The All Things Political Topic - Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is an absurd one

[Malcador]

2 hours ago, BruceVC said:

You can  definitely tell that video was made by someone with  serious issues towards Madeleine Albright, Capitalism and the US

Not bad things to have an issue with.

[BruceVC]

17 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Not bad things to have an issue with.

You perfectly entitled  to that opinion, thats the beauty of freedom of speech and one of the several foundations  and benefits of living in a Constitutional Democracy  

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Madeline Albright is a very interesting person, how many people can be said to have been refugees and then (help) created thousands of refugees?

[Gfted1]

1 hour ago, KP wants Blue Velvet said:

Madeline Albright is a very interesting person, how many people can be said to have been refugees and then (help) created thousands of refugees?

All the jews of a certain age?

[BruceVC]

3 hours ago, KP wants Blue Velvet said:

Madeline Albright is a very interesting person, how many people can be said to have been refugees and then (help) created thousands of refugees?

Its difficult to respond to a question that isnt clear on what you accusing her of doing, maybe be more specific ?

[BruceVC]

Its going to be interesting to see if Trumps endorsements in Ohio for Vance and Pennsylvania for  Oz make a difference in the upcoming  Senate races 

If neither of those candidates wins does that mean that Trumps influence on the Republican  base is waning?

[alanschu]

On 4/14/2022 at 11:40 PM, BruceVC said:

Yes, its a deterrence to stop human smuggling and people arriving illegally in the UK but only if you think living in Rwanda is a bad option 

Something is only a deterrence if it is seen by those imposing it as a deterrence as a bad option. You don't "deter" people by threatening them with a better time. It's Johnson and his administration that is saying it's a bad option. They would have 100% framed it as anything other than "deterrence" if they were genuinely interested in helping refugees/asylum seekers. But it's not, they see it as a threat to stop people from coming to the UK.

On 4/14/2022 at 11:40 PM, BruceVC said:

Many countries face a crisis around illegal immigration including SA. The article mentions 1000 people a day could arrive illegally in the UK. What would you suggest as the best method to stop or address  this flood of illegal immigrants?

Did you even read the article? It includes refugees and asylum seekers.... It includes a link to this exact same UK government saying that they "remain concerned, however, by continued restrictions to civil and political rights and media freedom."

 

On 4/14/2022 at 11:40 PM, BruceVC said:

Do you think its funny? Why do you think "blonde hair, blue-eyes beauties " will not be sent to Rwanda. I always appreciate your deep insights

It's a comment of a belief that white "illegal" refugees and asylum seekers will likely not be the ones sent to Rwanda.

Edited April 17, 2022 by alanschu

[BruceVC]

4 hours ago, alanschu said:

Something is only a deterrence if it is seen by those imposing it as a deterrence as a bad option. You don't "deter" people by threatening them with a better time. It's Johnson and his administration that is saying it's a bad option. They would have 100% framed it as anything other than "deterrence" if they were genuinely interested in helping refugees/asylum seekers. But it's not, they see it as a threat to stop people from coming to the UK.

Did you even read the article? It includes refugees and asylum seekers.... It includes a link to this exact same UK government saying that they "remain concerned, however, by continued restrictions to civil and political rights and media freedom."

 

It's a comment of a belief that white "illegal" refugees and asylum seekers will likely not be the ones sent to Rwanda.

Thanks for responding but back to the most important question, what is your suggestion  or solution to the global crisis around illegal  immigration that countries like the US, EU and SA grapple with? Do you support refugee camps like in Africa and the ME or deporting people? I think much  more international  pressure and attention needs to put on  the failed leadership where immigrants come from and less attention blaming the countries that are the refugee destination

If you interested in this global problem I can share with you the SA reality and how this has divided and harmed our country and still does. I can share with you links and data and you can see what happens when a government fails to address illegal immigration. But its okay if you not that interested because I would like your feedback which means you would have go through each link and most people have other interests and want to spend time on other things but let me know?

And then very few people take Hoonding seriously on these topics , he is race baiting and trolling like he always does. I respond to him because he makes me laugh. I know exactly what he meant. But just to respond to what he said, the words " blonde hair and blue " has been used to describe the Ukrainian refugees and this is a very different type of refugee than people arriving illegally on boats like the article mentions. The majority of refugees from Ukraine want to return to Ukraine when Putins War is over so its a different solution to other illegal immigrants

But for me it doesnt matter what race you are when you want to immigrate, you must do it with papers and legally. 

So in closing, I want to have  a broader discussion than just this article that is about solutions to address the global illegal immigration crisis and its not about left  vs right ideology but the reality of finding solutions 

Similar to our CRT debate  

[Gromnir]

16 hours ago, Gfted1 said:

All the jews of a certain age?

antisemitic or just ignorant? choices. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Malcador]

On 4/15/2022 at 9:49 AM, rjshae said:

I think the expectation is that they will return home after the conflict is over.

There humour in how valid that expectation is and is perceived, though.  But ah well.

[rjshae]

37 minutes ago, Malcador said:

There humour in how valid that expectation is and is perceived, though.  But ah well.

Yes, it's an expedient perspective that minimizes distraction from the main goal. Such is human nature.

[Malcador]

On 4/16/2022 at 11:54 AM, BruceVC said:

You perfectly entitled  to that opinion, thats the beauty of freedom of speech and one of the several foundations  and benefits of living in a Constitutional Democracy  

What a strange retort.

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Malcador said:

What a strange retort.

Oh Malc, dont you know by now their is method in my madness?

The biased video Sarex posted attacks the US on several fundamental levels and paints the US as some sort of warmonger whose position in the world is an overall negative one

Yet the irony is if it wasnt for the US and its military contribution in WW2 and the Cold War these wars and ideological conflicts  would have been  lost to countries that dont support or believe in Constitutional Democracies or  believe in freedom of speech

So the fact that you can say what you want about the US is due to the US and its positive historical contribution in the world 

 

[BruceVC]

2 hours ago, rjshae said:

Yes, it's an expedient perspective that minimizes distraction from the main goal. Such is human nature.

I have no idea what you mean, do you mind giving an example in the interests of clarity?

[Malcador]

3 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

So the fact that you can say what you want about the US is due to the US and its positive historical contribution in the world 

Indeed, without the US there'd be no democracy anywhere.

[BruceVC]

7 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Indeed, without the US there'd be no democracy anywhere.

Well if you consider the Nazis or Communist ideology as Democracy then you wrong. Their would be Democracy everywhere

 

[Gorth]

7 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Well if you consider the Nazis or Communist ideology as Democracy then you wrong. Their would be Democracy everywhere

 

How about giving England credit where credit is due? While Magna Carta (1215) wasn't democracy in the 21'st century meaning of the word (that's another debate, what people think it means), it was one of the first steps towards forcing a delegation of power from a single individual to a group of people in the western world (not that any of those barons were elected by their serfs mind you).

[rjshae]

7 hours ago, BruceVC said:

I have no idea what you mean, do you mind giving an example in the interests of clarity?

During conflicts certain uncomfortable topics may get set aside or minimized as they can be used for disinformation purposes by an adversary. The Russians have already been exploiting racial divisions in the US to sew further discord.

[alanschu]

58 minutes ago, Gorth said:

How about giving England credit where credit is due? While Magna Carta (1215) wasn't democracy in the 21'st century meaning of the word (that's another debate, what people think it means), it was one of the first steps towards forcing a delegation of power from a single individual to a group of people in the western world (not that any of those barons were elected by their serfs mind you).

Indeed it's what those living in the colonies were familiar with. The only real distinction was making their democracy a Republic and electing their head of state, which was something they also got from the Roman Republic in addition to the representative democracy. (You can see praise of the Roman Republic in the Federalist Papers)

As a minor aside, one of my pet peeves (and favourite things to correct because I'm a pedant) are people that like to insist that the US is a Republic, not a Democracy. I can't be 100% sure, but I have a feeling that a lot of people that lean heavily into that supposed distinction do so because of the familiarity the terms have with the two primary US political parties.

[Gorth]

12 minutes ago, alanschu said:

Indeed it's what those living in the colonies were familiar with. The only real distinction was making their democracy a Republic and electing their head of state, which was something they also got from the Roman Republic in addition to the representative democracy. (You can see praise of the Roman Republic in the Federalist Papers)

As a minor aside, one of my pet peeves (and favourite things to correct because I'm a pedant) are people that like to insist that the US is a Republic, not a Democracy. I can't be 100% sure, but I have a feeling that a lot of people that lean heavily into that supposed distinction do so because of the familiarity the terms have with the two primary US political parties.

I suppose people call the US a republic because the people are not actually electing their leaders, but their representatives (and the representatives then appoint leaders for the people)? A question better asked of US citizens I guess, they would know better than I.

[BruceVC]

2 hours ago, Gorth said:

How about giving England credit where credit is due? While Magna Carta (1215) wasn't democracy in the 21'st century meaning of the word (that's another debate, what people think it means), it was one of the first steps towards forcing a delegation of power from a single individual to a group of people in the western world (not that any of those barons were elected by their serfs mind you).

England deserves huge credit for its role and contribution towards Democracy and it absolutely should be recognized

We have also discussed this in the past where I reject this notion that the  English  history and its success is just about things like slavery and Colonialism. I have raised concerns with statues in the UK being taken down that have nothing to do with BLM objectives 

So yes things like the Magna Carta is very important and also I am sure it was the UK who were the first who created property rights and also separated Church from state control ?

I not suggesting the US is more important with its contribution to Democracy  than the UK or Europe or other countries. I was just referring to the military contribution towards wars the US has made  that would have changed Democracy as we know it now if the Nazis or Soviets had won 

 

[Elerond]

5 hours ago, Gorth said:

I suppose people call the US a republic because the people are not actually electing their leaders, but their representatives (and the representatives then appoint leaders for the people)? A question better asked of US citizens I guess, they would know better than I.

Funny thing about 'Republic, not a Democracy' is that it means that people feel that country is either oligarchy or autocracy with mix of democracy. Or maybe they just think that it does not feel like democracy but they know they aren't ruled by monarch, like for example Republic of Bureaucracy  (Rule by a system of governance with many bureaus, administrators, and petty officials) 

As Republic is form of government where primary positions of power are either appointed through democracy or mix of democracy and oligarchy or autocracy and most important thing is that the head of the state is not monarch.

[Elerond]

4 hours ago, BruceVC said:

I am sure it was the UK who were the first who created property rights and also separated Church from state control ?

State where head of state is leader of state's official church?

[BruceVC]

4 minutes ago, Elerond said:

State where head of state is leader of state's official church?

Putin? But I am not sure

[Gorth]

17 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Putin? But I am not sure

For all his other failings, Putin is a devout Orthodox Christian, bowing to the Patriarch. Even if he had deposed of the Patriarch and declared himself the head of the Orthodox Church (at least inside Russia), Henry VIII has him beat by almost 500 years.... when he declared himself head of the Church of England.