|
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. |
On February 13 2017 18:42 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2017 18:15 Slydie wrote:On February 10 2017 22:49 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:
I think we missed the key, immigrant problem is not only about proving statistics. We need statistics to make a clear barriers and visualisation of a problem. And even tho all the problems in our society comes from cultural/wealth/religion/any other minor thing differences we need to make a specific "rules" for such problems, these rules should be able to be shifted fast enough in order for better people adaptation.
So we got two different groups of immigrants, the ones who looking for sanctuary let's say, and the others who is looking for an "american dream". While second group obviously would have better and more useful impact on locals overall, the first one may cause some issues and that's why it would be important to make a closer look. And if u want to prevent any kinds of threats from group #1 - u have to make it with specific regulation.
As an example:
- country "A" creates special quota for refugees considering it's own population and country size and economical power let's say for a 500,000 of units for 5 years
- these quota may be separated for refugees from different let's say continents
- if any refugee stays employed for let's say 3 years and has no crime activity - gets citizenship so that clears overall quota for 1 unit
In order to get to the sanctuary in county "A" any refugee needs to
- prove it's identity (age, name, nationality, religion) - so this is the way to check for anything bad those person already made or related with
- pass the language test on local/english language - in order for a smooth and faster integration to a society
- pass specific culture exam or test that related to local country/region
- if a refugee stays unepmployed withit let's say 6 moths - deportation
- if a refugee commits the smallest crime within 12 months - deportation
- making a specific flexible regulations for single females/pregnant females/disabled people
In other words this list looks like VISA conditions, but that's much less conditions needed in comparison to wealthy group 2 of immigrants i'd say.
That's just my thoughts but when I started to write down these examples it was easier than I though by the end.
Providing some kind of these policies potentially helps any who involved, locals and refugees, cause those would be mostly "useful" refugees, the problem comes what to do with the rest who wasn't able to pass the tests.
I have a hard time reading that where these refugees are coming from is not even a part of the equation. People do not flee from their homes easily, there are some very good reasons why the Syrians come now and not 10 years ago. Parts of their country is absolute hell, and it is becoming more and more of a proxy war, with various foreigners fighting on their soil. And the number for Europe are extremely small! There are millions of refugees inside Syria, in Turkey and Lebanon. Europe should do a lot more! Many of the syrians are well educated, resourceful people. We should fight over who is getting the best ones, not how we should send them all back to the mega-camps in Turkey. Refugee camps are terrible places! You survive, but you do not live, and the only future there is to continue to be refugees. We should help them defeat ISIS in Syria, and send them all back to form a democratic opposition to Assad, who should be under close scrutiny for fair play. Educate the poor to help rebuild their agriculture and general infrastructure, etc. If we drain all the quality non-violent people out of Syria, there's just going to be scumbags looking to fight and abuse those too weak to flee from them and there will be hordes of children growing up in that kind of atmosphere. The situation has long changed. With the help of Russia, Assad has won. The opposition have been arrested, jailed, tortured and executed. Tens of thousands have been executed and dumped in mass graves and those are the ones we know about. There will be no ending for those who return except the same.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
when you are trying to neutralize something like radical islam, it makes all the sense in the world to cultivate some well adjusted, moderate muslim voices that would be taken seriously in their own identity group.
refugees are basically ideal starting points for creating or bolstering 'muslim role model' communities in the west. it's not that bad if only you guys could fix your set in stone labor markets.
|
We can start with supporting a moderate voice by arming moderate rebels who will kill off both leaders we don't like and ISIS... in moderation of course.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
uh i was talking about refugees in europe.
|
United States41117 Posts
|
Fantastic. It's time to pay up.
|
Most EU countries are already increasing defense budgets at the moment. Mattis is behind the facts. The countries most endangered are already at or near the 2% target anyway. Most countries in NATO aren't really threatened anyway. The US is also the only country to invoke article 5 of NATO and actually dragging everyone into a war. I find the whole 'we're paying for your security thing' a little stupid when NATO has always shown solidarity with the US. That's not to say that we shouldn't increase our defense spending to 2% of GDP but a bit of nuance is warranted.
|
I expect "moderating US commitment" either way. Either they have an excuse to pull back because the Europeans aren't paying their fair share, or they play a bigger role and so less American involvement is needed.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
meh this was the policy for years. just get them to spend on real things and readiness. buy the f35 merkel
|
It's notoriously hard to get countries to actually buy the and organise defense spending the way it ought to be organised because there's lots of national politics involved and everything gets produced tenfold. A closer European defense Union probably wouldn't hurt.
|
On February 16 2017 03:42 Nyxisto wrote:
It's notoriously hard to get countries to actually buy the and organise defense spending the way it ought to be organised because there's lots of national politics involved and everything gets produced tenfold. A closer European defense Union probably wouldn't hurt.
Agreed. But good luck getting closer European coordination on anything right now, with populist anti-EU parties breathing down the necks of people trying to get reelected all over the continent.
|
i shall watch how them Putinians will come and wash over the EU; then look at US squirm on twitter.
|
The PNF announced today that it would not drop the Fillon case, and that they will continue the investigations. Basically this means that they have enough serious elements against Fillon.
Fillon lost between 7 and 10 points in polls since its victory at the primary.
In some fairly big poll today (sample = almost 16k people), people were asked about which one of the following sentences would better describe their reaction to the revelations about the Fillon case:
I felt angry: 47%
Above all, I am disappointed: 30%
I don't care: 12%
I support him: 2%
I am outraged by the attacks against him: 9%
About the origins of the Fillon case:
Fillon is the victim of a plot, it's a political case to discredit him and prevent him from being candidate: 23%
Fillon isn't victim of a plot, he has to explain those facts and justice will have to decide: 77%
Now the funny part is the distribution when linked with political opinion/proximity: while only 6% of left sympathizers think there is a plot, the number rises to 47% for the right (27% for the FN, 17% for no political proximity). Talk about partisanship...
Fillon still refuses to withdraw. He's dragging his political family to suicide and the whole campaign to the bottom, since his case saturates the media space. We're 2 months and 1 week away from the first round and there is almost no serious political debate going on because of that. [The topic of the day is... an apology of the colonization from the right and the far-right because they're mad at Macron for calling it “a crime against humanity” while in Algeria!!]
Mediapart and another newspaper revealed new stuff about suspicions of fictious work for Le Pen. There are so many cases going on around the Front National, yet she's somehow not under the same fire as Fillon. Every non-FN voter already knows that her party is the most corrupt and dishonest, but her electorate won't care or will think that it's some “media plot” against her anyway...
This campaign is absolutely mind-boggling. The volatility of the electorate seems at an all-time high (80% of the French people think it's a bad campaign so far). This is the most critical election since, uh, decades; yet (hence?) so far it's a complete sh*tstorm.
|
The Russians? Hardly. The real threat here comes from a NATO member.
|
The Fillon scandal is a perfect example of why a parliamentary system is superior to a presidential one. People affiliated with Les Républicains are either forced to vote against their party or vote for a corrupt guy. If instead the Head of Government were selected by a majority vote in the legislature, then Fillon could easily be shuffled out at this stage and replaced by somebody who sucks less.
Le Pen's polarized popularity is a perfect example of why elections should be decided by instant-runoffs or the Condorcet method, not FPTP (even if it's two-round). Two-thirds of the country desperately hates her, but she's going to have a real shot of winning because her opponents are unpopular and fractured.
If I were French I'd probably vote for Hamon.
|
Where did the Fillon voters go? I see Fillon dropping in the polls but I see no clear trend in who gained from it.
|
Macron on one side, LePen on the other, probably the core didnt move or just doesnt chose right now.
|
|
|
On February 17 2017 03:58 LightSpectra wrote:
The Fillon scandal is a perfect example of why a parliamentary system is superior to a presidential one. People affiliated with Les Républicains are either forced to vote against their party or vote for a corrupt guy. If instead the Head of Government were selected by a majority vote in the legislature, then Fillon could easily be shuffled out at this stage and replaced by somebody who sucks less.
Le Pen's polarized popularity is a perfect example of why elections should be decided by instant-runoffs or the Condorcet method, not FPTP (even if it's two-round). Two-thirds of the country desperately hates her, but she's going to have a real shot of winning because her opponents are unpopular and fractured.
If I were French I'd probably vote for Hamon.
I do not think this makes much of a difference, the problem is that you cannot really switch candidates at that stage properly. You create a scenario in which the public perceives the new frontrunner as a second tier candidate, and the corruption case as proven, which still sheds a bad light on your party. Additionally, the followes who think that Fillion is not guilty, or what he did is not a big thing, will be angry with the party, which may lead to internal trouble and these voters boycotting the new party candidate nevertheless.
On the flip side, creating a parliamentary system that decides the executive system is quite a dirty type of democracy in my opinion. It becomes a party dictatorship. The parliament basically just becomes a chamber that does whatever the ruling party leaders decide. In my opinion there should always be at least two powerful and serperately elected organs in the decision making process.
|
You can have a parlamentary system whiteout the need for a ruling coalition.
You also don't need parties for it to work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
