EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 321
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4756 Posts
| ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On October 12 2015 20:28 Silvanel wrote: The people criticizing USA for not allowing immigrants and those being against recent influx of migrants into EU are not necessarly the same people. You know Europe is a huge place and people have a lot of different views and opinions. That most likely is true, but that doesn't negate my point that folks shouldn't be throwing stones in a glass house. Europeans are very judgmental of us Americans when you guys have as many or more problems/issues than we do. You don't nearly see as many of us Americans in European threads with the bomb-throwing. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4756 Posts
With that being said the american gun releted discussions are just too bizarre to not be perplexed and participate just out of curiosity  PS.European right is just as shitty as left in case anyone wonders. | ||
|
lord_nibbler
Germany591 Posts
On October 12 2015 19:44 Wegandi wrote: I really would like to have quotes on that, because I think you will not find even 1% of Europeans, who are for the abolishment of borders (in the present time, not some ideal future).I do find it a bit humorous how Europeans come in American threads and call Americans racists for not completely opening up the borders... What I suspect they actually criticized are armed guards and people dieing of thirst in the desert for example. Because then these are the same people that criticize the EU for the drowning refugees in the Mediterranean just as loudly... | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On October 12 2015 20:56 Silvanel wrote: Well European left is often very judgmental. You know the kind of people that is very keen on bringing their perfect solution to all life problems to everyone, regardless if they want it or not. I am sure US is also full of those people. People who always know better and want to fix someone else problems. I hate those people too. With that being said the american gun releted discussions are just too bizarre to not be perplexed and participate just out of curiosity PS.European right is just as shitty as left in case anyone wonders. It's "bizarre" to people and countries who weren't founded by the very principle(s) of our Bill of Rights, and especially the 2nd Amendment. Lexington and Concord were specifically about the King disarming the colonists (they were headed to the local armories). So, to say it's bizarre for a people who's history is indebted to those people @ Lexington and Concord to support our right to defend ourselves and the very real possibility against our own Government is at the heart of who we were and who we are, is bizarre to me (why you're perfectly OK at being disarmed like peasants). Of course, we're a "new" people who held very enlightenment views and our history isn't as nearly long as the "old" countries (you, Europe..), who were long ago at that point disarmed and under the thumbs of your respective Monarchies. Perhaps that's why it is so bizarre to you, but ingrained in our being. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22373 Posts
ps. When did Europeans come into the US thread to complain about your borders other then to have a laugh at Trump's wall? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 12 2015 21:42 Gorsameth wrote: Can we leave the gun control topic at the door of the US thread, thanks. ps. When did Europeans come into the US thread to complain about your borders other then to have a laugh at Trump's wall? I was also going to ask this question. I traffic the US politics thread and the EU folks are mostly laughing at Trump and Carlson. And our inability to not have shitty police. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On October 12 2015 21:59 Plansix wrote: I was also going to ask this question. I traffic the US politics thread and the EU folks are mostly laughing at Trump and Carlson. And our inability to not have shitty police. I'd never laugh at trump, we have had the same kind of politicians in europe for decades. Trump's success is more than what europeans think it is, but it's easier to laugh at the US by quoting his misogynistic comments and reassure ourself into thinking our people are more educated. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22373 Posts
On October 12 2015 23:45 WhiteDog wrote: I'd never laugh at trump, we have had the same kind of politicians in europe for decades. Trump's success is more than what europeans think it is, but it's easier to laugh at the US by quoting his misogynistic comments and reassure ourself into thinking our people are more educated. Most of Europe is not a 2 party system tho so its unlikely for a man like Trump to 'represent' a little under half of the electorate. Note, I am not saying every Republican agrees with him, far from but there is a greater then 0 chance he will get the nomination and which point he effectively represents the Republican portion of America. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On October 12 2015 23:45 WhiteDog wrote: It's easier to laugh at the US by quoting his misogynistic comments and reassure ourself into thinking our people are more educated. To be fair, anecdotally I would say that they probably are. Not to the extent that you'd like to think, but nevertheless there is a difference in intelligence between the two from my personal experience. On the topic of immigration: there are some very different concerns involved in the US and EU immigration issues. There are legitimate grounds upon which you could denounce Muslim immigration beyond surface-level racism. In the US, the issue seems less complicated, as in all my years here I have yet to see anyone make any arguments against it that have anything to do with something other than populist protectionism. So denouncing the US anti-immigration advocates on the one hand and being opposed to EU immigration is not contradictory. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 13 2015 00:09 LegalLord wrote: To be fair, anecdotally I would say that they probably are. Not to the extent that you'd like to think, but nevertheless there is a difference in intelligence between the two from my personal experience. On the topic of immigration: there are some very different concerns involved in the US and EU immigration issues. There are legitimate grounds upon which you could denounce Muslim immigration beyond surface-level racism. In the US, the issue seems less complicated, as in all my years here I have yet to see anyone make any arguments against it that have anything to do with something other than populist protectionism. So denouncing the US anti-immigration advocates on the one hand and being opposed to EU immigration is not contradictory. This part is most definitely up for debate, in both that any of the arguments are legitimate and or not just excuses for racism/islamiphobia. The often quoted “assimilation issue” isn’t an insurmountable problem by any stretch of the imagination. And I would also point out that the anti-immigration advocates in the US make similar arguments, all the way down to the erosion of US culture and "they could be criminals". The flavor of shade they throw is different, but the root motivation the same. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On October 13 2015 00:20 Plansix wrote: This part is most definitely up for debate, in both that any of the arguments are legitimate and or not just excuses for racism/islamiphobia. The often quoted “assimilation issue” isn’t an insurmountable problem by any stretch of the imagination. And I would also point out that the anti-immigration advocates in the US make similar arguments, all the way down to the erosion of US culture and "they could be criminals". The flavor of shade they throw is different, but the root motivation the same. It's easy to make such an equivalency, especially if you only ever had the US perspective from which to judge the issue, but I have to say that you are simply wrong in thinking they are the same. Whether or not you agree with the underlying reasons, in the case of Muslim immigration, the concerns are more substantiated by evidence (Muslims and Muslim immigrants have a much less defensible history than that of Mexican immigrants). Meanwhile, although there are good reasons to oppose Mexican immigration, those aren't really being discussed - the popular debate seems to be emotional rather than logical. It's easy, although less-than-honorable, to try to say that an opposition has no point simply because you disagree with it. Doesn't make it true. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On October 13 2015 00:01 Gorsameth wrote: Most of Europe is not a 2 party system tho so its unlikely for a man like Trump to 'represent' a little under half of the electorate. Note, I am not saying every Republican agrees with him, far from but there is a greater then 0 chance he will get the nomination and which point he effectively represents the Republican portion of America. If you look at Trump, he is between 20% to 30% of Republicans at the moment (about 40%) so he represents far less than the populist-right parties, who are protrctionist and nativist, do in many EU countries. Its just the American system where he may end up being the least bad of two options for nearly 50% of the electorate in 14 months. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6274 Posts
On October 13 2015 03:00 cLutZ wrote: If you look at Trump, he is between 20% to 30% of Republicans at the moment (about 40%) so he represents far less than the populist-right parties, who are protrctionist and nativist, do in many EU countries. Its just the American system where he may end up being the least bad of two options for nearly 50% of the electorate in 14 months. yeah because far right votes are spread between multiple candidates in the US while they're concentrated on one party in European countries. It's pretty hard to compare really. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On October 13 2015 00:42 LegalLord wrote: Whether or not you agree with the underlying reasons, in the case of Muslim immigration, the concerns are more substantiated by evidence (Muslims and Muslim immigrants have a much less defensible history than that of Mexican immigrants). What the heck is a defensible history? Do Muslims now need to be extra obedient when going to Spain because the Otttomans once invaded the place? Do I need to apologize in advance when travelling to Paris? I think it's funny that you accuse other people of lacking logic while basing your entire argument on some kind of vague historical fear campaign of 'the Muslim' who invades foreign nations and destroys their culture. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On October 13 2015 03:00 cLutZ wrote: If you look at Trump, he is between 20% to 30% of Republicans at the moment (about 40%) so he represents far less than the populist-right parties, who are protrctionist and nativist, do in many EU countries. Its just the American system where he may end up being the least bad of two options for nearly 50% of the electorate in 14 months. I just posted to argued that I'm not into caricature and know full well Trump success is more than meets the eye, so don't go and caricature europe. "Protectionism" is not a bad thing in itself, and I don't really understand what nativist is. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On October 13 2015 04:09 WhiteDog wrote: I just posted to argued that I'm not into caricature and know full well Trump success is more than meets the eye, so don't go and caricature europe. "Protectionism" is not a bad thing in itself, and I don't really understand what nativist is. I'm not, Trump is ~UKIP in Britain, DPP in Denmark, Le Pen in France, Sweden Democrats. What you will notice about these parties, is that despite being considered "right wing" they rarely share the rest of a traditional conservative platform. Instead, they focus on preserving government benefits only for themselves. That second part also partially directed to RvB, which I hope clears up some of the conflation of the platforms. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On October 13 2015 03:42 Nyxisto wrote: What the heck is a defensible history? Do Muslims now need to be extra obedient when going to Spain because the Otttomans once invaded the place? Do I need to apologize in advance when travelling to Paris? I think it's funny that you accuse other people of lacking logic while basing your entire argument on some kind of vague historical fear campaign of 'the Muslim' who invades foreign nations and destroys their culture. The historic tendencies of a group of people are not to be ignored. It's easy to try to say that "it's different this time" but history has shown that it really isn't - a group of people who have violent and destructive tendencies will have them again. Recent history is quite well-populated with Islamic groups whose goals quite blatantly include the destruction of western society. It takes the most clueless kind of naivete not to take them at their word. Should Muslims be extra obedient in major transportation hubs such as subways and airports (and in general in countries where there have been recent jihad campaigns), in light of the many recent terrorist attacks committed by other Muslims? Absolutely. Should you be expected to be more courteous and respectful of local customs when traveling to Israel, Poland, or the former USSR, in light of the mass genocide committed by Germans on the inhabitants? Absolutely. The suspicion was well-earned and while no group should be persecuted for that in and of itself, the scrutiny is quite justified. Historical precedent is neither vague nor unjustified. It might be "out of fashion" among left-leaning groups, but its existence is not without purpose. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 13 2015 05:35 LegalLord wrote: The historic tendencies of a group of people are not to be ignored. It's easy to try to say that "it's different this time" but history has shown that it really isn't - a group of people who have violent and destructive tendencies will have them again. Recent history is quite well-populated with Islamic groups whose goals quite blatantly include the destruction of western society. It takes the most clueless kind of naivete not to take them at their word. Should Muslims be extra obedient in major transportation hubs such as subways and airports (and in general in countries where there have been recent jihad campaigns), in light of the many recent terrorist attacks committed by other Muslims? Absolutely. Should you be expected to be more courteous and respectful of local customs when traveling to Israel, Poland, or the former USSR, in light of the mass genocide committed by Germans on the inhabitants? Absolutely. The suspicion was well-earned and while no group should be persecuted for that in and of itself, the scrutiny is quite justified. Historical precedent is neither vague nor unjustified. It might be "out of fashion" among left-leaning groups, but its existence is not without purpose. I am pretty sure someone in the US said along these lines during WWII when we put all Japanese US citizens in camps. I bet is sounded logical and well reasoned at the time too. It was only later, when we had the distance and time to reflect that we collectively realized it was bigoted and wrong. But I’m sure the people making the call used language like “historic tendencies of a group of people are not to be ignored.” | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On October 13 2015 05:41 Plansix wrote: I am pretty sure someone in the US said along these lines during WWII when we put all Japanese US citizens in camps. I bet is sounded logical and well reasoned at the time too. It was only later, when we had the distance and time to reflect that we collectively realized it was bigoted and wrong. But I’m sure the people making the call used language like “historic tendencies of a group of people are not to be ignored.” If someone suggested that we take all European citizens of Arabic/Muslim descent and place them in internment camps, I'd like to see that. Otherwise, let's not blow things out of proportion with unwarranted slippery slope arguments. Should all Americans of Japanese descent during WW2 have been under increased scrutiny on a day-to-day basis while not being confined to internment camps? Certainly. | ||
| ||
