US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5151

On September 26 2016 16:56 FiWiFaKi wrote:


Alright, I'm getting quite tired, so this will be my last post for the night. I also want to add that I recognize that I often jump to conclusions quite quickly, but that's a product of me having thorough discussions with other people here previously, and fighting it quite tiring to defend every little position over and over that I've explained myself on many times. Providing a full argument, kind of like I am now is very exhausting.

I'll give some extreme examples to not get caught up with the grey areas:

-This asshole fucked my girl, so I'm going to shoot him
-The government is just stealing from me, so it's okay for me to steal from them
-It is my right to decide who my daughter will marry.
-If someone leaves Islam, they deserve to lose their life, also Sharia law should be the rule of the land
-I don't have to work, as the government should take care of me
-My god says I can hit women, so I will, the government can't decide that for me
-Black people are pigs who don't deserve to live, or are an inferior race
-White people have taken advantage of us for centuries, we're allowed to take what is ours back to even out history

I recognize that many things do get very grey, and it's small subtle things... And not everyone has these fundamental what I call Canadian values, even though they live in Canada, particularly the distinction between rural and urban areas.

Canadian freedoms are the simple basic stuff that everyone here is aware of, coexistence, treating everyone fairly, maximum possible freedom without infringing on others' freedoms, respect for our institutions and way of life, acknowledging and consider other's perspective, nobody is above the law.

When politicians talk about “immigration reform” they mean: amnesty, cheap labor and open borders. The Schumer-Rubio immigration bill was nothing more than a giveaway to the corporate patrons who run both parties.

My view of Quebec is that they are here, but we don't really coexist with them... And you're right, we are both Canadians, so it's not like one of us is right and wrong, since neither of us own the way things should be. However if for example, there were no Quebecois, than English Canada would have the right to decide what is Canadian and what isn't. But anyway, we live in completely segregated communities, many Quebecois wont speak English to you even though they can speak it when you're in Quebec, etc.

So do I think that being one nation makes is stronger? Not really, like we have the advantage of being larger and thus have more economic power and trading power, but if magically all of Canada was French or English (with all the history behind it, and no hurt feelings), would we be better off? Yeah, I think so... Realistically that's not possible to happen, and hence it makes sense to stay together, which is the difference I was describing between ex-ante and ex-post analysis.

Well it depends on what you decide is the cutoff for too different. I think that it's a greater percentage than that, though I don't have a concrete number for you... It's more of a sliding scale, where sure, 99.9% of these people might be good enough, but we might be better off with only 80% of them, and even though they're compatible, they're not the best we can get. And since it might be so hard for it to be able to determine a good apple from a bad apple, and we only want 80% of Muslims that apply, but we'd be happy to have say 98% of Chinese or Europeans, it might not be too far fetched to say, no Muslim immigration until our issues are sorted out (just to offer a more logical and detailed explanation of why some people might think this way).

The US situation is once again, one we already have black people there, so we don't have the option of saying nope, we're just not going to make these institutions work, because we don't really have another choice without creating excessive hardship for other people. However, by making these institutions work for them, might make it worse for the rest of us. For example, in the transition stage, one strategy might be to bring in more Black people to white communities, to spread the burden of this change, and some white people might not like that (again, it's not necessarily dependent on race, I'm only using it for simple categorization and sake of the argument).

However, when we don't have the immigrants in our country yet, we can choose... Do we want to alter these institutions, and create some hardship for the rest of us (that's a number to be determined or calculated on the specific situation), or do we just say nope, sorry, we don't want to do this, and rather we will keep our current system and only bring in people that see the world more like us.

Since the Black people are citizen of the US, we must consider their utilities when looking at the well-being of the nation (well unless we wish to take the approach of we're a majority, so we can decide how you'll be treated, deal with it, which if 80% of white people wanted, could be done (well if constitutional amendments could be made without supermajorities, but that's not what we want)), but when they are potential immigrants, their feelings don't really matter for the best interests of our society and our nation (though you might make some considerations for international relations and whatnot).

These are things that people often internalized inside of them, but it's hard to formulate these arguments into words, so maybe what I've written over the last few pages speaks to some people, and if not, maybe they can appreciate the perspective a little bit more.

edit: Yes, I realize my excessive use of identity politics in my recent arguments, please understand that the overwhelming reason is to make arguments flow smoother, as without any generalizations it's extremely difficult and lengthy to say anything.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Alexander Hamilton was suspicious even of European immigrants, writing that “the influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities.”[15] John Quincy Adams explained to a German nobleman that if Europeans were to immigrate, “they must cast off the European skin, never to resume it.”[16] Neither man would have countenanced immigration of non-Whites.

On September 26 2016 19:23 Clonester wrote:


90 minutes.

Starts 3 am here.

On September 26 2016 19:05 zeo wrote:
Man I fucking hate people that go to concerts and whatnot and spend the whole time with their phone up filming shit.

The debate is going to be on 2am where I live -.- how long do these things last?

On September 26 2016 19:57 Acrofales wrote:

Horrendously offtopic: wasn't the whole time, but I did go to a concert on Saturday and filmed some bits of songs that I felt were particularly awesome. Do you hate me too?

On September 26 2016 19:58 zeo wrote:
I have no idea, I just googled what 9pm ET would be in our timezone. I'll stay up till 2 and see what happens.

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:

On September 26 2016 21:14 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
To be fair the survey is from 2014, before the migrant crisis.
Sweden has added 350,000 muslims since then, Germany over 1.5 million.

On September 26 2016 21:44 Clonester wrote:
Also what is the message? Muslim numbers are lower then you feel like they are, so no problems here, go and get your facts straight? The prisons are fulled by people of muslim/arab-turk descent, the crime rates under muslim/arab-turk descent are higher, the unemployment is higher, there are cities with 40-50% muslim population, not even talking about special parts of cities where it is much higher. When 6% have such a high influx for the society, how big will be the influx of 10%? 15%?
And with the refugee policy by our gouvernments we are on the way there.