-
@NTA said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
I find the Swedish situation quite fascinating, they are in effect a petri dish for how mass Islamic immigration works out. The only problem being other countries are not waiting to see how the petri dish experiment finishes.
Which is difficult, because its not a short experiment. You really need a generation to see how its going to bed in properly.
A friend of mine who is Swedish by birth, lived out here for part of his upbringing. Upon his return to Sweden worked on settlement of immigrants coming into the nation. I asked him his thoughts on a video that was posted up some time ago about Sweden being the "rape capital of Europe" among other things to blame on immigrants, and this was his take on the video and the topics addressed:
How does one analyse this... If I were to start with the politics. It is true that calling a spade a spade has been nigh on impossible in Swedish politics. No-one outside of the Sweden Democrats want to fuel their fire. The result: The Sweden Democrats are now the third largest party.
For the same reason nobody wanted to acknowledge that there was a limit to the number of asylum seekers we could accept per year until all of a sudden we had almost 160,000 last year and it became a fact. Again the Sweden Democrats grow because the other politicsl parties have had to finally do something (albeit less radical) that the Sweden Democrats have said all along.
Sweden's resource problem is a pile of shit. We DO have a massive housing shortage due to incredibly complex building regulations but Sweden's work force is decreasing by 65,000 persons per year due to pensions and lower birth rates so we actually need to import labour.
This massive wave of immigrants also cost the Swedish tax payer billions. But where did the money go? To wages for the thousands of people who have gotten jobs taking care of immigrants and asylum seekers. Whereas the rest if Europe is stagnating Sweden's GDP is growing with leaps and bounds. Are there loads of arses among the asylum seekers? Yep. Are there doctors, engineers and future nobel prize winners? Yep. Basically people in other words.
Do I think that shaking hands and respecting equality among the sexes is more important than religious and cultural beliefs? Hell yeah. I'm looking forward to the case where the immigrant's plea of religious and ethnic discrimination is put up against gender discrimination.
Oh... And the rape thing? Bullshit. Sexual harrasment by foreign male youth against young girls appears to be all too true though.
Also interesting is that although Sweden is growing and growing the number of murders remain steady around 90 since the 90s.Interesting. I do think with completely uncontrolled migration from the middle east though, you end up with a very bad proportion of Doctors to unskilled labourers though.
-
-
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
"Which is difficult, because its not a short experiment. You really need a generation to see how its going to bed in properly."So if it doesn't work - one generation later - oh well tough shit for Sweden?
The Conservative magazine Spectator has an interesting take on Trump's remark.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/trump-right-swedens-refugee-policy-led-problems-never-thought-possible/ -
@Frank said in US Politics:
@NTA said in US Politics:
"Which is difficult, because its not a short experiment. You really need a generation to see how its going to bed in properly."So if it doesn't work - one generation later - oh well tough shit for Sweden?
Depends what you mean by "doesn't work".
The systems and governments in place must try to anticipate issues and make course corrections. If that means a nation decides its reached its limit on immigration, then they have to see that coming and try to shift the objectives of their policy.
How that works when you have a war on your doorstep must be a real mindfuck for those nations closer to Syria. But closing your borders has shown limited success so far.
Its worth noting that places like the US already have pretty good vetting systems e.g. this guy lays down a few of the steps they take:
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
Its worth noting that places like the US already have pretty good vetting systems e.g. this guy lays down a few of the steps they take:
And this is the worry. Trump has used ignorance of the existing process combined with fear to get a heap of voters onside. As a political tactic it works and is fairly obvious. Now he has to continue the story and exaggerate the situation to back up his actions and look good.
He will get a re-drafted EO in place that is still totally unnecessary and, as a by product, weaken his public's faith in the courts to bolster their faith in him.
He is the only 'winner' out of all of this. The borders are not made any safer but the perception is that they are. Real refugees will find it more difficult to get to safety.
There is nothing left or right wing about this, it is one man using rhetoric and fear for his own purposes. Let's hope it doesn't bolster his ego further to continue down the same path. -
There is also the issue that once he gets his new EO in place & there is anything that can be painted as Islamic terror in the US - another Bowling Green Masacre, a repeat of the horrors in Sweden etc, he will go "see! if only they'd let me do extreme vetting!". And people will go "maybe its time to skip the courts".
Lets face it there will be a terror attack in the US, too many guns, too many people for there not to be.
And it 100% will be spun to increase his powers or demonise the courts.
-
A Spinoff contributor has written about a talk 'appearance' in Melbourne and Auckland by Julian Assange. http://thespinoff.co.nz/society/20-02-2017/julian-assange-live-and-indirect-on-russia-trump-factual-lies-and-emotional-truths/
Apart from Assange spouting a load of pseudo-intellectual claptrap to justify himself he did say say this, which IMO is a fair assessment.
Assange also offered a variation on the “truthiness” theory. “Donald Trump lies all the time. All the time. But it’s a particular kind of lie. He lies about facts. Constantly, he lies about fact. But does he emotionally lie? That’s a different question. I think Donald Trump’s lack of an emotional filter means that he’s perceived as being emotionally honest, and an emotional honesty, people think or feel, is more important than factual honesty.” Clinton, by contrast, “was much more honest on the facts, but emotionally I think she was considerably more dishonest.”
The funny thing is that Assange himself seems to lack both factual and emotional truthiness.
-
@Wairau said in US Politics:
and a survey of non citizen hispanics in the usa registered to vote, based on 2010 census, done i 2013...so obviously much to low in raw numbers, and additionally due to policy changes making voting registration easier...
Here is a link to a review regarding the survey
-
@Wairau said in US Politics:
and additionally due to policy changes making voting registration easier...What policy changes were these?
I thought changes were made to tighten things up not the other way around...
*New Voting Restrictions in Place for 2016 Presidential Election
In 2016, 14 states will have new voting restrictions in place for the first time in a presidential election. The new laws range from strict photo ID requirements to early voting cutbacks to registration restrictions.
Those 14 states are: Alabama, Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
(This number decreased from 15 to 14 when the D.C. Circuit blocked a voter registration requirement in Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas on September 9, 2016. Georgia was removed, but Alabama and Kansas remain on the map because certain restrictions remain in place. Other recent court rulings have impacted the map: North Carolina and North Dakota were removed after courts blocked restrictive laws. Despite a recent court victory mitigating the impact of Texas’s photo ID law, it is still included because the requirement is more restrictive than what was in place for the 2012 presidential election.)
This is part of a broader movement to curtail voting rights, which began after the 2010 election, when state lawmakers nationwide started introducing hundreds of harsh measures making it harder to vote.
Overall, 20 states have new restrictions in effect since the 2010 midterm election. Since 2010, a total of 10 states have more restrictive voter ID laws in place (and six states have strict photo ID requirements) seven have laws making it harder for citizens to register, six cut back on early voting days and hours, and three made it harder to restore voting rights for people with past criminal convictions.
This page details the new restrictive voting requirements put in place during that time period.*
-
@Wairau said in US Politics:
Whilst I can to an extent understand the beef that Trump and his team have with the media they do not help themselves do they? They refuse to engage with the media and use every opportunity to insult them. Their own attempts at media spin are full of holes and when questioned on any of this they cry "Fake news".
I think it was @Baron-Silas-Greenback that mentioned a few times some way back on this thread that if the MSM continue to, effectively "Cry Wolf" over Trump it won't be long before no-one believes anything they say- and he had a point. But now that point is very much what Trump's team are going to have to contend with and, IMO, they really need to reign back their adversarial attitude. It's unlikely to help them in the long run and it makes them look anything but Presidential.
-
The cry of 'fake news' is just as much a case of crying wolf. It has totally lost meaning from 'an invented story with nothing to support it' to 'something I don't like'.
I think the concern is that by turning supporters against the media and against the courts, whether by deliberate design or perceived necessity, Trump is weakening two of the pillars of a free society that keep a govt from running amok.
Add to this that he has also so far had nothing go through the house of reps or the senate and he looks more and more like wanting to be a benevolent dictator.
IMO this isn't his aim, he simply has an ego that does not accept criticism and truly believes that his simplistic views on things are wholly correct. The more he plays up the adoration the more he self justifies. -
This -
Is the scary bit for me
Several people said they would have liked to see more coverage of a measure that Trump signed Thursday that rolled back a last-minute Obama regulation that would have restricted coal mines from dumping debris in nearby streams. At the signing, Trump was joined by coal miners in hard hats. “If he hadn’t gotten into office, 70,000 miners would have been put out of work,” Patricia Nana, a 42-year-old naturalized citizen from Cameroon. “I saw the ceremony where he signed that bill, giving them their jobs back, and he had miners with their hard hats and everything — you could see how happy they were.
The regulation actually would have cost relatively few mining jobs and would have created nearly as many new jobs on the regulatory side, according to a government report — an example of the frequent distance between Trump’s rhetoric, which many of his supporters wholeheartedly believe, and verifiable facts.
Facts are now of zero use in politics.
And this -
She and her husband were well-versed on hold-ups with the president’s Cabinet nominees and legal arguments for the now-frozen travel ban. But they didn’t know much about the resignation of Trump’s national security adviser Michael Flynn on Monday amid accusations that he improperly discussed U.S. sanctions with the Russian ambassador — and then withheld that information from Vice President Pence and other top officials.
“See, don’t question me on that because I haven’t really been watching and listening too much on it,” Melani said. “I think he kind of did it just to step away, a trust kind of a thing. And now, of course, they want to pull a big investigation and all of this stuff. And to be honest with you, I really think it’s only because of the way the haters are out there. That’s what I really think it is.”
Is flat out terrorfying. Half the country (and the FBI. CIA courts etc) are viewing that as potentially felony treason & the other half aren't really looking at it because its fake news from haters.
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
The cry of 'fake news' is just as much a case of crying wolf. It has totally lost meaning from 'an invented story with nothing to support it' to 'something I don't like'.
I think the concern is that by turning supporters against the media and against the courts, whether by deliberate design or perceived necessity, Trump is weakening two of the pillars of a free society that keep a govt from running amok.
Add to this that he has also so far had nothing go through the house of reps or the senate and he looks more and more like wanting to be a benevolent dictator.
IMO this isn't his aim, he simply has an ego that does not accept criticism and truly believes that his simplistic views on things are wholly correct. The more he plays up the adoration the more he self justifies.Interesting where you apportion blame for the weakening of the pillars.
I think happened a long time ago when the media became more of a left wing political party than a news outlet. I think it got worse when they treat every republican presidential nominee as the devil. I think it got worse when they basically kissed Obamas ass for 8 straight years.Just because something has become widely exposed now, does not mean it is new. CNN, BBC , MSNBC became corrupted a long time ago.
-
@gollum said in US Politics:
Is flat out terrorfying. Half the country (and the FBI. CIA courts etc) are viewing that as potentially felony treason & the other half aren't really looking at it because its fake news from haters.
Half the country are not looking at it as treason. Get a grip. Nobody apart from a few far left activists and late night comedians would be stupid enough to call it treason.
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Wairau said in US Politics:
and additionally due to policy changes making voting registration easier...What policy changes were these?
I thought changes were made to tighten things up not the other way around...
*New Voting Restrictions in Place for 2016 Presidential Election
In 2016, 14 states will have new voting restrictions in place for the first time in a presidential election. The new laws range from strict photo ID requirements to early voting cutbacks to registration restrictions.
Those 14 states are: Alabama, Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
(This number decreased from 15 to 14 when the D.C. Circuit blocked a voter registration requirement in Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas on September 9, 2016. Georgia was removed, but Alabama and Kansas remain on the map because certain restrictions remain in place. Other recent court rulings have impacted the map: North Carolina and North Dakota were removed after courts blocked restrictive laws. Despite a recent court victory mitigating the impact of Texas’s photo ID law, it is still included because the requirement is more restrictive than what was in place for the 2012 presidential election.)
This is part of a broader movement to curtail voting rights, which began after the 2010 election, when state lawmakers nationwide started introducing hundreds of harsh measures making it harder to vote.
Overall, 20 states have new restrictions in effect since the 2010 midterm election. Since 2010, a total of 10 states have more restrictive voter ID laws in place (and six states have strict photo ID requirements) seven have laws making it harder for citizens to register, six cut back on early voting days and hours, and three made it harder to restore voting rights for people with past criminal convictions.
This page details the new restrictive voting requirements put in place during that time period.*
What exactly is wrong with making sure only people with a right to vote actually vote?
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Wairau said in US Politics:
and additionally due to policy changes making voting registration easier...What policy changes were these?
I thought changes were made to tighten things up not the other way around...
*New Voting Restrictions in Place for 2016 Presidential Election
In 2016, 14 states will have new voting restrictions in place for the first time in a presidential election. The new laws range from strict photo ID requirements to early voting cutbacks to registration restrictions.
Those 14 states are: Alabama, Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
(This number decreased from 15 to 14 when the D.C. Circuit blocked a voter registration requirement in Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas on September 9, 2016. Georgia was removed, but Alabama and Kansas remain on the map because certain restrictions remain in place. Other recent court rulings have impacted the map: North Carolina and North Dakota were removed after courts blocked restrictive laws. Despite a recent court victory mitigating the impact of Texas’s photo ID law, it is still included because the requirement is more restrictive than what was in place for the 2012 presidential election.)
This is part of a broader movement to curtail voting rights, which began after the 2010 election, when state lawmakers nationwide started introducing hundreds of harsh measures making it harder to vote.
Overall, 20 states have new restrictions in effect since the 2010 midterm election. Since 2010, a total of 10 states have more restrictive voter ID laws in place (and six states have strict photo ID requirements) seven have laws making it harder for citizens to register, six cut back on early voting days and hours, and three made it harder to restore voting rights for people with past criminal convictions.
This page details the new restrictive voting requirements put in place during that time period.*
What exactly is wrong with making sure only people with a right to vote actually vote?
Nothing at all. I may have misinterpreted the context of @Wairau s post. I took it as meaning 'easing the way for illegal voters'.
If that isn't correct then I got it wrong.
US Politics