The All Things Political Topic

[BruceVC]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c624m4kgrg3o

An interesting, unexpected but appreciated BRICS development 

Brazil has basically vetoed Venezuela's attempts to join BRICS because of  the rampant cheating  and lack of credibility in the last election in Venezuela and Maduro is seriously butthurt 

" Venezuela has criticised Brazil's decision to veto its admission to the Brics group of emerging economies.

Venezuela's foreign ministry described the move, which came at the group's summit in Russia attended by more than 20 heads of state, as an "immoral aggression"

"The Brazilian foreign ministry has decided to maintain the veto that [former Brazilian president] Jair Bolsonaro has applied against Venezuela for years, reproducing the hatred, exclusion and intolerance promoted from the centres of power in the West," the Venezuelan foreign ministry said in a statement.

"The Venezuelan people feel indignation and shame at this inexplicable and immoral aggression," it added.

Venezuela had lobbied hard to join the Brics, with Maduro even making a surprise appearance at the summit in the city of Kazan and declaring that his country was "part of the Brics family".

But whats also interesting is Putins comments about this 

" Russian President Vladimir Putin, who hosted the summit, said he agreed with Venezuela's position, but added that it would only be able to join the Brics if there was a consensus in favour among its members. We know Brazil's position. We don't agree, Venezuela is fighting for its survival," Putin said at a news conference on Thursday."


And thats the perfect example of the Russian definition of how Putin sees the "new BRICS world order "

He is basically saying free and fair and credible elections dont matter. As long as you stay in power thats all that matters

The Venezuelan election was never about the survival of the country, it was simply about Maduro staying in power like all elections

And its good to see BRICS members rejecting this type of sentiment from Russia

 

 

 

[Malcador]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/01/canada-peoples-party-immigration-is-the-issue/

Telegraph is gonna Telegraph, but was interesting to see Canada brought up.

"If you believe that more diversity is always good and always enriches your society, then it’s logical and inevitable that you will end up importing lots of people with incompatible values and attitudes from around the world, including religious fanatics and even terrorists, who can’t possibly integrate in a country with a European, secular Christian heritage.

Why a political failure in Canada was worthy for the Telegraph, no one will ever know.

[Pidesco]

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/30/g-s1-30644/supreme-court-virginia-elections

 

Why the US may already be screwed.

 

The Supreme Court effectively nullified a law, by fiat, in a move favouring Trump's election.

[uuuhhii]

5 hours ago, Malcador said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/01/canada-peoples-party-immigration-is-the-issue/

Telegraph is gonna Telegraph, but was interesting to see Canada brought up.

 

 

 

so this is why conservative hate education

so they can say stuff like this and anyone didn't know how new world was colonized might trick themself into believing this kind of nonsense

[Zoraptor]

I'm not sure the average Telegraph reader hates education per se- their experience at Eton/ Rugby/ Harrow then OxBridge was simply tremendous after all- they just tend to think that Britain's colonialism was a glorious Mission to Civilise and that should be obvious to the properly educated. Just look at that Sunak chap, got the opportunity to make the most of himself by marrying a billionaire heiress; wouldn't have happened if he was back home worshiping cows.

(Though the average Telegraph reader probably doesn't read the website as that internet thing is a bit new fangled and wasn't decently invented by the english, like paper and printing)

[Hurlshort]

10 hours ago, Malcador said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/01/canada-peoples-party-immigration-is-the-issue/

Telegraph is gonna Telegraph, but was interesting to see Canada brought up.

 

 

I wasn't willing to sign up to read the story, but the idea that religious fanatics and terrorists are some sort of cultural group is a fun bit of bigotry. There are 1.9 billion Muslims and 2.4 billion Christians in the world. They aren't all fanatics and terrorists. We are probably going to all figure out a way to get along, just like Protestants and Catholics had to figure it out centuries ago.

[Gorth]

4 hours ago, Hurlshort said:

I wasn't willing to sign up to read the story, but the idea that religious fanatics and terrorists are some sort of cultural group is a fun bit of bigotry. There are 1.9 billion Muslims and 2.4 billion Christians in the world. They aren't all fanatics and terrorists. We are probably going to all figure out a way to get along, just like Protestants and Catholics had to figure it out centuries ago.

Through wholesale genocide and slaughter of entire provinces, towns and communities? It was anything but an amicable split

(the protestants of the time were the "Taliban" of its age, killing anything and anyone not showing proper religious fervor)

 

edit: the war didn't really end until the Northern Ireland peace treaty was signed and the end of "The Troubles" in 1998 (after 3000 dead and 49000 wounded since 1968)

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Gorth said:

Through wholesale genocide and slaughter of entire provinces, towns and communities? It was anything but an amicable split

(the protestants of the time were the "Taliban" of its age, killing anything and anyone not showing proper religious fervor)

 

edit: the war didn't really end until the Northern Ireland peace treaty was signed and the end of "The Troubles" in 1998 (after 3000 dead and 49000 wounded since 1968)

The difference is the Taliban havent changed since there formation and dont  want to change unlike both groups involved in the "The Troubles " 

Its like saying is AQ or ISIS ever going to change and believe in meaningful negotiations or compromise in global conflicts they actively involved in?

Extremist and fundamentalists groups don't often deviate from there core beliefs and how they act on them

"The Troubles  " ended because both sides had leadership  prepared to compromise and that was influenced by the large  numbers of Irish people who were tired of the decades of endless conflict 

 

Edited Saturday at 09:19 AM by BruceVC

[Zoraptor]

3 hours ago, Gorth said:

(the protestants of the time were the "Taliban" of its age, killing anything and anyone not showing proper religious fervor)

Yeah, I think the Arians, Gnostics, Nestorians, Paulicians, Cathars, Lollards and Hussites might dispute that. So to the Nahuatl, Inti etc. Might, if there were any left after the Catholics killed or force converted them all...

Main difference between those and the Protestants were that the Protestants didn't lose.

(Indeed, it's stretched on occasion to very recently- see the enthusiasm with which Franco's death squads were supported by the Spanish catholic church less than a century ago or the Maronite Church and the Phalange in Lebanon. Definitely got a lot more rare since ~1650, thankfully, and plenty of recent counter examples of the church actually opposing what they would previously have supported such as Pinochet

the pedant in me forces an edit because, technically, the Hussites didn't exactly lose either)

Edited Saturday at 11:05 AM by Zoraptor

[majestic]

Heh.

"Es gibt nur einen Gott, das müsst ihr glauben, und wers nicht glauben kann, den zünd' ich einfach an."

So, basically "There is only one God, you have to believe that, and if you can't believe it, I'll just set you on fire." (obviously the German lyrics rhyme ) to the tune of the Pippi Longstockings intro. Had to think of that video reading the thread now.

Edited Saturday at 11:19 AM by majestic

[Gorth]

38 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

Yeah, I think the Arians, Gnostics, Nestorians, Paulicians, Cathars, Lollards and Hussites might dispute that. So to the Nahuatl, Inti etc. Might, if there were any left after the Catholics killed or force converted them all...

Main difference between those and the Protestants were that the Protestants didn't lose.

(Indeed, it's stretched on occasion to very recently- see the enthusiasm with which Franco's death squads were supported by the Spanish catholic church less than a century ago or the Maronite Church and the Phalange in Lebanon. Definitely got a lot more rare since ~1650, thankfully, and plenty of recent counter examples of the church actually opposing what they would previously have supported such as Pinochet

the pedant in me forces an edit because, technically, the Hussites didn't exactly lose either)

They are separated a bit by time though. The Inquisition was founded in 1186 and most of those famous persecutions took place in the 13th and 14th century. Protestantism rose to power in some countries in the 16th century. I.e. centuries later. Maybe they just felt the pope had "lost his edge"?

But seriously, it was a revolt against the increasing obsession with worldly possessions and a lack of (perceived) proper zealotry that inspired Luther.

The wars that followed ended with the peace of Westphalia. Not sure if the birth of nationalism was a particularly good substitute for religious wars...

Edit: The pragmatism of the Henry VIIII is admirable though. Divorcing and beheading wives were easier without Papal meddling, so did away with both Catholicism and Protestantism and introduced himself as the only official spokesman for God in the form of the Anglican church

[majestic]

Also, for anyone interested in the Thiry Years War, might I point you to SandRhoman, a duo of Swiss historians doing pretty interesting videos on historical subjects? The only caveat I have is their English narrator who is, well, not a real joy to listen to. Alas. No point in posting their videos in German.

[Gfted1]

Never did understand why non-citizens were allowed to vote in the first place.

[Hurlshort]

1 hour ago, Gfted1 said:

Never did understand why non-citizens were allowed to vote in the first place.

It is a question I raise with my students every year as a writimg prompt. I start with voting age, which was 21 until the 1960's. They can usually puzzle out why that was changed with a few hints. Then we talk about voting with a criminal record. The last topic is voting and citizenship.

Most of my students are either immigrants or children of immigrants, and a fair amount of them have parents without citizenship. So the question is: should a person who is here for years on something like a work visa, who is raising their kids in this country and paying taxes, have the right to vote on issues that affect them? 

Should a citizen living overseas have the right to vote? 

Anyways, I don't share my personal opinions on the matter to the kids, but my opinion is typically the more people voting, the better. I want as much input as we can get in these elections. My middle schoolers aren't really less informed than most adults. They should get to vote too.

[Elerond]

5 hours ago, Gorth said:

They are separated a bit by time though. The Inquisition was founded in 1186 and most of those famous persecutions took place in the 13th and 14th century. Protestantism rose to power in some countries in the 16th century. I.e. centuries later. Maybe they just felt the pope had "lost his edge"?

But seriously, it was a revolt against the increasing obsession with worldly possessions and a lack of (perceived) proper zealotry that inspired Luther.

The wars that followed ended with the peace of Westphalia. Not sure if the birth of nationalism was a particularly good substitute for religious wars...

Edit: The pragmatism of the Henry VIIII is admirable though. Divorcing and beheading wives were easier without Papal meddling, so did away with both Catholicism and Protestantism and introduced himself as the only official spokesman for God in the form of the Anglican church

I am not absolute sure of that it was zealotry that sold Lutheranism considering for example that in Sweden (and Finland, as it was then part of Sweden) converted to Lutheranism because Sweden had acquired heavy debt during Swedish War of Liberation that it had hard time to pay back to Lübeck, so when Luther started to preach that church should not have worldly possession, then king of Sweden Gustav Vasa saw opportunity get rid of political influence of Rome (as then Pope Clement VII insisted that Gustav should reinstate Gustav Trolle ally of king Christian II of Denmark and Kalmar Union) and pay Sweden's debts same time and ordered The Reformation.

Same time in England Henry VIII also reformed English church and founded Anglicanism, because he also wanted get rid of political influence of Rome and take Church's money and lands to the Crown. 

In 16th Protestantism was able to success because Pope Clement VII wasn't that good in diplomacy even though he was elected because of his high reputation as a stateman. Although Pope Clement VII didn't have easiest time as Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire and king Francis I of France were in cold war, both demanding that Pope would take their side, Ottoman Empire was invading Eastern Europe. But one would have probably should considered that such time is not the best time to make enemies among European royalty, especially among those who control border lands and therefore are farthest from Roma's influence.  But at end Pope Clement VI succeeded to lose Sweden, England, big sunk of current Germany, get Rome sacked by Charles V and get himself imprisoned, I don't think any other Pope has been such big influence in European religion and politics.

[Gfted1]

5 hours ago, Hurlshort said:

So the question is: should a person who is here for years on something like a work visa, who is raising their kids in this country and paying taxes, have the right to vote on issues that affect them?

If they are paying taxes, thats close enough in my book.

5 hours ago, Hurlshort said:

Should a citizen living overseas have the right to vote?

Is the answer in the question or am I misunderstanding? IMO a citizen vacationing overseas should be able to vote in their home country elections. Or do you mean something like me voting for the Mexican president while Im hammered on c0cKtails at the pool bar in Cabo? I wonder what the rules are for other countries.

5 hours ago, Hurlshort said:

...but my opinion is typically the more people voting, the better. I want as much input as we can get in these elections.

I agree with this in principle, but unfortunately theres humans to screw it up.

[Zoraptor]

8 hours ago, Gorth said:

They are separated a bit by time though. The Inquisition was founded in 1186 and most of those famous persecutions took place in the 13th and 14th century. Protestantism rose to power in some countries in the 16th century. I.e. centuries later. Maybe they just felt the pope had "lost his edge"?

The Inquisition actually ran through to the 1830s though, and was very very active around the time of the reformation. Despite the Templars being (mostly) suppressed and the Holy Land lost the church still had a bunch of military religious orders* extant during the reformation and founded the Soldiers of Christ- ie Jesuits- in 1540. The brutal suppression of native belief in the colonies was directly contemporary with the reformation too, but generally doesn't get talked about so much because, well, nobody now or then cared about it as much as Europe.

*bit of a, uh, double edged sword when the Teutonic Knights (mostly) switched sides of course. Always an interesting 'what if' to speculate what happens if you didn't get Prussia founded on the Teutonic Order's legacy of militarism and genocide.

Quote

The wars that followed ended with the peace of Westphalia. Not sure if the birth of nationalism was a particularly good substitute for religious wars...

Evidence certainly suggests people will always find a handy excuse to fight each other and religion isn't the problem.

Quote

The pragmatism of the Henry VIIII is admirable though. Divorcing and beheading wives were easier without Papal meddling, so did away with both Catholicism and Protestantism and introduced himself as the only official spokesman for God in the form of the Anglican church

Ultimately Henry had a point. He should not really have been allowed to marry Catherine of Aragon under church doctrine since she was married to his deceased brother which would make it technical incest. If you grant an Indulgence for one you can grant one for the other too. And every ruler had a point about the enormous tracts of land that were accumulated, and still being accumulated, by the church and returned nothing to the crown and very little to the people they were meant to be helping.

[ShadySands]

27 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Snip

I think he means more like expats that live full time in other countries... Also what's the difference between an expat and an immigrant? Seems like one of those trashy for the poor and classy for the rich things.

[Hurlshort]

2 hours ago, ShadySands said:

I think he means more like expats that live full time in other countries... Also what's the difference between an expat and an immigrant? Seems like one of those trashy for the poor and classy for the rich things.

That's what I meant, yes. I've always gotten the impression an expat has retired to another country. Plenty of US citizens go to other countries to work, so the voting status would seem to still be important, as the expectation is they will return to the US at some point. Although I suppose an expat may still have financial interests in the US. 

Taxation without representation, and all that. People love to gatekeep. 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

2 hours ago, ShadySands said:

I think he means more like expats that live full time in other countries... Also what's the difference between an expat and an immigrant? Seems like one of those trashy for the poor and classy for the rich things.

I think the difference is that an expat retains citizenship to the country of origin while the immigrant attempts to gain citizenship in the country they actually live in. But in practice there is clearly a class distinction, you just don't see the moral panic around "illegal expats".

[Azdeus]

31 minutes ago, PK htiw klaw eriF said:

I think the difference is that an expat retains citizenship to the country of origin while the immigrant attempts to gain citizenship in the country they actually live in. But in practice there is clearly a class distinction, you just don't see the moral panic around "illegal expats".

It's clearly a word invented for people to avoid calling themselves immigrants, they don't want to be associated with brown people.

[Gorth]

18 hours ago, Elerond said:

I am not absolute sure of that it was zealotry that sold Lutheranism considering for example that in Sweden (and Finland, as it was then part of Sweden) converted to Lutheranism because Sweden had acquired heavy debt during Swedish War of Liberation that it had hard time to pay back to Lübeck, so when Luther started to preach that church should not have worldly possession, then king of Sweden Gustav Vasa saw opportunity get rid of political influence of Rome (as then Pope Clement VII insisted that Gustav should reinstate Gustav Trolle ally of king Christian II of Denmark and Kalmar Union) and pay Sweden's debts same time and ordered The Reformation.

I do not believe for a moment that religious doctrine was high on the agenda of Nordic monarchs. Out own king had ulterior motives when he gave in to popular uprising starting in Holstein in the 1520's and spreading.

Ironically led by a Knights Hospitaller, Hans Tausen. The political situation was complicated too, because Swedish terrorists had started an uprising against their rightful Danish overlords, leading to political maneuvering and power plays, Game of Thrones style.

A few years later, the obscenely wealthy Catholic church had its assets seized and reformation was introduced. Also, the ridiculous number of public holidays (all the St. Gorth and St. Nicholas and St.Mary and what have you holy days) were merged into a single public holiday aptly named (roughly translated) "Great Prayer Day", where the peasants, those who still cared, could worship their favourite saints all at once. Time to get the peasants back in the fields so they could produce taxable income.

 

16 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Ultimately Henry had a point. He should not really have been allowed to marry Catherine of Aragon under church doctrine since she was married to his deceased brother which would make it technical incest. If you grant an Indulgence for one you can grant one for the other too. And every ruler had a point about the enormous tracts of land that were accumulated, and still being accumulated, by the church and returned nothing to the crown and very little to the people they were meant to be helping.

(see Nordic "history" above )

 

13 hours ago, Hurlshort said:

That's what I meant, yes. I've always gotten the impression an expat has retired to another country. Plenty of US citizens go to other countries to work, so the voting status would seem to still be important, as the expectation is they will return to the US at some point. Although I suppose an expat may still have financial interests in the US. 

Taxation without representation, and all that. People love to gatekeep. 

I was a bit curious about that. According to the local advertisers here in Australia, US citizens are required to pay tax in the US, despite living abroad. Ads everywhere in social media and papers here on how to get rid of your US citizenship (if you have dual citizenship) so you don't get double taxed together with Australian tax. Are you guys supposed to pay tax in the afterlife too???

 

12 hours ago, Azdeus said:

It's clearly a word invented for people to avoid calling themselves immigrants, they don't want to be associated with brown people.

The hypocrisy of British "expats" in Spain is particularly funny to listen to in interviews. No ways are they immigrants!!!