Is it to anyone detriment? No ? Let it be. Isnt that a fundamental component of freedom people? You might not like it because it doesnt match your european judeo christian values but thats your problem. Im not sure you have realized this but even the communities you think assimilate easily (if that was the point you are making?) are pretty ethnocentric just as much if not more than the ones you suggested have a problem assimilating. Go to Markham just outside Toronto, or Missisauga or Milton and tell me what the dominant races are there and how the communities have segregated themselves. Why? Because alot of their values "dont" align with Canadian values and the communities pop up to reinforce their own. And frankly as long as people are happy and society is functioning Whats the problem with that ? I have plenty of friends of pretty much every ethnicity. But Im not going to look at a bunch of Gwailo boys and be like, dayem they dont share our values. My personal values are pretty western, but I would never look at someone and hold my nose at them for not sharing them or that they are doing it wrong. The great part about being Canadian is the embrace of the diversity and that you are free to do what you want as long as you meet a few pretty basic criteria. Your eurocentric judeo christian values should have absolutely no say as being the only values that can be "Canadian" and everything else is not. Because you decided it. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
If you want a good laugh, go to the Australian immigration website, and fill out their little questionnaire as if you're living in Canada, and what kind of requirements you need to meet to immigrate... And then do the same by choosing any muslim middle eastern country of your own choice. I don't hold my nose as people who don't share my values, by if they negative effect mine, then I'll speak out against it. If some country wants to have Sharia law and I'm not being affected, so be it, but the reality is when you're surrounded with people with completely different values to you, you will be affected. You know the saying, you're the average of the people you hang out with, and these people will rub off onto you. And I'm a hard agnostic, borderline atheist, and I did not choose my values based on any religious affiliation... I described it in detail in the past, make some assumptions about the world, some axioms if you will, and build your beliefs and values from there, that's what I did. On September 26 2016 15:28 Rebs wrote: Im not sure you have realized this but even the communities you think assimilate easily (if that was the point you are making?) are pretty ethnocentric just as much if not more than the ones you suggested have a problem assimilating. Go to Markham just outside Toronto, or Missisauga or Milton and tell me what the dominant races are there and how the communities have segregated themselves. Why? Because alot of their values "dont" align with Canadian values and the communities pop up to reinforce their own. And frankly as long as people are happy and society is functioning Whats the problem with that ? I think that's a superficial society is functioning. The more differences we have that segregate us, the more these will amplify with time, and hurt as more in the future. We want to strive to unify everyone together, and if we can't then why be one nation? In theory the beauty of multiculturalism in Canada is that we have people from all over the planet, we all has something that is unique about us, but we're all Canadian. We can easily share our immigration story between each other, whether we immigrated from Pakistan or Ukraine... As long as we all love Canada and what we stand for it's okay. The problem is when you might have a community that starts killing cops because they think they are bad people, and trying to create their own community on other values for example. Anyway, apologies for having to read Canada so much - I used Canada as an example so I could give more specifics that I'm familiar with, the morals of the stories should translate very well. | ||
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
On September 26 2016 15:07 FiWiFaKi wrote: I'll reply to your last part first: "we don't hate anyone, we just think the US ought to remain majority white" is what basically every white supremacist ever has said? I think that almost every person in the world would rather be surrounded by more people like him than not. Like I said in my post, it doesn't have to be a color (though I will ask the reader this - would you date/marry a person of your skin color, would you date/marry a person who is white/chinese/hispanic/native/black/indian/middle eastern/philipino?... If you said yes to all of them, good on you, most people wouldn't. It's an easy point to drive the notion that we have some inherent bias towards certain groups)... The things that really matter are the beliefs and values (though some very small amount will sometimes depend on skin color, as hopefully demonstrated through the above example), and the culture that is derived from it... Skin color is only a correlating factor, as like people like to stick together, whether that's gay communities, black communities, church communities, etc... And hence it's like that black people will be fairly similar if they stick together. The big takeaway here is that people don't prefer certain people because of their skin color, but because of their values that are frequently strongly correlated to skin color due to the discussed reason. So sure, the white supremacist said that we want more white people, but the chinese said that I wish more chinese lived here, the Christian said i wish more people were Christian, the feminist said that I wish more people were feminists. As for your other post, with your logic that opinions can't change from age 50 to age 70, then probably 95% of the people in the US that are age 70 would be disqualified from being president on that criteria alone (I welcome some historic statistics of racism vs year of different age groups going back to WW2). He might have some slight personal racism inside of him, but I don't get the impression that it's affected his campaign, the message he's sending, or the decisions he'd make in office. Some things are business, some things are personal... Bill Clinton's affair was personal (or should have been), and his vice didn't take away his professional performance in office. In my eyes you're grasping at straws. Trump's whole life, much like Hillary's, has been very well documented... Nobody in the world is a saint, and I can guarantee you that anyone with as much exposure as Trump or Hillary... We'd be able to dig up so much dirt on any of these people. The good news is, we're able to also dig up a lot of the good they've did, and I think for Trump, he did immense good. I don't want my country to be anything else other than a majorly white. I would tailor immigration politics to fit this agenda. This is not racist is any way, nor is it white supremacist. Its a basic national right for a country to identify itself as a country of primarily whites/blacks/jews/asians/whatever. | ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On September 26 2016 15:38 FiWiFaKi wrote: Given that you choose who's going to come into your country and who isn't... I think you have every right in the world to determine who you'll bring into your country. If you want a good laugh, go to the Australian immigration website, and fill out their little questionnaire as if you're living in Canada, and what kind of requirements you need to meet to immigrate... And then do the same by choosing any muslim middle eastern country of your own choice. I don't hold my nose as people who don't share my values, by if they negative effect mine, then I'll speak out against it. If some country wants to have Sharia law and I'm not being affected, so be it, but the reality is when you're surrounded with people with completely different values to you, you will be affected. You know the saying, you're the average of the people you hang out with, and these people will rub off onto you. And I'm a hard agnostic, borderline atheist, and I did not choose my values based on any religious affiliation... I described it in detail in the past, make some assumptions about the world, some axioms if you will, and build your beliefs and values from there, that's what I did. I know what immigration websites look like. I have travelled to over 15 countries with a passport (and still do) from one of those countries. I went to Australia and NZ as early as last march. I promise you my knowledge of travel and immigration requirements to pretty much any country just by virtue of experience far exceeds anything you have to deal with. Also "you dont" decide who comes into your country, your government and its requisite department does. As an example you probably have no clue that their are programs in Calgary and the maritimes that target people specifically form these "Middle eastern and subcontinental country's" for jobs that "native" canadians dong want to take right ? Alot of cross country trucking jobs for example are advertise by the Government and immigration with it to boot because simply no Canadian is doing them. Its a shit job that has you driving back and forth across one of the largest landmasses for 3 months at time. FYI Aussies did the same thing, they also promote immigration based on requirements. The last 2 bubbles for immigration were business pros/accountants and tech/it sectors respectively. Where do the "values' go then ? And again if you have a problem with being affected by values that you seem to have a problem avoiding, if they are not in anyway malicious and you just dont like them. Thats your problem. | ||
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
On September 26 2016 08:57 TheDwf wrote: Rose so rapidly that there is now a terrifying proportion of... 6% Muslims in Europe (factoring in the countries with a majority of Muslim in South East Europe). Guess we'll have to wait a few centuries before wearing turbans, uh? But medias did such a nice propaganda job that they managed to convince millions of people of the existence of an unstoppable force: ![[image loading]](http://www.levif.be/medias/3483/1783681.jpg) Nah not few centuries. A lot less actually. Here, if you have the time; + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
I'm done with our discussion. If you can't correctly interpret my statement: Given that you choose who's going to come into your country and who isn't... I think you have every right in the world to determine who you'll bring into your country. And reply with you don't decide, your government does, demonstrates to me you have no interest in having a discussion, and have no interest in trying to understand what I say. Have a good day. On September 26 2016 15:39 NukeD wrote: I don't want my country to be anything else other than a majorly white. I would tailor immigration politics to fit this agenda. This is not racist is any way, nor is it white supremacist. Its a basic national right for a country to identify itself as a country of primarily whites/blacks/jews/asians/whatever. I don't think that would make your country racist. If I treat everyone very nicely, but I only choose to make my close friends of a certain group (doesn't have to be ethnic)... I'm not racist. Israel is much the same, Jewish people just want their own space. I have a Jewish friend who just finished University, and he's moving to Israel simply because there isn't a community he's looking for here. Israel wants Jewish people to come there, I don't think it means they don't like other people, or can't coexist with them (they don't like a lot of Muslims in general, sure). Either way, I've been focusing so much at getting the point across that it's not about skin color, but it's about the beliefs and values of the people, and whether they match up. | ||
| ||
