| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6263 Posts
But you know, don't let facts get in the way. In Ankara, May was asked three times what she thought of the ban, and three times she ignored the question. Only when journalists heckled her to answer for a second time did she respond: “The United States is responsible for the United States’ own policy on refugees.” www.bloomberg.com | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9768 Posts
That is what we are now, because of Brexit. I wonder if you remember when Trump proposed a slightly similar kind of ban in his campaign, and May called it divisive and wrong. She's changed her tune now. We desperately need Trump on side, because of Brexit, so we have become a cowering nation of wimps, a Richard Hammond to Trump's Jeremy Clarkson. At least Boris Johnson has some balls. Contradicting the government's line again haha. Here's an interview with one of May's MPs who she has refused to stick up for because we need a trade deal: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38787517 "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last" Winston Churchill | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
| ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
 When the UK says that immigration from Europe is too much, you cannot really say muslim immigration isn't too much either. It's just not possible with a straight face. The only time it'll be acceptable to keep the current level of immigration from those countries is if they give visas to highly skilled secular ones not unskilled workers who are religiously active to the point of extremism. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9768 Posts
On January 29 2017 21:57 Shield wrote: I think Europe should have a similar ban or decrease their visas significantly. Enough with islamisation of Europe. When the UK says that immigration from Europe is too much, you cannot really say muslim immigration isn't too much either. It's just not possible with a straight face. The only time it'll be acceptable to keep the current level of immigration from those countries is if they give visas to highly skilled secular ones not unskilled workers who are religiously active to the point of extremism. This is completely different though. I agree with you that the current level of immigration is too high given our country's level of investment in our infrastructure over successive Labour and Tory governments. Our national systems are failing as it is, without further record levels of immigration. A total ban on anyone entering the UK from certain countries ala the Trump order would be insane though. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9768 Posts
On January 29 2017 22:49 bardtown wrote: So, to be clear, you think we should borrow more and increase our deficit beyond permitted EU levels while remaining inside the EU. The tories are already borrowing more than ever before. What I'm saying is that when our health, education, prison, police etc. are all buckling under the weight of the cuts to local Council funding something needs to be done. So yes, if that involves increasing our deficit then I very much think we should. What's the point in having a decent economy in an utter shithole of a country? | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
We are borrowing more, but the deficit is going down (because the economy is growing). This is about as gentle a solution as is possible, despite the public outrage. This is a nice little clip of young lefty being self righteous while not understanding what he is talking about. 2:40 to see the relevant bit, but it's all good. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9768 Posts
I assume you don't live in a city, right? I live in Manchester, and I can tell you, not only from recent studies and facts, but from my own experience, that the sheer level of homelessness is insane, and growing very rapidly. Not only that,but these people have had their only support networks destroyed because councils can no longer afford to help them. Would you describe it as a socialist utopia to live in a country where you can walk down the street without seeing at least 10 homeless people on the way? Us damn commies and our unrealistic expectations. Still the economy is efficiently gracing billionaires with extra billions, so why should we complain, right? Don't you think it would be nice to live in a country where our prisons are run by guards, not prisoners? I do. But the government is handing out dirt cheap contracts to G4S and expecting the least efficient prisons to run on the same budget as the most efficient. This could be fixed, but where's the economic benefit in fixing it? It isn't there. By the same token, the social care system is now completely fucked beyond repair. What is the economic value of the elderly, though? They don't have any, so fuck 'em, right? Same goes for the mental health system. What you sarcastically call a socialist utopia, I call a society with a shred of decency, that values human life beyond its economic value. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
I do live in a city for most of the year and I do see homeless people. I'm also (intimately) aware of how stretched social/health care are. I just don't think there's a simple solution. People will vote Labour again when they feel comfortable enough to afford that kind of public investment, then they'll swing back to the Tories if they feel like the economy is at risk, and so on. As resources become less scarce there will probably continue to be gradual movement to the left, but it can't happen overnight. Generally speaking we are doing the best we can with what we have. To borrow more we need more growth which is what the Tories are currently providing. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9768 Posts
There are serious problems brewing, and my major issue with the current government is that they simply wait until each service is suffering a severe emergency before actually promising to act (See Liz Truss and the prison emergency last year). My problem isn't ideological, I can leave that stuff behind, my main problem with the current lot is practical. They are struggling because they are disorganized and amateurish on everything except the economy. You can't just focus on that one thing and hope everything else will fall into place. | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
Here is what I would have wanted her to say: Q: "What do you think about the ban on refugees in the US?" (I cant remember what the original question was...) A: "This is a difficult topic. I would like to not give an answer to the question as of now because I would prefer to discuss this topic thoroughly with my colleagues and advisers first." Boom. Its that easy. You dont sound like you try to undermine democracy, you dont sound like an asshole and you dont sound like you criticise your allies. What you sound like is a reasonable authority figure who makes educated decisions like an adult. Why is this so hard? | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9275 Posts
| ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
This is a democracy and not an autarchy. I expect the leaders to talk to their people. I demand that they do that instead of acting on their own will. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9275 Posts
Your example was "What do you think about the ban on refugees in the US?". If she gave your proposed answer some stupid voter could think "wtf what is there to consult?! it's a simple question, you support the ban or not! I bet she doesn't want to answer it because she's [something bad]". It's safer to dodge tough questions like that until you or your advisers can come up with a good answer. | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
Look at what happened to may. Look at all that backlash. For what? In the end she had a spokesperson say what everybody was expecting to hear in the first place. Was that really worth it? And this isnt even the first time. It was the same story with the Trident incident. It was the same story with the brexit plans. Your political opponents are going to shittalk you all day unless you give very specific answers. | ||
|
MyTHicaL
France1070 Posts
On January 30 2017 01:28 bardtown wrote: If you force high taxes onto those billionaires you don't gain money, you lose it because they simply move to somewhere with better rates. The politics of tax is all about finding an optimum - getting as much money as possible - but that does not necessarily mean enforcing high taxes. So when the Tories cut the highest rate of tax they do so to increase revenue. This is the dumbest tory argument that sways the idiots in every country, disgusting stupid mentality. You can actually change tax laws so that if they operate and generate revenu in the country then they actually have to pay correct tax. They can run away to another country but unless they move their operations there it won't make a difference. It's kind of what the EU is trying to do to Google in Ireland, all be it that is for the entire EU it's still a step in the right direction. The answer is not to allow the 1% (.1%) to keep widening the divide in hopes that they will contribute more out of sheer benevolence. Trickle down economics does not work. The last century has proven that. Macron for President!_! | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
| ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2057 Posts
On January 30 2017 01:28 bardtown wrote: If you force high taxes onto those billionaires you don't gain money, you lose it because they simply move to somewhere with better rates. The politics of tax is all about finding an optimum - getting as much money as possible - but that does not necessarily mean enforcing high taxes. So when the Tories cut the highest rate of tax they do so to increase revenue. Ugh. As an American that's had to live through this in the '00s, and probably very shortly from now, I implore you not to believe this nonsense. Across the pond it's called "trickle-down economics" and the "Laffer curve", and it's wildly discredited--primarily because most billionaires keep most of their wealth in stocks and real estate, and there's no way to avoid the taxes on those by emigration. (You can avoid them using loopholes in taxes however, but I'm assuming we're talking about whatever happens after those loopholes are closed.) On January 30 2017 17:27 bardtown wrote: It's just basic economics. The only reason multinationals HQ in Ireland is because of its low tax rates. That's why the Irish govt. are so upset about the EU ruling. Until you create a global authoritarian regime you will never be able to stop rich businesses/individuals from finding somewhere with low tax rates, because there will always be nations that want to attract them. So your argument is that the egregious legalized tax evasion done by lots of international corps (e.g. via the "Double Irish with a Dutch sandwich") is a *good thing* because we're at least skimming 2% off them? Poppycock. Apple and Google and Intel (et al.) aren't going to stop doing business in Europe because they have to pay 12% taxes instead of 2%. | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
The PondCast
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
|
|
|
EPT
