The Political Discussion Thread

[SoulReaver]

Directly caused

directly??
not surprising coming from the US

@Annoyed geuss "mind your own business" doesn't apply to you right?

[Annoyed]

= economic persecution

(and indirectly caused by the US as R2d pointed out)

Raw BS.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/persecution

persecution noun

1 : the act or practice of persecuting especially those who differ in origin, religion, or social outlook
2 : the condition of being persecuted, harassed, or annoyed

Economics have nothing to do with it.

[Gatefan1976]

directly??
not surprising coming from the US

@Annoyed geuss "mind your own business" doesn't apply to you right?

This is why I quoted a person with more experience and thought it important to re-quote.
I don't want to put tood in the hole, but he is right. US meddling since the 50's has created dangerous blowback, and weather people like it or not, that's the fact.
I think it's probably why I get PO'ed about it so much as well, The "right" wanted to meddle, and now that the blowback is coming through, they want to wash their hands of it. "I blew up your house, your job, your life, but don't expect me to pay for you..
That's your problem.

[Gatefan1976]

Raw BS.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/persecution

persecution noun

1 : the act or practice of persecuting especially those who differ in origin, religion, or social outlook
2 : the condition of being persecuted, harassed, or annoyed

Economics have nothing to do with it.

LOL!!!
Go get a job fitting tyres, or are you to old, or is that not economic?

[Annoyed]

What makes people think that we are responsible? I don't know....maybe the fact that the US, throughout the 1900s, overthrew democratically elected Central American governments and supported authoritarian and corrupt regimes that waged war against their own people in order to stay in power all in the name of protecting American interests (United Fruit Company, Panama Canal etc...) or fighting communism? American intervention for nearly a century prevented the region from ever stabilising. Costa Rica and Belize were the only countries free of this American meddling and guess what? They are fairly developed and stable countries and they are not a source of these mass migrations. El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras are a source and received heavy meddling from the US.

And how many of these interventions were to benefit the people of the nation in question? Overthrow some warlord or other strongman who had taken control of the country to the detriment of its people? How many times have we had to do the same thing over in a nation because it's people kept getting taken over?

And, just because I help some old lady across the street, that doesn't mean I have to stand there and help her again when she wants to come back.

[Chaka-Z0]

Your point?
Canada accepted 25k with a supporting native population of 35 million in 2015. Our population was around the 22 mark, so you didn't accept more per capita than us, in fact, you probably accepted less per capita.
The danger of using numbers without context.
Statistically less than the number Canada accepted, but Canada, like Australia see them as a future investment.

Correct, numbers without context isn't a good thing and I didn't use the right years because Brison wasn't in office in 2015. For instance, you forgot to factor in that we had a Conservative administration at that time, aka Stephen Harper the dickwad. My bad on that one.

The Liberals admitted over 65k refugees in 2018. 310k new permanent residents admitted in 2018. That's almost 400k all mixed together. Australia during that same year admitted approximately 160k. That's almost twice as much for Canada, and a very very low amount for a developped country on the same scale than Canada.

The stress that rapid population growth has placed on Melbourne and Sydney has recently become a topic of much debate. This week, Prime Minister Scott Morrison pledged to reduce the annual permanent immigration cap of 190,000. Australia accepted just 162,417 immigrants last year, the lowest level in a decade.

http://theconversation.com/why-canad...from-it-107283

But that is my point.
The hard right assumes the immigrant is guilty.

True

The hard left assumes the immigrant is innocent.

Criminals are not admitted obviously and criminal offenses are punished by banishment back to their original country. The hard left is a myth, there is no such thing as a politically influencial communist group. Those that are assigned the hard left etiquette are usually ppl part of the resistance against rightist regimes such as Brison's or Trump's. When drastic actions are taken to oppose such regimes it is considered hard left, because the way you described (stay idle in face of actions from the hard right not to become like them) simply doesn't work. If you refer to les gilets jaunes, I'd say many in that group are a bunch of anarchists which would be there anyway and who thrives in chaos. There's always some of those in any strikes or situations that incite chaos.

Neither are true.

One is, there are plenty of extremist right groups anti-immigration and racists bunch. As a matter of fact, the innocents (people with little education) are being tainted by highly popular folks that use intelligent arguments to argue against immigration. The blank slates (the innocents) are being converted and end up in such groups. That's how cancer spread.

You mentioned Quebec being a native French speaking area, what if Canada decided to drop all 25,000 refugee's into Quebec?
Low educated people, with no way to learn a new language.
You might have to press a 1 on the phone if a few years.

Most of the immigrants actually end up in Québec, Montréal, since it's the hot zone for jobs and most popular city. In a nutshell, those that land on QC soil are obligated to learn French and pass a (joke) exam to confirm they know it, but most of them end up switching to English right after and don't bother fully learning French. A party on the federal level tried to pass a bill to make this a sinequanon condition, if they fail the exam they're sent back. But as expected, the Federalists made a big deal out of that and blocked the bill from even passing to a vote. The egg was killed in the shell.

But technically speaking, if 25k refugees were to drop in Quebec they'd need to learn French, yes. They are offered free courses and learn in classes, just like a child would in school, for free.

How does it go against that principle?
Accepting everyone equally means recognizing their basic humanity, no matter what, it does not mean you let everyone onto your couch.

You've mentionned you're not in favor of everything regarding to AUS immigration policies so I'll let that one go, but the very definition of a refugee IS an ''everyone you let on your couch''. They are refugees, not immigrants waiting years on a list.

I'm still curious though. What is it exactly that you think is positive in this current AUS immigration policy? I have yet to hear about it. That's why I focused on the 45 pts part. If not this, what is it?

[SoulReaver]

And how many of these interventions were to benefit the people of the nation in question?

yeah man it's not imperialism when you do it (it's "manifest destiny")

Overthrow some warlord or other strongman who had taken control of the country to the detriment of its people?

like replacing Chilean democracy with a darwinist dictatorship & exporting capitalism/poverty?

[Gatefan1976]

And how many of these interventions were to benefit the people of the nation in question?

None.
You want to install "democracy", but when pushed on it, you claim you are a democratic republic, not a democracy, so the same rules don't apply.

Overthrow some warlord or other strongman who had taken control of the country to the detriment of its people? How many times have we had to do the same thing over in a nation because it's people kept getting taken over?

You never HAD to do anything, you CHOSE to, and that has concequences.
I think trump is a strongman, and I think it is to the detriment of the USA because more people voted against him, than for him.

And, just because I help some old lady across the street, that doesn't mean I have to stand there and help her again when she wants to come back.

No you don't.
Be nice if you did.

[Gatefan1976]

Correct, numbers without context isn't a good thing and I didn't use the right years because Brison wasn't in office in 2015. For instance, you forgot to factor in that we had a Conservative administration at that time, aka Stephen Harper the dickwad. My bad on that one.

And our current immigration system is based on conservative values.
Neither Australia, nor Canada are immune to this criticism.

The Liberals admitted over 65k refugees in 2018. 310k new permanent residents admitted in 2018. That's almost 400k all mixed together. Australia during that same year admitted approximately 160k. That's almost twice as much for Canada, and a very very low amount for a developped country on the same scale than Canada.

We are not on the same scale as Canada. It is lower per capita, and lower than what we could sustain, no argument, but it is not very very low, it's conservative.

http://theconversation.com/why-canad...from-it-107283

I'm not arguing your immigration system of allowing more people in. If you want to get into the weeds here, it's spelled out in your article, immigrants only want to go to Sydney or Melbourne, or other major hubs, and we need immigrants in rural area's (and yeah, we have policies for that as well)

True



Criminals are not admitted obviously and criminal offenses are punished by banishment back to their original country. The hard left is a myth, there is no such thing as a politically influencial communist group. Those that are assigned the hard left etiquette are usually ppl part of the resistance against rightist regimes such as Brison's or Trump's. When drastic actions are taken to oppose such regimes it is considered hard left, because the way you described (stay idle in face of actions from the hard right not to become like them) simply doesn't work. If you refer to les gilets jaunes, I'd say many in that group are a bunch of anarchists which would be there anyway and who thrives in chaos. There's always some of those in any strikes or situations that incite chaos.

I disagree.
There ARE people who want to let people go anywhere and do anything, and they share more in common with the left than anarchists.
Thing is, we are not ready to do that in an ordered society right now. I want it, but I can't get it because people and society simply is not there yet, so it's no more viable right now than zero immigration. Anarchists don't care about any kind of system, in fact, it's pretty antithetical to what they believe. Look at trump and the excuses people give for accepting him. The most common reason is he was sent to burn the system, and in that regard, he is a success, he is burning it down. He's not left, he's not right, he's an idiot put in charge by anarchists because he is a popularist, charismatic speaker who deals in the lowest common denominator.

One is, there are plenty of extremist right groups anti-immigration and racists bunch. As a matter of fact, the innocents (people with little education) are being tainted by highly popular folks that use intelligent arguments to argue against immigration. The blank slates (the innocents) are being converted and end up in such groups. That's how cancer spread.

Anyone can weaponize ignorance, the right does it more, or more effectively.
BUT you have put your finger on why I don't trust religion or governments, but the law.

Most of the immigrants actually end up in Québec, Montréal, since it's the hot zone for jobs and most popular city. In a nutshell, those that land on QC soil are obligated to learn French and pass a (joke) exam to confirm they know it, but most of them end up switching to English right after and don't bother fully learning French. A party on the federal level tried to pass a bill to make this a sinequanon condition, if they fail the exam they're sent back. But as expected, the Federalists made a big deal out of that and blocked the bill from even passing to a vote. The egg was killed in the shell.

So, you want to force them to learn French, but chastised Annoyed for people not assimilating?
I hear 5 different languages in my little cul-de-sac, and I don't give a damn. On the left, they are speaking Swahili, on the right, they are speaking Philipinno. Across the road, it's English, and at the end of the street, it's Mandarin, and in the middle, it's Indian.
Can we connect?
Well, we have street parties, so yeah, we connect over food, over fun, and stupid mistakes when we don't get what each other are saying.
Is there a common language?
Yes, and it's English, and for you French is your common language.
I don't expect them to speak English to move here, some of my neighbours cannot speak a word of English, and that's fine (generally the older ones).

But technically speaking, if 25k refugees were to drop in Quebec they'd need to learn French, yes. They are offered free courses and learn in classes, just like a child would in school, for free.

What if they don't want to?
What if they want to make you all speak Espreanto instead?

You've mentionned you're not in favor of everything regarding to AUS immigration policies so I'll let that one go, but the very definition of a refugee IS an ''everyone you let on your couch''. They are refugees, not immigrants waiting years on a list.

I don't want the person who wants my couch and hurts other people. I will give my couch to the person who needs it, any person, no matter race creed or country.
(getting Jel off my couch and eating my bacon. that's your issue)

I'm still curious though. What is it exactly that you think is positive in this current AUS immigration policy? I have yet to hear about it. That's why I focused on the 45 pts part. If not this, what is it?

Having standards for immigration is fine, wanting to "recruit" intelligent people is fine, helping your nation is fine.
What is not fine is denying people who actually need your help.

[Chaka-Z0]

I'm not arguing your immigration system of allowing more people in. If you want to get into the weeds here, it's spelled out in your article, immigrants only want to go to Sydney or Melbourne, or other major hubs, and we need immigrants in rural area's (and yeah, we have policies for that as well)

This is the same problem every country faces with immigration. They go to where the jobs are.

I disagree.
There ARE people who want to let people go anywhere and do anything, and they share more in common with the left than anarchists.

Leaving aside that ridiculous generalization you've made, you know anyone that has anything in common with anarchists? Mb uncle Jerry in jail? Or Susan wanted for murder? Nobody has sh*t in common with anarchists.

Thing is, we are not ready to do that in an ordered society right now. I want it, but I can't get it because people and society simply is not there yet, so it's no more viable right now than zero immigration

Why are you setting yourself such unachievable goals? Whatever comes out of your reasoning with this as a bearing makes you lose perspective.

BUT you have put your finger on why I don't trust religion or governments, but the law.

If pure law, commonly known as a dictatorship, was applied, law enforcement would arrest who they want for for any crime imaginable. No second chance, no warning by Mr. Officer, suck my tazer or go to jail.

Relevant to this, we had a case here recently. Some crook CEO's of a 10k + employees company bribed, frauded, you name it. Our Minister of Justice basically killed the company since the law dictates such cases are not eligible for a negotiation agreement, against the wishes of our Prime Minister.

That's the law. 10k ppl losing their job over some bs inside job a couple 1%er did. Sounds fair?

We cannot rule ourselves with a binary system without human intervention as we are beings shaped by emotions. Give a man a pistol, a badge and free reign to arrest anyone and he will be singing my fuhrer in no time.

I've encountered cops by the hundreds times as a teen, ya know I wasn't always a behaving Unas and lots of casual stops to check on stolen car aka busting your weed, and I can tell you by experience that many will try to use the full extent of their powers just because they can and they love it. It's the human nature. I've known my rights since I'm 14 years old because of how law is abused.

[Annoyed]

This is the same problem every country faces with immigration. They go to where the jobs are.



Leaving aside that ridiculous generalization you've made, you know anyone that has anything in common with anarchists? Mb uncle Jerry in jail? Or Susan wanted for murder? Nobody has sh*t in common with anarchists.



Why are you setting yourself such unachievable goals? Whatever comes out of your reasoning with this as a bearing makes you lose perspective.



If pure law, commonly known as a dictatorship, was applied, law enforcement would arrest who they want for for any crime imaginable. No second chance, no warning by Mr. Officer, suck my tazer or go to jail.

Relevant to this, we had a case here recently. Some crook CEO's of a 10k + employees company bribed, frauded, you name it. Our Minister of Justice basically killed the company since the law dictates such cases are not eligible for a negotiation agreement, against the wishes of our Prime Minister.

That's the law. 10k ppl losing their job over some bs inside job a couple 1%er did. Sounds fair?

We cannot rule ourselves with a binary system without human intervention as we are beings shaped by emotions. Give a man a pistol, a badge and free reign to arrest anyone and he will be singing my fuhrer in no time.

I've encountered cops by the hundreds times as a teen, ya know I wasn't always a behaving Unas and lots of casual stops to check on stolen car aka busting your weed, and I can tell you by experience that many will try to use the full extent of their powers just because they can and they love it. It's the human nature. I've known my rights since I'm 14 years old because of how law is abused.

Thing is, at least in the US, the police don't create the laws, the legislature does. The legislature is who defines what is illegal.
The police can't arrest someone for something unless the legislature decrees that activity is a crime.
Are there abuses and room for improvement? Certainly. The forfeiture laws that SCOTUS recently shot down are one example.
But the police do not have a free hand.

[Annoyed]

And, while we're on the topic of immigration policy, how stupid are we?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...s-an-emergency

Now, however, the nature of the flow has changed. Today, the large majority of those caught crossing are families and unaccompanied children. They are not trying to sneak in, they are crossing for the purpose of giving themselves over to the Border Patrol. They do that knowing U.S. law forbids them being returned, or separated, or even held for more than a few days. In short order, they are released into the United States.

Really, this belongs in the bonehead thread. I can't believe we are this stupid.

[Gatefan1976]

This is the same problem every country faces with immigration. They go to where the jobs are.

Of course, but I as I said, we have policies that attempt to reduce that issue.
Remember when you were talking about the 45 points required to get a Visa?
Doing something like agreeing to work in a country town can wipe 10-20 points of that.
It's customized, it's nuanced, and YES, it's still headhunting capable people. These things don't have to be in opposition.

Leaving aside that ridiculous generalization you've made, you know anyone that has anything in common with anarchists? Mb uncle Jerry in jail? Or Susan wanted for murder? Nobody has sh*t in common with anarchists.

You are not understanding what an anarchist is.
Anarchists are not inherently criminal, the people who voted for trump are not criminals, they just wanted to burn the system down, and if that was the goal, they are succeeding. It's the SYSTEM they are attacking, not the people. (though, some do as they are encouraged by people like trump to do it, but that is a separate issue)
Bernie's voters, or AOC's voters threaten to burn the system down just as much, does that make them criminal?

Why are you setting yourself such unachievable goals? Whatever comes out of your reasoning with this as a bearing makes you lose perspective.

Because to reach for the easily achievable is a waste of time.
The most monumental goal of the US was to get to the moon, and it prompted the greatest growth in science and technology of the era. You could argue that the US dominance of science and tech was based on that one goal, Yet it too was considered a pipe dream.
I'll argue for dreams every day and twice on Sundays
"I have a dream"
Sound familiar?

If pure law, commonly known as a dictatorship, was applied, law enforcement would arrest who they want for for any crime imaginable. No second chance, no warning by Mr. Officer, suck my tazer or go to jail.

This is so staggeringly wrong as to be laughable.
Law is not a dictatorship, it's a function of political and societies desire. "pure law" is the bridge between the two, which is why things such as gay marriage and medical, to recreational pot has been legalized.
It's also why women can vote.
It's also why black people can vote (in the US)

Relevant to this, we had a case here recently. Some crook CEO's of a 10k + employees company bribed, frauded, you name it. Our Minister of Justice basically killed the company since the law dictates such cases are not eligible for a negotiation agreement, against the wishes of our Prime Minister.

Perhaps that's a bad law?
Laws can be fallible, but unlike belief or tribalism, they can be CHANGED.

That's the law. 10k ppl losing their job over some bs inside job a couple 1%er did. Sounds fair?

No, and as I say to Annoyed, Change the law.

We cannot rule ourselves with a binary system without human intervention as we are beings shaped by emotions. Give a man a pistol, a badge and free reign to arrest anyone and he will be singing my fuhrer in no time.

When did I not ask for intervention?
When did I say a binary system was good?

I've encountered cops by the hundreds times as a teen, ya know I wasn't always a behaving Unas and lots of casual stops to check on stolen car aka busting your weed, and I can tell you by experience that many will try to use the full extent of their powers just because they can and they love it. It's the human nature. I've known my rights since I'm 14 years old because of how law is abused.

We cannot help human nature, people like having power, but if the law said your bag of weed is legal, they have SQUAT to charge you with.
That's the way the law works, and that's why I support it.
Yesterday you were a dirty druggy, today you are fine, and it worked out pretty well in Colarado, decriminalizing even harder drugs has worked in some countries as well, even reduced usage.

Long story short.
You can change the law, and people have the right to vote on those changes.
Can you just as easily change political or religious affiliation?
If you said no, you got my point, if you said yes, you really don't care.

[SoulReaver]

the people who voted for trump are not criminals, they just wanted to burn the system down, and if that was the goal, they are succeeding

not criminals they're either part of the top elites in which case they're smart or they're commoners in which case they're idiots

"succeeding"? lol the system's stronger than ever
Koch Wall $treet Goldman $ach$ the trillion dollar oil indu$try etc.
and those who claim to oppose him like Zuckerberg & Bezos profit the most from his tax cuts

[Chaka-Z0]

You are not understanding what an anarchist is.

Anarchy is an impossible theory (just like communism) by design so those that claim to be anarchists are simply thugs with a brand name. That's why I'm not referring to anarchists as actual follower of that doctrine.

Bernie's voters, or AOC's voters threaten to burn the system down just as much, does that make them criminal?

Social measures are burning the system... by saving them in the hospital free of charge or giving unemployed folks a small bit of help to get em through the month. I think you had too much of Trump kool'aid yourself.

Because to reach for the easily achievable is a waste of time.
The most monumental goal of the US was to get to the moon, and it prompted the greatest growth in science and technology of the era. You could argue that the US dominance of science and tech was based on that one goal, Yet it too was considered a pipe dream.
I'll argue for dreams every day and twice on Sundays
"I have a dream"
Sound familiar?

Nonsense. Rockets were invented by Nazis during WW2, you think it was that much of a stretch to believe we were fully capable to go to space on the moon like 20-30 years later? What came before that, the plane? Maybe once the plane was invented it wasn't that much of a stretch to believe in jets or rockets? I can keep going down like that all the way to the invention of the wheel and discovery of fire.

Dreams is your reward at the end of a quest line. It's not about if it's easily achievable it's about progress, whether or not it's a slow progress. Unless you've become a radical and want something impossible right then right now (a MAGA land for Trumpers).

This is so staggeringly wrong as to be laughable.

Let's get things straight, you said you didn't trust any form of govt. only the law, so don't you blame me for going down that tangent. You shift the debate a lot, not my problem.

Perhaps that's a bad law?
Laws can be fallible, but unlike belief or tribalism, they can be CHANGED.

But in the case I mentioned, an intervention by the govt could've saved the company, but if we go with your model we should go with what the law says and maybe change it later on. Well guess what, the law just killed 10k jobs for no reason, but if the govt intervened they'd be saved. Only in this specific case the Min. of Justice had all the power and the PM couldn't do squat without criminal offense.

No, and as I say to Annoyed, Change the law.

There. Done, I just sent an email to the supreme court.

When did I not ask for intervention?
When did I say a binary system was good?

You say you don't trust the govt., only the law. Maybe that's not what you meant? Or maybe you're changing your arguments as the posts continue?

We cannot help human nature, people like having power, but if the law said your bag of weed is legal, they have SQUAT to charge you with.

The law also says a police officer can't proceed to a car search unless he sees physical evidence somewhere in the car. Smell ain't enough.

Here's another one, I've been charged with Hit and Run for scratching someone's car in a grocery store parking lot. I was working the bottles in the basement that day and the intercom was broken, the cops been looking for me for 2 hours and when I got out the ***** claimed it was H&R bc I didn't respond to hails and failed to leave my contact info on the other car. Anybody would say ''Non-sense, why would you leave your car there if it was H&R?''. Why did this sh*t even go to trial?

Guess what? The judge threw a fit at the cops during trial because they bring BS cases like that before him and makes him waste his time. Thankfully we have a human (judge) that can intervene in the law, and dismiss ridiculous power abuses cases such as this. The idiots are the cops, and cops have a LOT of discretionary power, you want to give the weapons in the hand of law agencies that's what happens.

Yesterday you were a dirty druggy, today you are fine, and it worked out pretty well in Colarado, decriminalizing even harder drugs has worked in some countries as well, even reduced usage.

I was a normal teen enjoying my social life and had a great circle of friends. Ever heard of fishing? 90% of the times I was stopped by the police me and my friends weren't doing anything wrong other than say 4 guys driving a small Honda Civic Hatchback, which was a police magnet. They will pull whatever BS they can, stolen car, your exhaust is loud, decibel test, or any other reason from an exhaustive list available to them. At some point we found out that removing our caps was beneficial for our odds of not getting stopped. Profiling is the problem.

Long story short.
You can change the law, and people have the right to vote on those changes.
Can you just as easily change political or religious affiliation?
If you said no, you got my point, if you said yes, you really don't care.

I'll say I don't have a clue what you're arguing for anymore. How is that related to draconian immigration policies? And how is all you said not conflicting with being okay with tighter immigration policies? You want to talk big ideals yet overall it makes no sense with supporting Brison's policies which you find overall positive.