|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 09 2019 17:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2019 17:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2019 17:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 09 2019 17:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2019 16:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 09 2019 16:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2019 16:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 09 2019 16:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2019 16:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 08 2019 23:47 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
This forum will get way spicier if you can allege someone excuses or condones rape. I’m interested to see how it plays out. That’s funny because Trump is accused of rape, groping and sexual agression by multiple women and some posters here are apparently dedicated in defending him no matter what. It does make the forum spicier, I’ll give you that. I got a warning, if you want to know how it played out. But look at it that way, what I said about you guys is no different that what Trump said himself: that he could shoot someone on the 5th avenue, you would keep defending him. I’ll chose murder rather than rape next time, but reading this forum has taught me one thing, which is that for once he was spot on. Extreme, blind, partisanship made you totally immune to hold the guy accountable for anything at all. Let that illness spread and you can kiss goodbye to democracy in America in a matter of years. Accountability is the cornerstone of a republic. You think there's something Democrats could find out about their nominee that would cause them not to vote for them in 2020? Sure. Clinton most because people lost faith in her because of scandals that, while real, are absolutely ludicrously small compared to the shit we know about Trump. It’s the only reason she lost this otherwise unlosable election. She got 3 million more votes than Trump and she's your example of Democrats not voting for someone? I think Republicans see crocodile tears about kids in camps when Democrats reminisce about Obama despite his supplying bombs to kill innocent children. And you and me know that she should have had much, much more than 3 million extra votes. Also, her scandals were pretty minor, and the alternative was, well, effing Trump. I’m absolutely certain that any Democrat caught on tape saying he could grope women, or defending nazis sating they are fine people, or making a fake university to exploit vulnerable young people would not get elected. Nice whataboutism, for a change. Whataboutism would imply I'm opposed to recognizing Trump is a cretin or that his supporters will ignore practically anything and continue to support him, that's not the case. Please don't misuse the term, it tends to spiral. What I'm doing is simply pointing out that the critique goes both ways in that there's nothing (you supposed at least) that would stop Democrats from voting for their nominee like Republicans did theirs. Your example being someone that got 3,000,000 more votes than the Republican (but not winning) seems demonstrative of my point, not contradictory. No it doesn’t. Unless you want to argue the email scandals didn’t hurt her or that Trump got terribly handicaped by having a recording of him boasting being a sexual aggressor released a month before the election. If you really think Clinton campaign wasn’t sunk by the emails, the foundation stuff and the FBI reopening its investigation (and that’s exactly what we call accountability), we probably live in parallel universes. I’m kind of done with that part of the discussion unless there are other arguments to be made. I don’t think you will budge one bit, and you won’t convince me that democrats are as blind to what their politicians do as Trump voters. ... Obviously some people (who knows how many) didn't vote for Clinton for some reason related to something they learned during the campaigns. Unfortunately you're arguing something wholly irrelevant to my point. I'm not arguing about why Hillary lost 2016, I'm pointing out Democrats voted for her just the same as Republicans voted for Trump. PARTY______________ Clinton____Trump
Democrat_______________89______ 8
Republican______________8_______88 ropercenter.cornell.edu And do you believe that there were as good reasons not to vote for Clinton as a democrat as there were not to vote for Trump as a republican? Because you numbers are only meaningful if we consider they were equally inadequate. In good faith, I would vote for someone with Clinton record if she aligned with my opinions, and never in my life for someone with Trump’s, even if I agreed with every word of his platform. Because Clinton is under my accountability radar, while Trump explodes all the charts.
I believe there was more than enough horrific stuff to make any vote for her (or Trump) extremely suspect. I also think being better than the worst can still be unacceptable.
We aren't talking about you, we're talking about Democrats and their remarkable consistency of supporting their nominee at levels comparable to Republicans no matter what they know (as they will always point to Republicans being worse).
I think your inability to provide some bad behavior that would cause Democrats to abandon their nominee (despite examples of horrific things they've already ignored) has demonstrated the validity of my point for the time being.
|
On July 09 2019 17:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2019 17:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 09 2019 17:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2019 17:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 09 2019 17:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2019 16:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 09 2019 16:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2019 16:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 09 2019 16:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2019 16:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
That’s funny because Trump is accused of rape, groping and sexual agression by multiple women and some posters here are apparently dedicated in defending him no matter what.
It does make the forum spicier, I’ll give you that.
I got a warning, if you want to know how it played out. But look at it that way, what I said about you guys is no different that what Trump said himself: that he could shoot someone on the 5th avenue, you would keep defending him. I’ll chose murder rather than rape next time, but reading this forum has taught me one thing, which is that for once he was spot on.
Extreme, blind, partisanship made you totally immune to hold the guy accountable for anything at all. Let that illness spread and you can kiss goodbye to democracy in America in a matter of years. Accountability is the cornerstone of a republic. You think there's something Democrats could find out about their nominee that would cause them not to vote for them in 2020? Sure. Clinton most because people lost faith in her because of scandals that, while real, are absolutely ludicrously small compared to the shit we know about Trump. It’s the only reason she lost this otherwise unlosable election. She got 3 million more votes than Trump and she's your example of Democrats not voting for someone? I think Republicans see crocodile tears about kids in camps when Democrats reminisce about Obama despite his supplying bombs to kill innocent children. And you and me know that she should have had much, much more than 3 million extra votes. Also, her scandals were pretty minor, and the alternative was, well, effing Trump. I’m absolutely certain that any Democrat caught on tape saying he could grope women, or defending nazis sating they are fine people, or making a fake university to exploit vulnerable young people would not get elected. Nice whataboutism, for a change. Whataboutism would imply I'm opposed to recognizing Trump is a cretin or that his supporters will ignore practically anything and continue to support him, that's not the case. Please don't misuse the term, it tends to spiral. What I'm doing is simply pointing out that the critique goes both ways in that there's nothing (you supposed at least) that would stop Democrats from voting for their nominee like Republicans did theirs. Your example being someone that got 3,000,000 more votes than the Republican (but not winning) seems demonstrative of my point, not contradictory. No it doesn’t. Unless you want to argue the email scandals didn’t hurt her or that Trump got terribly handicaped by having a recording of him boasting being a sexual aggressor released a month before the election. If you really think Clinton campaign wasn’t sunk by the emails, the foundation stuff and the FBI reopening its investigation (and that’s exactly what we call accountability), we probably live in parallel universes. I’m kind of done with that part of the discussion unless there are other arguments to be made. I don’t think you will budge one bit, and you won’t convince me that democrats are as blind to what their politicians do as Trump voters. ... Obviously some people (who knows how many) didn't vote for Clinton for some reason related to something they learned during the campaigns. Unfortunately you're arguing something wholly irrelevant to my point. I'm not arguing about why Hillary lost 2016, I'm pointing out Democrats voted for her just the same as Republicans voted for Trump. PARTY______________ Clinton____Trump
Democrat_______________89______ 8
Republican______________8_______88 ropercenter.cornell.edu And do you believe that there were as good reasons not to vote for Clinton as a democrat as there were not to vote for Trump as a republican? Because you numbers are only meaningful if we consider they were equally inadequate. In good faith, I would vote for someone with Clinton record if she aligned with my opinions, and never in my life for someone with Trump’s, even if I agreed with every word of his platform. Because Clinton is under my accountability radar, while Trump explodes all the charts. I believe there was more than enough horrific stuff to make any vote for her (or Trump) extremely suspect. I also think being better than the worst can still be unacceptable. We aren't talking about you, we're talking about Democrats and their remarkable consistency of supporting their nominee at levels comparable to Republicans no matter what they know (as they will always point to Republicans being worse). I think your inability to provide some bad behavior that would cause Democrats to abandon their nominee (despite examples of horrific things they've already ignored) has demonstrated the validity of my point for the time being.
Because it hasn’t happen. Bro, if Clinton had been caught on tape bragging about grabbing young men by the dick, how much do you think she would have made?
Don’t dodge. Do you think she could have won an election, and that democrat supporters would have brushed it off?
|
On July 09 2019 18:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2019 17:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2019 17:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 09 2019 17:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2019 17:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 09 2019 17:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2019 16:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 09 2019 16:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2019 16:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 09 2019 16:43 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
You think there's something Democrats could find out about their nominee that would cause them not to vote for them in 2020?
Sure. Clinton most because people lost faith in her because of scandals that, while real, are absolutely ludicrously small compared to the shit we know about Trump. It’s the only reason she lost this otherwise unlosable election. She got 3 million more votes than Trump and she's your example of Democrats not voting for someone? I think Republicans see crocodile tears about kids in camps when Democrats reminisce about Obama despite his supplying bombs to kill innocent children. And you and me know that she should have had much, much more than 3 million extra votes. Also, her scandals were pretty minor, and the alternative was, well, effing Trump. I’m absolutely certain that any Democrat caught on tape saying he could grope women, or defending nazis sating they are fine people, or making a fake university to exploit vulnerable young people would not get elected. Nice whataboutism, for a change. Whataboutism would imply I'm opposed to recognizing Trump is a cretin or that his supporters will ignore practically anything and continue to support him, that's not the case. Please don't misuse the term, it tends to spiral. What I'm doing is simply pointing out that the critique goes both ways in that there's nothing (you supposed at least) that would stop Democrats from voting for their nominee like Republicans did theirs. Your example being someone that got 3,000,000 more votes than the Republican (but not winning) seems demonstrative of my point, not contradictory. No it doesn’t. Unless you want to argue the email scandals didn’t hurt her or that Trump got terribly handicaped by having a recording of him boasting being a sexual aggressor released a month before the election. If you really think Clinton campaign wasn’t sunk by the emails, the foundation stuff and the FBI reopening its investigation (and that’s exactly what we call accountability), we probably live in parallel universes. I’m kind of done with that part of the discussion unless there are other arguments to be made. I don’t think you will budge one bit, and you won’t convince me that democrats are as blind to what their politicians do as Trump voters. ... Obviously some people (who knows how many) didn't vote for Clinton for some reason related to something they learned during the campaigns. Unfortunately you're arguing something wholly irrelevant to my point. I'm not arguing about why Hillary lost 2016, I'm pointing out Democrats voted for her just the same as Republicans voted for Trump. PARTY______________ Clinton____Trump
Democrat_______________89______ 8
Republican______________8_______88 ropercenter.cornell.edu And do you believe that there were as good reasons not to vote for Clinton as a democrat as there were not to vote for Trump as a republican? Because you numbers are only meaningful if we consider they were equally inadequate. In good faith, I would vote for someone with Clinton record if she aligned with my opinions, and never in my life for someone with Trump’s, even if I agreed with every word of his platform. Because Clinton is under my accountability radar, while Trump explodes all the charts. I believe there was more than enough horrific stuff to make any vote for her (or Trump) extremely suspect. I also think being better than the worst can still be unacceptable. We aren't talking about you, we're talking about Democrats and their remarkable consistency of supporting their nominee at levels comparable to Republicans no matter what they know (as they will always point to Republicans being worse). I think your inability to provide some bad behavior that would cause Democrats to abandon their nominee (despite examples of horrific things they've already ignored) has demonstrated the validity of my point for the time being. Because it hasn’t happen. Bro, if Clinton had been caught on tape bragging about grabbing young men by the dick, how much do you think she would have made? Don’t dodge. Do you think she could have won an election, and that democrat supporters would have brushed it off?
Yes (other than the whole being a bad candidate thing). They would have moaned and groaned more than they did about her foundation, speeches, etc..but used the same "not as bad as Trump" line they used to minimize everything else.
Same goes for chumps like Manchin and Northam.
|
On July 09 2019 15:50 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
The goal for the dems always was to bring in as many illegals as possible and abolish the electoral college in favour of popular vote, to make the USA a one party system.
Of course most of current working class opposes the influx of lower skilled illegals, as it increases supply of low skill labor thus decreasing their market value/wages.Many of those lower skill jobs are disappearing anyway.Good for the wealthy who want cheap gardener/maids but that’s about it,
The goal for the right always was to have the situation at the southern border so demonized that when the climate collapse happens due to unchecked, rampant greed of the free market there'll be a wall to stop the mass of fleeing people and the populace won't care when the millitary guns them all down like it's a AA zombie defense game.
See, I can post stupid shit too.
|
On July 09 2019 18:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2019 18:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 09 2019 17:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2019 17:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 09 2019 17:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2019 17:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 09 2019 17:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2019 16:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 09 2019 16:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2019 16:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Sure. Clinton most because people lost faith in her because of scandals that, while real, are absolutely ludicrously small compared to the shit we know about Trump. It’s the only reason she lost this otherwise unlosable election. She got 3 million more votes than Trump and she's your example of Democrats not voting for someone? I think Republicans see crocodile tears about kids in camps when Democrats reminisce about Obama despite his supplying bombs to kill innocent children. And you and me know that she should have had much, much more than 3 million extra votes. Also, her scandals were pretty minor, and the alternative was, well, effing Trump. I’m absolutely certain that any Democrat caught on tape saying he could grope women, or defending nazis sating they are fine people, or making a fake university to exploit vulnerable young people would not get elected. Nice whataboutism, for a change. Whataboutism would imply I'm opposed to recognizing Trump is a cretin or that his supporters will ignore practically anything and continue to support him, that's not the case. Please don't misuse the term, it tends to spiral. What I'm doing is simply pointing out that the critique goes both ways in that there's nothing (you supposed at least) that would stop Democrats from voting for their nominee like Republicans did theirs. Your example being someone that got 3,000,000 more votes than the Republican (but not winning) seems demonstrative of my point, not contradictory. No it doesn’t. Unless you want to argue the email scandals didn’t hurt her or that Trump got terribly handicaped by having a recording of him boasting being a sexual aggressor released a month before the election. If you really think Clinton campaign wasn’t sunk by the emails, the foundation stuff and the FBI reopening its investigation (and that’s exactly what we call accountability), we probably live in parallel universes. I’m kind of done with that part of the discussion unless there are other arguments to be made. I don’t think you will budge one bit, and you won’t convince me that democrats are as blind to what their politicians do as Trump voters. ... Obviously some people (who knows how many) didn't vote for Clinton for some reason related to something they learned during the campaigns. Unfortunately you're arguing something wholly irrelevant to my point. I'm not arguing about why Hillary lost 2016, I'm pointing out Democrats voted for her just the same as Republicans voted for Trump. PARTY______________ Clinton____Trump
Democrat_______________89______ 8
Republican______________8_______88 ropercenter.cornell.edu And do you believe that there were as good reasons not to vote for Clinton as a democrat as there were not to vote for Trump as a republican? Because you numbers are only meaningful if we consider they were equally inadequate. In good faith, I would vote for someone with Clinton record if she aligned with my opinions, and never in my life for someone with Trump’s, even if I agreed with every word of his platform. Because Clinton is under my accountability radar, while Trump explodes all the charts. I believe there was more than enough horrific stuff to make any vote for her (or Trump) extremely suspect. I also think being better than the worst can still be unacceptable. We aren't talking about you, we're talking about Democrats and their remarkable consistency of supporting their nominee at levels comparable to Republicans no matter what they know (as they will always point to Republicans being worse). I think your inability to provide some bad behavior that would cause Democrats to abandon their nominee (despite examples of horrific things they've already ignored) has demonstrated the validity of my point for the time being. Because it hasn’t happen. Bro, if Clinton had been caught on tape bragging about grabbing young men by the dick, how much do you think she would have made? Don’t dodge. Do you think she could have won an election, and that democrat supporters would have brushed it off? Yes (other than the whole being a bad candidate thing). They would have moaned and groaned more than they did about her foundation, speeches, etc..but used the same "not as bad as Trump" line they used to minimize everything else. Same goes for chumps like Manchin and Northam.
See, that’s where we disagree. I think she would have done 30%.
I have seen plenty of situations with liberal, centre right or left wing voters turning against a candidate that behaved like shit. The only examples of absolute lack of accountability I can think of in recent time, where a politician behaving horrendously doesn’t seem to affect his or her popularity among sympathizers or electability is on the far right.
And again I’m not saying people don’t turn a blind eye a lot of the time on stuff they should not. Politicians are not held accountable enough all across the spectrum. But Trump is not held accountable at all.
|
All this talk of immigration, here's an interesting case:
Do you let this guy in??
https://news.sky.com/story/tommy-robinson-begs-trump-to-grant-him-asylum-as-he-faces-uk-death-sentence-11759351
Far-right activist Tommy Robinson has asked Donald Trump to grant him asylum in the US as he faces being jailed in the UK.
In an interview on the right-wing channel InfoWars on Monday, the former English Defence League (EDL) founder said: "I feel like I'm two days away from being sentenced to death in the UK.
"I beg Donald Trump, I beg the American government, to look at my case. I need evacuation from this country because dark forces are at work.
"This is a direct appeal on behalf of my family - we love the United States, I have no future here [in the UK]."
Of course he probably wishes he never got caught trying to enter the US on a false passport now.
|
On July 09 2019 19:42 Jockmcplop wrote:All this talk of immigration, here's an interesting case: Do you let this guy in?? https://news.sky.com/story/tommy-robinson-begs-trump-to-grant-him-asylum-as-he-faces-uk-death-sentence-11759351Show nested quote +Far-right activist Tommy Robinson has asked Donald Trump to grant him asylum in the US as he faces being jailed in the UK.
In an interview on the right-wing channel InfoWars on Monday, the former English Defence League (EDL) founder said: "I feel like I'm two days away from being sentenced to death in the UK.
"I beg Donald Trump, I beg the American government, to look at my case. I need evacuation from this country because dark forces are at work.
"This is a direct appeal on behalf of my family - we love the United States, I have no future here [in the UK]." Of course he probably wishes he never got caught trying to enter the US on a false passport now. Oo
He isn't in the US right? Nor hiding in the US embassy in the UK?
You can't just ask for asylum from inside a jail in a foreign country.
|
On July 09 2019 19:59 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2019 19:42 Jockmcplop wrote:All this talk of immigration, here's an interesting case: Do you let this guy in?? https://news.sky.com/story/tommy-robinson-begs-trump-to-grant-him-asylum-as-he-faces-uk-death-sentence-11759351Far-right activist Tommy Robinson has asked Donald Trump to grant him asylum in the US as he faces being jailed in the UK.
In an interview on the right-wing channel InfoWars on Monday, the former English Defence League (EDL) founder said: "I feel like I'm two days away from being sentenced to death in the UK.
"I beg Donald Trump, I beg the American government, to look at my case. I need evacuation from this country because dark forces are at work.
"This is a direct appeal on behalf of my family - we love the United States, I have no future here [in the UK]." Of course he probably wishes he never got caught trying to enter the US on a false passport now. Oo He isn't in the US right? Nor hiding in the US embassy in the UK? You can't just ask for asylum from inside a jail in a foreign country.
You can ask Trump for pretty much anything if he likes you.
|
On July 09 2019 19:42 Jockmcplop wrote:All this talk of immigration, here's an interesting case: Do you let this guy in?? https://news.sky.com/story/tommy-robinson-begs-trump-to-grant-him-asylum-as-he-faces-uk-death-sentence-11759351Show nested quote +Far-right activist Tommy Robinson has asked Donald Trump to grant him asylum in the US as he faces being jailed in the UK.
In an interview on the right-wing channel InfoWars on Monday, the former English Defence League (EDL) founder said: "I feel like I'm two days away from being sentenced to death in the UK.
"I beg Donald Trump, I beg the American government, to look at my case. I need evacuation from this country because dark forces are at work.
"This is a direct appeal on behalf of my family - we love the United States, I have no future here [in the UK]." Of course he probably wishes he never got caught trying to enter the US on a false passport now.
This is more interesting to the open borders guys than to the more mainstream position of treating immigrants humanely, but reserving the right to boot them out.
If you note, even the EU has limits on the freedom to travel: the UK denied Geert Wilders, a Dutch citizen, entry at one point. Moreover, crime, and extradition is still a national matter. Puigdemont was not extradited to Spain, because the German courts didn't feel Spain had evidence that Puigdemont had committed anything Germany would consider a crime.
Presumably Neb and GH's ideas of abolishing borders would come with a similar setup? So if Tommy had fled to the US (before being arrested), the US would have to decide whether he could be extradited to the UK for contempt of court charges? Now I know Neb and GH have an extremely low opinion of the justice system in the US, and presumably share a similar contempt for Tommy Robinson that I have. So I'd like to hear their thoughts on how they think this should be resolved 
|
On July 09 2019 20:03 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2019 19:59 Gorsameth wrote:On July 09 2019 19:42 Jockmcplop wrote:All this talk of immigration, here's an interesting case: Do you let this guy in?? https://news.sky.com/story/tommy-robinson-begs-trump-to-grant-him-asylum-as-he-faces-uk-death-sentence-11759351Far-right activist Tommy Robinson has asked Donald Trump to grant him asylum in the US as he faces being jailed in the UK.
In an interview on the right-wing channel InfoWars on Monday, the former English Defence League (EDL) founder said: "I feel like I'm two days away from being sentenced to death in the UK.
"I beg Donald Trump, I beg the American government, to look at my case. I need evacuation from this country because dark forces are at work.
"This is a direct appeal on behalf of my family - we love the United States, I have no future here [in the UK]." Of course he probably wishes he never got caught trying to enter the US on a false passport now. Oo He isn't in the US right? Nor hiding in the US embassy in the UK? You can't just ask for asylum from inside a jail in a foreign country. You can ask Trump for pretty much anything if he likes you. You can ask, and Trump can give it, but so what? He isn't in the US, he is in the UK.
UK courts won't stop prosecuting him or detaining him just because he was given asylum in a country he currently doesn't reside in.
|
I never quite understood the idea of abolishing borders in the first place tbh, and I apologize if the idea was discussed and I missed it. It seems to me that the world is way too heterogeneous for it to be concevable.
How on earth do you prevent hundreds of millions of people who live in countries where conditions are harder to flood western countries? And if you don’t, how do you hope that those countries survive and that the autochtone populations don’t turn on those innumerable newcomers?
I mean I would love the world to be more equal but politics is the art of the possible, not the art of the wishful thinking that in theory is great but can’t be done in any circumstances.
|
Tbh it's so obvious that we won't be getting rid of borders in my lifetime that I haven't spent any focus on the mechanics. But yeah a logical consequence of that would be that extradition works differently.
On July 09 2019 20:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I never quite understood the idea of abolishing borders in the first place tbh, and I apologize if the idea was discussed and I missed it. It seems to me that the world is way too heterogeneous for it to be concevable.
How on earth do you prevent hundreds of millions of people who live in countries where conditions are harder to flood western countries? And if you don’t, how do you hope that those countries survive and that the autochtone populations don’t turn on those innumerable newcomers?
I mean I would love the world to be more equal but politics is the art of the possible, not the art of the wishful thinking that in theory is great but can’t be done in any circumstances.
Sure yes this is definitely wishful thinking territory rather than politics. I just specified it because when republicans talk about open borders, the notion of country is still present, it's just that borders are not enforced, and that's not a model that makes a lot of sense even from a left utopia point of view. That is also the model that you seem to be arguing against in this.
|
I’m not sure about the mechanics of the open borders proposals or the precise technical situation wrt free movement in the EU. But we have quite a lot of Romanian and Polish people living in the Netherlands working, with no significant problems afaik. And the USA has massive internal open borders with massive migration from poorer states to California and Florida and so on. I think the notion that open borders “can’t work” when it literally does seem to work within the context of all these supersize countries, seems defeatist to me. I think when people talk about open borders not working, they’re specifically talking about millions of people from failed states crossing the border, at which point the question becomes: why are there so many failed states in the world from which people would like to flee? I think the latter question is a more important and pressing one compared to worrying about open border advocates. Especially in the face of climate catastrophe.
And wrt the “working class” suffering from “unchecked immigration” I think that although it’s understandable the question is raised, and although working class power is an important political goal, it’s still rather dehumanizing since it seems to imply raising the living standards of “illegals” is less meaningful than a much smaller decrease in living standards of native workers.
Certainly migration is a complex topic which can’t be covered in a single post though.
|
On July 09 2019 20:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I never quite understood the idea of abolishing borders in the first place tbh, and I apologize if the idea was discussed and I missed it. It seems to me that the world is way too heterogeneous for it to be concevable.
How on earth do you prevent hundreds of millions of people who live in countries where conditions are harder to flood western countries? And if you don’t, how do you hope that those countries survive and that the autochtone populations don’t turn on those innumerable newcomers?
I mean I would love the world to be more equal but politics is the art of the possible, not the art of the wishful thinking that in theory is great but can’t be done in any circumstances.
I dunno. Most Romanians still live in Romania despite them being completely free to move to Luxemburg. For comparison: median wage in Luxemburg is 5.9k a month, and the median wage in Romania is 1.4k Euro (6400 RON). I admit, that is only a 4x difference, and there are obviously income disparities of multiples of that if you compare African countries to European countries (or, in fact, Moldova is already a 10x). But it won't suddenly be easy to pick up your life and move to some rich country where you don't speak the language and have no skills anybody is looking for.
There is, of course, also the effect on the nation of origin: skilled and educated people will leave for a better life; aka brain drain, but that is happening already anyway, so I don't think the situation will actually get much worse than it is already. Neither in terms of desperate people trying to find a life in a rich nation nor in terms of brain drain in poor countries.
We are so afraid of people flooding our safe little white enclaves that we forget that most people are actually happy right where they are, regardless of how much they earn there.
|
On July 09 2019 21:09 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2019 20:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I never quite understood the idea of abolishing borders in the first place tbh, and I apologize if the idea was discussed and I missed it. It seems to me that the world is way too heterogeneous for it to be concevable.
How on earth do you prevent hundreds of millions of people who live in countries where conditions are harder to flood western countries? And if you don’t, how do you hope that those countries survive and that the autochtone populations don’t turn on those innumerable newcomers?
I mean I would love the world to be more equal but politics is the art of the possible, not the art of the wishful thinking that in theory is great but can’t be done in any circumstances. I dunno. Most Romanians still live in Romania despite them being completely free to move to Luxemburg. For comparison: median wage in Luxemburg is 5.9k a month, and the median wage in Romania is 1.4k Euro (6400 RON). I admit, that is only a 4x difference, and there are obviously income disparities of multiples of that if you compare African countries to European countries (or, in fact, Moldova is already a 10x). But it won't suddenly be easy to pick up your life and move to some rich country where you don't speak the language and have no skills anybody is looking for. There is, of course, also the effect on the nation of origin: skilled and educated people will leave for a better life; aka brain drain, but that is happening already anyway, so I don't think the situation will actually get much worse than it is already. Neither in terms of desperate people trying to find a life in a rich nation nor in terms of brain drain in poor countries. We are so afraid of people flooding our safe little white enclaves that we forget that most people are actually happy right where they are, regardless of how much they earn there.
Life in Romania is ok, and there is no guarantee that by just moving from there to Luxembourg you would get a better life. That’s not the case with huge portions of the world where no matter the circumstances of your arrival, you will have it better than at home. The EU functions because despite big disparities, all those countries present quite a homogeneous mindset and economy. And arguably what doesn’t work these days come from the fact that those disparities might still be too big.
Throw countries like Sudan and Zimbabwe to the mix and suddenly you would have some pretty big problems.
|
The way this conversation works is funny to me because you have clearly identified one of the major problems with neoliberalism, which is that some parts of the world get exploited more than other parts of the world and that we can't maintain the system if everyone decides to move to the less exploited parts of the world. But at the same time you seem to have been exposed to someone you trust making arguments in favor of this so you also use things like "homogeneous mindset" that do not mean anything and are designed to not mean anything.
|
On July 09 2019 22:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2019 21:09 Acrofales wrote:On July 09 2019 20:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I never quite understood the idea of abolishing borders in the first place tbh, and I apologize if the idea was discussed and I missed it. It seems to me that the world is way too heterogeneous for it to be concevable.
How on earth do you prevent hundreds of millions of people who live in countries where conditions are harder to flood western countries? And if you don’t, how do you hope that those countries survive and that the autochtone populations don’t turn on those innumerable newcomers?
I mean I would love the world to be more equal but politics is the art of the possible, not the art of the wishful thinking that in theory is great but can’t be done in any circumstances. I dunno. Most Romanians still live in Romania despite them being completely free to move to Luxemburg. For comparison: median wage in Luxemburg is 5.9k a month, and the median wage in Romania is 1.4k Euro (6400 RON). I admit, that is only a 4x difference, and there are obviously income disparities of multiples of that if you compare African countries to European countries (or, in fact, Moldova is already a 10x). But it won't suddenly be easy to pick up your life and move to some rich country where you don't speak the language and have no skills anybody is looking for. There is, of course, also the effect on the nation of origin: skilled and educated people will leave for a better life; aka brain drain, but that is happening already anyway, so I don't think the situation will actually get much worse than it is already. Neither in terms of desperate people trying to find a life in a rich nation nor in terms of brain drain in poor countries. We are so afraid of people flooding our safe little white enclaves that we forget that most people are actually happy right where they are, regardless of how much they earn there. Life in Romania is ok, and there is no guarantee that by just moving from there to Luxembourg you would get a better life. That’s not the case with huge portions of the world where no matter the circumstances of your arrival, you will have it better than at home. The EU functions because despite big disparities, all those countries present quite a homogeneous mindset and economy. And arguably what doesn’t work these days come from the fact that those disparities might still be too big. Throw countries like Sudan and Zimbabwe to the mix and suddenly you would have some pretty big problems.
Is that so? Insofar as I know, Romanians who move to Holland (or France, or wherever) do so because they are essentially guaranteed a job there. Possibly not paying taxes, but definitely working. They have a network set up that sets them up as farm workers, or in construction, or on factory floors. Romanians don't just show up and say "k, I'm in Holland, give me a handout", as however good the Dutch social security system is, it won't give a dime to a Romanian that just shows up and has never had a job or paid taxes. The cost of living in Holland is much much higher than in Romania, so if they don't have a job, it is far cheaper for them to be unemployed in Romania than in Holland.
Now Sudan is a pretty bad example, as the problem there isn't poverty, it's warlords murdering people. Similarly, Zimbabwe the problem is that it's a failed state where there is literally not enough food to feed the citizens (meaning: even if you have money, you can literally not buy food as there isn't any available). These people are ALREADY fleeing their country if they have the means to. Things aren't going to change if we open borders, as they are already fleeing the place that is currently unliveable. You might as well bring up Syria or Yemen. These people aren't looking for a better economic position, they are fleeing violence or starvation. A border isn't going to stop them (nor does it).
|
Thats not exactly a problem of neoliberlism tho? I highly doubt you would call the monarchies during the middle ages/renaissance/colonisation "neoliberal"?
I also don't see how a communist/socialist system would be any better at this if it isn't basically a worldwide super empire with ungodly amounts of power and a true neutral allignment to redistribute ressources all over the world.
|
I love the talk amongst all the EU people, and the US is just waking up, I seriously thought I was in the UK politics thread for a second.
|
On July 09 2019 22:40 Velr wrote:
Thats not exactly a problem of neoliberlism tho? I highly doubt you would call the monarchies during the middle ages/renaissance/colonisation "neoliberal"?
I also don't see how a communist/socialist system would be any better at this if it isn't basically a worldwide super empire with ungodly amounts of power and a true neutral allignment to redistribute ressources all over the world.
Never said it was exclusive to neoliberalism, it's just what we have today.
A socialist system would be better in that it allocates more power to the workers of the company and by doing so it makes it definitionally harder for companies to choose profit over the wellbeing of workers in the way that delocalisation (in this example, but not exclusively) allows today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
