EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 621
| 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. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Clonester
Germany2808 Posts
On December 20 2016 22:41 Dangermousecatdog wrote: There's literally a link just above his laurens. Maybe you could read it instead? And why do they have to travel all over to Germany and not...lets say, South Pakistan? | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
This also means that the armed attackers is still running free if this turns out to be true | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 20 2016 20:34 Vivax wrote: It's scary that we got used to this shit. To think that the entire US went to war cause of one act like this, but only cause the magnitude and number of casualties was bigger, or cause it wasn't everyday news back then? What's a pakistani (source: derstandard.at) getting asylum for anyway? Last I checked there wasn't a civil war going on there. I don't think anyone is actually "used to it" at all. There is a reason why people are consistently getting increasingly disillusioned with the leadership that continues to allow events like this to happen, fails to call it for what it is (a result of the really poorly conceived refugee policy), and is simply not inclined to just "get used to having more terrorism" as the French PM says. The people who are most willing to take a stand are currently being cockblocked by the fact that the ruling parties all seek to coalition however they can, as long as such a coalition will keep said anti-refugee parties from having control. I can't say for sure where it will go but I see no signs of the populist wave receding in the medium term. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1842 Posts
Be grateful for what you have! | ||
|
Vivax
22064 Posts
On December 20 2016 23:51 LightSpectra wrote: American here. I just want to say to you Europeans... no matter how much you may hate your government and your politicians, keep in mind that over here underneath Canada, we have a higher GDP per capita than almost every country in Europe, but we have a fairly useless pension system, no universal healthcare/accident insurance/unemployment insurance/life insurance, powerless/corrupt labor unions, our primary schools are almost all terrible and private ones are unaffordable, going to university leaves you with crippling debt, etc. Oh, and half the country thinks anything more left-wing than laissez-faire social Darwinist libertarianism is Marxism. Be grateful for what you have! Sure I'm grateful for that (but that's not something that has been achieved by today's politicians), it's just not very cozy to be afraid of being mowed down by nutjobs in trucks which seems to be the latest trend in the scene given how stupidly easy it is to do. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On December 20 2016 22:51 Clonester wrote: That wasn't what he was asking.And why do they have to travel all over to Germany and not...lets say, South Pakistan? On December 21 2016 00:21 Vivax wrote: How would polititians prevent lone nutjobs from stealing and driving lorries or any vehicles for that matter? This isn't the same matter as gun control in the US. Lorries are already regulated. Why are you feeling afraid in the first place? Compared with road accidents this is not even a blip in terms of mortality. In the end, there is nothing stop stop someone to simply go drive around in a 2 ton car killing people. Seems a strange to blame polititians.Sure I'm grateful for that (but that's not something that has been achieved by today's politicians), it's just not very cozy to be afraid of being mowed down by nutjobs in trucks which seems to be the latest trend in the scene given how stupidly easy it is to do. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
You are still vastly much more likely to die in a traffic accident than in a terrorist attack in Europe, yet I do not see trying to banish all the cars from out streets, I do not see parties being formed around this. The majority of us is going to die from a medical condition, a lot of those could be principially treatable, but nobody is protesting in the street for more medical research. It's really a lot like commercial flight, which is for some reason extremely safety-conscious even though it kills far less people than other means of transportation. It's like the people who are so afraid of flying that they take a car instead for "safety". How is it that when people die for reasons we are used to, it is not a problem, but when they die for reasons that can be made into a scary story in the newspaper, everything should revolve around it? I really do fear the migration wave, I fear that it will empower more and more irrationality and that the government will sway more and more towards populism and "easy solutions". I also fear that it will provide even more room to increase "security" at the expense of personal freedoms. Already in Czech we have policemen paired with soldiers, walking around even small towns waving guns - and mind you there was no terrorist attack in the country in recent history. | ||
|
Vivax
22064 Posts
On December 21 2016 00:36 Dangermousecatdog wrote: That wasn't what he was asking. How would polititians prevent lone nutjobs from stealing and driving lorries or any vehicles for that matter? This isn't the same matter as gun control in the US. Lorries are already regulated. Why are you feeling afraid in the first place? Compared with road accidents this is not even a blip in terms of mortality. In the end, there is nothing stop stop someone to simply go drive around in a 2 ton car killing people. Seems a strange to blame polititians. I'm not really afraid, I don't think my particular part of the world is concerned as I live in a village of 3000 people. Mostly speaking for those living in high risk areas. Overall you shouldn't take my post as exactly the perspective I hold for myself, which is what you're doing. I don't even blame the politicians when I'm arsed enough to care about what they are doing. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
I live in London, which probably counts as a high risk area as it has gone through several terrorist attacks. General attitude is keep calm and carry on. So who exactly are you speaking for? Why do you think politicians are to blame? We still do not know who or why the attack has taken place. I am convinced that it is a terrorist attack as it fits the general template of a terrorist attack, but it is still too early for such conjecture, especially when the original suspect appears to be innocent. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9233 Posts
| ||
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
On December 21 2016 00:38 opisska wrote: I still don't really get the logic of people who start jumping up angry about the refugees after such attack. Yeah, it was a really terrible act, but why does it demand such a systemic response? Why is it the biggest topic of conversation suddenly? You are still vastly much more likely to die in a traffic accident than in a terrorist attack in Europe, yet I do not see trying to banish all the cars from out streets, I do not see parties being formed around this. The majority of us is going to die from a medical condition, a lot of those could be principially treatable, but nobody is protesting in the street for more medical research. It's really a lot like commercial flight, which is for some reason extremely safety-conscious even though it kills far less people than other means of transportation. It's like the people who are so afraid of flying that they take a car instead for "safety". How is it that when people die for reasons we are used to, it is not a problem, but when they die for reasons that can be made into a scary story in the newspaper, everything should revolve around it? I really do fear the migration wave, I fear that it will empower more and more irrationality and that the government will sway more and more towards populism and "easy solutions". I also fear that it will provide even more room to increase "security" at the expense of personal freedoms. Already in Czech we have policemen paired with soldiers, walking around even small towns waving guns - and mind you there was no terrorist attack in the country in recent history. Because of what is happening in Sweden right now. Do some research on it and get back here with your eyes open. The"refugees" are not so friendly to us as you would like to think they are. | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
On December 21 2016 01:41 Sent. wrote: They didn't say he's innocent, only that he might not be the main suspect. It didn't have to be a lone wolf attack. You should really check your sources. The sentence literally covered both, that they have reason to believe that he may be neither the attacker nor involved at all. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On December 21 2016 02:35 NukeD wrote: Because of what is happening in Sweden right now. Do some research on it and get back here with your eyes open. The"refugees" are not so friendly to us as you would like to think they are. Can you tell me where exactly I have said that the refugees are friendly? You are arguing with a stance that you perceive in anyone who doesn't follow the right anti-refugee rhetoric, but I do not hold any such stance. Also don't be lazy, "do some research" is not a proper way to argue, if you want to present an argument, present it. I am not gonna make your case for you. I am aware that there is reportedly increase in crime and even gang violence in Sweden, but I could also quickly find polls that show that over 70 % of Swedes support their country's immigration policies and also comments that the immigration is economically productive in some rural regions that were threatened by fast depopulation. But that all is kind of tangential to the problem I have described, isn't it? Nobody was probably expecting the increase of immigrants from different backgrounds to go smooth as butter, but the real problem seem to be social issues, employment, education etc... (ironically, that's also what most reasonable analyses of Sweden say), not terrorism, which is almost surprisingly uncommon given the supposedly endless hordes of immigrants. Yet everyone is talking about terrorism and basing their decisions on it. One thing that really worries me that more and more people that I come into contact with are willing to vote almost solely on the question of migration - and for a big part, that is because of their fear of terrorism. Well, c'mon, this really needs to stop fast, or the whole democratic system is gonna go down the drain! | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
I mean, I guess it helps to have a certain amount of left-wingers and to try and get a majority, but it is just really hard and the existance of sovereign tax havens at our boarders, like Switzerland and soon UK does not make it easier at all, not to mention that we cannot really fight our inner-European tax havens like Luxemburg and Ireland to begin with. And now, since noone really can solve those issues people are voting to "take back control", "change course" and on the issues they do actually have power over. Not that most of it matters, because to actually destroy the union not just in spirit but for real you'd have to kill the economic bonds, which would kill the economy and thus the nationalist governments. But those nationalists make it even harder to overcome the really bad parts of capitalism, as they do not even seek international solutions. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
What do you Euro folk think of the "European army" push over the past however many years? I heard Farage talk about it maybe a week ago in the Euro Parliament, arguing that it would turn into a rival of NATO. That actually seems to be a popular view in the UK. What about everyone else? | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
On December 21 2016 03:20 LegalLord wrote: Some people say "more Europe" is the solution for the problems with the Europe project. Others disagree. Both sides learn the lessons they want to learn from the current crisis and so the crisis continues. What do you Euro folk think of the "European army" push over the past however many years? I heard Farage talk about it maybe a week ago in the Euro Parliament, arguing that it would turn into a rival of NATO. That actually seems to be a popular view in the UK. What about everyone else? anyone with a brain is against it | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
| ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6237 Posts
On December 21 2016 03:20 LegalLord wrote: Some people say "more Europe" is the solution for the problems with the Europe project. Others disagree. Both sides learn the lessons they want to learn from the current crisis and so the crisis continues. What do you Euro folk think of the "European army" push over the past however many years? I heard Farage talk about it maybe a week ago in the Euro Parliament, arguing that it would turn into a rival of NATO. That actually seems to be a popular view in the UK. What about everyone else? That makes no sense to me. Is the US a rival to NATO? Why can't NATO have two big militaries instead of one? As long as interests between members are aligned it doesn't make a difference and if they aren't NATO is useless anyway whether you have a European army or not. You'll just have a counterweight to the US dominance which we have now. | ||
| ||
