Elerond
-
Posts
2620 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Elerond
-
-
1 hour ago, Darkpriest said:
One thing that I hope ppl in US will not have to face with the new balance of power in the SCOTUS is similar shenanigans to what so called Constitution's Tribunal did in Poland recently (after it got politicians of the ruling party nominated as majority of judges throughout last 5yrs)
They've decided to take a 27yrs old act, which was a healthy compromise on abortions, and ruled it as unconstitutional, and defend the decision, that it blocks eugenic driven acts of abortion. In fact it (now) was covering cases, where the future mothers could have decided for abortion, if the fetus had near certain level of risk for severe or lethal disability. This also covered cases in which the conditon of the unborn child could also threathen the health and life of the mother.
This was done in such a way, to avoid a debate in the parliment and in the senate, which is shady. One can agree or disagree on morality issues, and when the fetus gets human rights of an individual and where is a boundry of mother's freedom and unborn individual's freedom, but things should not be done this way.
Personally, I'm of opinion that abortion should not be a form of anticonception, however if the child would be disabled and there is a very high risk that it will never be a self sufficient human being, it should be up to the mother to decide if she agrees to carrying a life time burden, which would make her unable to run a regular life and encoumber also the new being with a life long pain and disability. Not every human has to be a moral hero and have a stamina of a proverbial saint.
I would almost believe that these decisions are actually about ethics and/or saving lives if it wasn't fact that for some reasons need to protected these 'lives' seems to end when child is born and after that they become just another leaches that lives on other people's hard earned money
-
2
-
-
@BruceVCThere is not best system. Ideological purity always causes more problems than it solves. When it comes to policies you should go with ones that work best in big picture instead of trying to force policies that don't work because they belong ideology you like generally.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Darkpriest said:
Depends how you place the axis of the main arm of the left-right divide
It used to be amount of state, where minumum state with focus of personal rights and property rights was the right wing policy, and the left wing was the large state aparatus, which had regulation on all aspects of life as the state knows best, how to allocate resources for the good of citizens.
Then you'd have another axis of social aspects, cultural superiority vs cultural equity, so the extreme forms of the left wing society, are fascism and communism, while extreme forms of right wing policies are directorate/oligarchy and libertarianizm
And there is an outside form out of that map, and its called an anarchy, which goes something like "**** everyone else, I take and do what I want. There are no rights unless i make them"
Left-right divide is what anybody doing the divide wants to it to be.
Origins of the divide comes from French Revolution, wikipedia has pretty good article about origins of left-right political spectrum:
"The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left.
...
The terms "left" and "right" were not used to refer to political ideology per se, but only to seating in the legislature. After 1848, the main opposing camps were the "democratic socialists" and the "reactionaries" who used red and white flags to identify their party affiliation. With the establishment of the Third Republic in 1871, the terms were adopted by political parties: the Republican Left, the Centre Right and the Centre Left (1871) and the Extreme Left (1876) and Radical Left (1881). The beliefs of the group called the Radical Left were actually closer to the Centre Left than the beliefs of those called the Extreme Left.
Beginning in the early twentieth century, the terms "left" and "right" came to be associated with specific political ideologies and were used to describe citizens' political beliefs, gradually replacing the terms "reds" and "the reaction". Those on the Left often called themselves "republicans", while those on the Right often called themselves "conservatives". The words Left and Right were at first used by their opponents as slurs. By 1914, the Left half of the legislature in France was composed of Unified Socialists, Republican Socialists and Socialist Radicals, while the parties that were called "Left" now sat on the right side. The use of the words Left and Right spread from France to other countries and came to be applied to a large number of political parties worldwide, which often differed in their political beliefs. There was asymmetry in the use of the terms Left and Right by the opposing sides. The Right mostly denied that the left–right spectrum was meaningful because they saw it as artificial and damaging to unity. However, the Left, seeking to change society, promoted the distinction. As Alain observed in 1931: "When people ask me if the division between parties of the Right and parties of the Left, men of the Right and men of the Left, still makes sense, the first thing that comes to mind is that the person asking the question is certainly not a man of the Left." In British politics, the terms "right" and "left" came into common use for the first time in the late 1930s in debates over the Spanish Civil War. The Scottish sociologist Robert M. MacIver noted in The Web of Government (1947):
The right is always the party sector associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes, the left the sector expressive of the lower economic or social classes, and the centre that of the middle classes. Historically this criterion seems acceptable. The conservative right has defended entrenched prerogatives, privileges and powers; the left has attacked them. The right has been more favorable to the aristocratic position, to the hierarchy of birth or of wealth; the left has fought for the equalization of advantage or of opportunity, for the claims of the less advantaged. Defence and attack have met, under democratic conditions, not in the name of class but in the name of principle; but the opposing principles have broadly corresponded to the interests of the different classes."
Ideological groupings
Generally, the left-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism" while the right-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism". Political scientists and other analysts regard the left as including anarchists, communists, socialists, democratic socialists, social democrats, left-libertarians, progressives and social liberals. Movements for racial equality and trade unionism have also been associated with the left.Political scientists and other analysts regard the right as including conservatives, right-libertarians, neoconservatives, imperialists, monarchists, fascists, reactionaries and traditionalists. A number of significant political movements do not fit precisely into the left-right spectrum, including Christian democracy, feminism, and regionalism. Though nationalism is often regarded as a right-wing doctrine, many nationalists favor egalitarian distributions of resources. There are also "liberal nationalists". Populism is regarded as having both left-wing and right-wing manifestations in the form of left-wing populism and right-wing populism, respectively. Green politics is often regarded as a movement of the left, but in some ways the green movement is difficult to definitively categorize as left or right."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left–right_political_spectrum
But now days left-right division is become easier. As you need only to pick either left or right and then everything that you like is either left or right depending on what you pick and then everything you don't like belong to other option.
-
1
-
2
-
-
Yes in case that changing stance means that they will add reason for block in tweets in which they have blocked the URL to New York Post article
-
10 hours ago, ComradeMaster said:
^You realize the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact only happened because western countries cut off all treaties the the USSR, right? They would have preferred a Western Pact against the Nazi's I think, but that simply wasn't in the cards.
That is just simply bull****.
There was no war when Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was made and both parties were aggressors in war that followed said agreement.
Also western nations made pacts with USSR and they even sold them lots of the weapons that they used in their invasion. And US for example traded lot with Soviet union after 1933, which made it possible that USSR was able to build it industries.
Also still in beginning of 1939 France and UK were seeking military alliance with USSR after Germany took over the Sudetenland, but those ended in May when Molotov become the foreign minister as Molotov was skeptic towards France and UK and saw better opportunities in dealing with Germany
-
"The California GOP has pushed voters to pop their mail-in ballots inside. Social media posts have advertised their locations, and one regional field director posted a photo to Twitter on Friday showing him holding a ballot in front of one of the boxes.
“Doing my part and voting early,” Jordan Tygh wrote in the now-deleted tweet, which was reviewed by The Washington Post before it was removed. “DM me for convenient locations to drop your ballot off at!”
But those containers, which were first reported by the Orange County Register and KCAL, are not county-authorized ballot drop-off sites. In fact, the unofficial boxes are against the law, state officials said Sunday.
Erecting or advertising unofficial ballot boxes could be a felony that carries a two-to-four-year prison sentence, according to the secretary of state’s office."
It seems that Democrats just don't understand that Republicans are law and order and also ballot boxes are people
-
Probably first winner who has given any doubt that they aren't deserving the prize
-
It is because god emperor protects america
-
9 hours ago, BruceVC said:
You have it almost right, the national oil company was purged and then international oil companies, who for some had been invested in Venezuela for over 100 years, were forced to hand over there investments, meaning control of the oil production within the country and all its revenue because Chavez sold directly to the global oil markets like all oil producers. So any government can do this with any company that has a physical presence within the country....its highly unethical, illegal and should lead to sanctions but you can still do it as any government controls the army and police and they can take any company over they want
And even the examples about some oil companies becoming minority share holders is the same outcome because oil companies are listed companies outside of the Venezuela stock exchange so what Chavez did was not gain control of these companies " international listing "value but he stole full control of the revenue produced by the oil production in the local sense as the oil company had a massive oil production plant in the country
Chavez has done lots of things to destroy Venezuela's oil industry (like in 2005 selling oil to US 40% below market price), but he is not responsible of nationalization of Venezuela's oil industry and kicking out foreign companies
"Under the presidency of Carlos Andrés Pérez, whose economic plan, "La Gran Venezuela", called for the nationalization of the oil industry, Venezuela officially nationalized its oil industry on 1 January 1976 at the site of Zumaque oilwell 1 (Mene Grande). This was the birth of Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA). All foreign oil companies that once did business in Venezuela were replaced by Venezuelan companies, such as Lagoven (Standard Oil), Maraven (Shell), and Llavonen (Mobil)."
-
Number of confirmed covid-19 cases world wide: 34,410,636
Number of deaths by covid-19: 1,022,787
So survival rate is currently 97%
Suvival rate in USA is only 0.1 percent better
-
1
-
-
People joked about debates over zoom, after the debate, but looks like that it may actually be only way how remaining debates can be organized now
-
11 minutes ago, BruceVC said:
Elerond what would be your greatest concern around Trumps presidency and him being elected again
For people like us outside the USA we may have different concerns
Personally I probably will get richer if Trump is elected again as current republican and Trump policies have actually increased Finnish products and services ability compete in European markets. Meaning his trade war with EU hurts our american competition on European markets and USA's sanctions against Russia has made Finland even bigger port to Russian markets, like they ship sneakers from China to Finland so that they can be imported to Russia. And sanctions and threats against Chines companies has given Nokia ability to grab quite lot European 5G contracts and so on.
But Trump's presidency has made it for China, Russia and Turkey to break international agreements and do their power and land grab politics. Which probably lead unrest all over the world. But I am not sure if Biden will make any difference because current state of US's domestic politics will guarantee that next president does not have time/ability to do effective foreign politics.
-
1
-
-
In 2016 when Trump won he called fraud in basis of millions of people voting illegally in person. So I am sure that Trump will again call fraud regardless of results
-
3 hours ago, Darkpriest said:
I'm telling you, no matter who wins this election, the other side will point to irregularities in the mail-ins, call for investigations etc.
There were 33.4 million votes cast through mail in 2016 election
That second link absolutely tells how you can't trust mail-in-voting
"The California secretary of state’s election data obtained by the AP showed 102,428 mail-in ballots were disqualified in the state’s 58 counties, about 1.5% of the nearly 7 million mail-in ballots returned. "
"The most common problem, by far, in California was missing the deadline for the ballot to be mailed and arrive. To count in the election, ballots must be postmarked on or before Election Day and received within three days afterward. Statewide, 70,330 ballots missed those marks."
"Another 27,525 either didn’t have a signature, or the signature didn’t match the one on record for the voter."
So almost all the ballots were rejected because they didn't fill two basic rules of voting
-
I am not sure if half of republican voters can be described as fringe group
-
People believed that there was child prostitution ring in basement of one tier building that doesn't have basement without evidence and didn't not believe pictures and videos that showed that there was no basement.
So people will believe anything their side tells them regardless of facts evidence or probability of the thing.
Voting by mail has been most popular in states controlled by Republicans. So it isn't like those who no 'fear' voting by mail aren't familiar with the system and know that it is as safe as voting in person. Especially when you take in account that majority of in person votes are done with over decade old voting machines that have know security issues.
-
5 hours ago, Darkpriest said:
Good luck rationalizing these type of messages to polarized society, which already is in a state the both sides do not trust a word, what the other side says.
Even if a part of it is fake, it will resonate and will be spinned.
You also had the same going the other direction, where some were reporting USPS removing mailboxes ina grand conspiracy.
It doesn't matter what the truth is. What matters is what people believe the truth is... You already have this displayed on examples of various religions or ideologies. You have a proof of that with thousands years of history.
That is why a process should be as clean and as simple as possible, especially during societal unrests and conflicts.
When you don't care if claims are true or not, then it does not matter if process is clean and simple as possible as it does matter because other side cheats anyway
-
Project Veritas is excellent source for everything as they have get caught of faking evidence only couple dozen times
-
1
-
-
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/27/us/donald-trump-taxes.html
"Donald J. Trump paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the presidency. In his first year in the White House, he paid another $750.
He had paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years — largely because he reported losing much more money than he made."
Seem about right
"Rather, there appears to be a closer-to-home explanation for at least some of the fees: Mr. Trump reduced his taxable income by treating a family member as a consultant, and then deducting the fee as a cost of doing business.
The “consultants” are not identified in the tax records. But evidence of this arrangement was gleaned by comparing the confidential tax records to the financial disclosures Ivanka Trump filed when she joined the White House staff in 2017. Ms. Trump reported receiving payments from a consulting company she co-owned, totaling $747,622, that exactly matched consulting fees claimed as tax deductions by the Trump Organization for hotel projects in Vancouver and Hawaii."
Draining the swamp seem to going well also
-
1
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Darkpriest said:
If you agree to that, who am I to block such an arrangement.
Allowing such agreements will lead to cheap labor import and lots of abuse. It is system which is used in Qatar and Saudi Arabia for example and it has lead both countries to have immigrant workforce who are quite close to slaves. And they also cause wages on those jobs drop so low that no domestic worker is able to do them an live with the wage.
-
4 hours ago, BruceVC said:
I tend to agree with that, since there is no control of some types of illegal immigration I dont think we should get too involved when illegal immigrants accept certain work conditions
In SA we are experiencing this, its called the informal sector where many people, not all, are illegal immigrants and work in small companies or day time labor that dont follow labor law and the illegal immigrants are fine with it as they cant get jobs in the formal sector because you must have papers and FICA ( Financial Intelligence Center Act ) documents to work in most countries legally
So the terrible suggestion raised by groups who represent the illegal\undocumented immigrants is " give them papers so they can work legally and contribute towards the tax base like everyone else "....the problem with that well meaning but flawed suggestion is that would mean millions of foreigners can now compete for jobs with actual South African citizens in an economic environment that is terrible ...we have about a 35 % unemployment rate normally and now during the virus its 50 %
Imagine now you allow millions of non-South Africans to get jobs that should always be accessible to South Africans and people here with papers ...you will destroy our economic transformation and add to real, unfair but understandable issues many people have with not controlling immigration or somehow thinking " our immigration problem can be fixed if we just allow citizenship to everyone who just arrives in your country "
If you have lots of illegal immigrants in country, making their status legal helps to control their economical impact better. As it is easier to regulate how much companies need to pay them for their work. It easier to spot abuse and low wages. It make easier to see where there is need for additional services (schools, shops, etc. every day services).
Meaning that immigrants don't only take jobs, but create them by needing services and stuff. Uncontrollable immigration is problem, because it puts stress on existing systems faster than those systems can answer to increasing demand. Even though there are limit how much immigration country can handle it is always better to make immigrants somehow legal if you aren't able to sent them back to their home country, because if you let them became gray invisible mass which size isn't know, they will cause invisible stress to existing systems which is much more difficult to handle, as many issues will keep themselves in shadows until it is too late.
One of the best ways to prevent illegal immigration is to kill demand for such immigrants.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Darkpriest said:
You asked, if you could make money of them as well, so i gave you some example, make them repay your rent or whatever other idea of repaying indebtitude you'd have for it.
So company can bring immigrant workers, arrange them to live in some sort compound and feed them what they get affordable and then make those people work them to pay that housing and food. And then in order to ensure that said immigrants follow law company can keep them behind lock and key. Would that be good arrangement to to you, which causes less problems in society than current immigration policies?
-
1 minute ago, Darkpriest said:
You could ask them to particpate, by paying rent to you and so on, so sure, you just need to be able to execute that.
First you want people pay their rent and then you say that those who pay their rent could then collect that rent from them, how that should actually work?
-
48 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:
Sure, lets do it at the same time when people who want more immigration will start using their own assets to host, feed and be legally liable for immigrants actions
I'm all for that type of decision making, where I would directly decide where my portion of taxes would go.
As murals current owner doesn't want it, so if you want to preserve it you should buy it and not force its current owner to preserve it because you think it should be preserved.
You already decide how much taxes you pay and where portion of your taxes go, although you have one vote of millions when it comes to that issue, so weight of your decision is not that heavy if you can't get people around you agree with you.
Would those people have also right part of all revenue that those immigrants generate? Considering that they are legally liable of their actions?
Politics 20/20 now with extra hindsight!
in Way Off-Topic
Posted
It is always good when supreme court does check facts before they make ruling