If all the oursourcing of jobs, hiring of illegal aliens and fleeing of businesses to other countries does not stop, there will be nothing left of the us.
Dear US Americans ... would you really vote for a candidate only because his name somehow makes you feel that it might be related to "success"?
Beware! This is not even his ancestors' real name!
your mistakes make billions suffer.
Bernie Sanders want's the US to become a comunist country.
Rubio is too green.
Most people don't even know what "communism" is, as much as it is abused as a more or less universal threatening term. More or less everything limiting the profits of companies is blamed to be communism, no matter how much it really belongs to communism as defined. Bernie Sanders calls himself a "socialist", not a "communist"; there is a huge gap between both meanings.
Only "fat cats" can be afraid of being social. Free economy without social responsibility will destroy itself by depleting its most important resource: The solvent customers. The more asocial the economy gets, the fewer customers can afford a purchase. Ludwig Erhard understood. We should not try to worship Ferengi culture...
How can someone be "too green" in a world that gets destroyed a bit more every day?Green, meaning new. He's too junior for the job.
This is utterly retarded. Keep in mind, I'm no Trump supporter, but you progressives are absolute idiots.
Now, why don't you maybe go tell Merkel to quit letting migrants rape her women?
QuoteHow can someone be "too green" in a world that gets destroyed a bit more every day?Green, meaning new. He's too junior for the job.
Progressive is bad, but aggressive is good? Watch your language, please.
We need to progress to get out of the current global situation. We might have different definitions of progress, though.
adjective
1.
favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters:
Please allow me to correct your assumption: All crime statistics show that speaking in percentages, the migrants / refugees commit considerably less crimes then Germans, and most of their crimes are minor, like shoplifting. Yes, there have been some rapes by migrants / refugees, but far less then by long-time residents of Germany, be they foreigners or Germans.
I think volki was refering to a news story about syrian refugees raping or molesting german women. I honestly don't know if this was an isolated incident or if if happened more than once, but I do remember this being reported along with some suggestion that perhaps such behaviour was culturally accepted wherever they came from ( syria, iraq or wherever ). Not all countries view women as equals.
Do you know what a progressive is?Quoteadjective
1.
favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters:
Progressives are the aggressive ones.
Please allow me to correct your assumption: All crime statistics show that speaking in percentages, the migrants / refugees commit considerably less crimes then Germans, and most of their crimes are minor, like shoplifting. Yes, there have been some rapes by migrants / refugees, but far less then by long-time residents of Germany, be they foreigners or Germans.
This is the exact opposite of what I've heard and seen. Care to back any of that up? As far as I'm aware, statistics haven't had time to be published.
First off, we don't hate Trump because he "speaks his mind." We hate him because he is a bumbling, megalomaniac xenophobe who has absolutely no idea how to run a country.
He thinks all Mexicans are criminals and rapists and all Muslims are terrorists.
His most concrete plans involve building walls, doing "something" about Muslims, and replacing Obamacare with "IDK something better."
Trump can't even maintain diplomatic relations with Fox News, who is universally recognized to have a huge bias toward his own side of the aisle. Can you imagine him at peace talks between Palestine and Israel? Things would blow up. More than they already do, I mean.
As far as Socialism goes...that whole thing about the safety net (Welfare, Unemployment, etc) is complete hogwash. It's often spouted by conservatives in favor of "trickle-down economics," which has been failing to work since at least the Nixon era. People aren't fundamentally lazy--sure maybe a few of them are.
But you'll notice the evidence for this is always anecdotal. When arguing politics with a conservative friend after a few too many G&T's he will inevitably mention his uncle's friend's cousin's wife's roommate who lives in a shack and doesn't work so that he can get welfare. I'm not saying that these people don't exist, but they are a statistically negligent minority.
Most people who use the safety net want desperately to get off of it.
Think also about how a wider safety net would likely increase innovation. For instance, I would love to quit my current job and start a business, but I'm afraid of what will happen if my business fails and I can't pay my rent.
This election may decide if we remain a republic or lose what is left of our rights.
abloobloo
Anyway... they all kinda suck in ways, but we need to pick one.
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse,
"why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the
vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've
voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong
lizard might get in."
Anyway... they all kinda suck in ways, but we need to pick one.
Ahaha, but I couldn't resist:
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse,
"why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the
vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've
voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong
lizard might get in."
:innocent:
And once again: The Simpsons nailed it (http://frupic.frubar.net/shots/33956.jpg)
Ligh, I'm going to vote for Trump just to spite people like you.
Ligh, I'm going to vote for Trump just to spite people like you.
NOT funny.
*facepalm*Ligh, I'm going to vote for Trump just to spite people like you.
NOT funny.
I'm not being funny.
Now the world is getting older
There's a few things to be said
Do you believe the things they told you
Do you believe the things you've read
There's a rumour on the corner
But it's always been denied
Cause they don't want you any wiser
You're just toeing the party line
From the west side to the east side
From the north side to the south
You'll never get bad information
If you believe in the word of mouth
Look out for those who still want to hang on
Look out for those who live in the past
Get out and listen to the whisper
Because the times are changing fast
...
Well dunno, european media vs. american media is really different + europeans dont vote so the election news are just to get more reads here. Anyhow both candidates look bad. Is there any statistic who has bigger support?
Insulting a supporter of left (= pro-social) politics as nazi ... can it get more paradox?
Rigwyn, you understand me. Brilliant reply!
Names of parties have little meaning.+1
Doesn't the term "nazi" come from he national-socialist party? I mean, it's right there in the name, socialist. And I'm sure you support your country one way or the other. So, technically speaking...
By the way ... I wish I knew anyone who is both competent in language science and has a little time to discuss this matter with me. I found that there are some terms which have only little meaning on their own, you always need to put them into an additional context. One of the most obvious examples is "freedom", or related: "liberty". What does freedom - on its own - mean, at all? Is it a positive term per se? I doubt; I can imagine a negative context easily: When someone takes more liberty than he deserves, thereby limiting the freedom of other people. This is the kind of context I see for our "Liberal Democrats": I am afraid that they only care for their economic and legal liberty, to reduce governmental control and restrictions. And turning social economy into free economy always happens at the expense of the people who are already too poor to spare money for investments.
Insulting a supporter of left (= pro-social) politics as nazi ... can it get more paradox?
I'd say it's becoming clearer and clearer Merkel is trying to strongarm the EU into a state (empire) led by Germany. Surprised you haven't heard this before in reference to the EU.
I'd say it's becoming clearer and clearer Merkel is trying to strongarm the EU into a state (empire) led by Germany. Surprised you haven't heard this before in reference to the EU.[/list]
- Germany is the biggest payer in the EU (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union))
- Germany and France have always been the motors of the EU (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union))
I'm aware of these, and this is why I wish Le Pen had a chance in France. Also, lacking conflict doesn't immediately equate to a good thing. I'm actually shocked that your countries haven't revolted against their respective governments and the EU, but that's probably due to a lack of liberalism within your cultures.
Lastly, small note/question Gonger, the influence of countries in the EU does depend on the size of their population as countries with a larger population hold more seats in parliament than those with small populations. Or am I missing something?
I'd say it's becoming clearer and clearer Merkel is trying to strongarm the EU into a state (empire) led by Germany. Surprised you haven't heard this before in reference to the EU.[/list]
- Germany is the biggest payer in the EU (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union))
- Germany and France have always been the motors of the EU (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union))
I'm aware of these, and this is why I wish Le Pen had a chance in France. Also, lacking conflict doesn't immediately equate to a good thing. I'm actually shocked that your countries haven't revolted against their respective governments and the EU, but that's probably due to a lack of liberalism within your cultures.
...Most countries are doing well economically, and those who are not are unsurprisingly on top of the Corruption lists.Your argument is totally invalid, Finlands economy is totally trash but its 3rd LEAST corrupted nation.
While the economy is currently slighty better than a bit before, the future is certainly not looking as bright. ofc it is indeed possible that it will stay growing, which i certainly hope for.
Gonger, What i mean is that Germany has more influence than some countries and benefits more from things like Euro than smaller countries like Finland. My views are quite limited as i don't have as much time as i want to read about things, but as far as i know, atleast Finland doesn't benefits as much as Germany from EU and it's more free trade.
And i'm not suprised at all that Finland slipped from your mind, Finland is, afterall, quite peacefull sector so there is really not much anything happening out here :D (Finland is mostly trees anyway.... ;D )
BOOOOORIIIIIIIING
Poor ol' Luxembourg.
(http://i.imgur.com/QCFWfNy.png)
I don't get this meme, want to clarify a bit?
I don't get this meme, want to clarify a bit?
The head is, roughly, in the shape of Luxembourg.
What do you mean there? You are in favour of racism in France? And Germany and France should take up their century-long wars again?
And why revolt against something that most people appreciate?
I take it you took in all of the mainstream journalism on Le Pen and didn't consider they might be lying.
I'm in favor of reducing empires to rubble before they are made permanent. I'm in favor of the exact kind of policies necessary to protect citizens over non-citizens. I'm in favor of no European cultures going extinct in the way Macron wishes they have.
Why revolt? Because your governments are actively working against its citizens. Some of the most amazing contradictions arise from European progressivism.
"We want diversity!" Yet you believe European cultures do not exist or do not deserve to exist. You kill cultures, you kill diversity. And you're importing cultures which follow a conqueror religion.
"We need immigration for the economy!" Okay, but here's another, better idea: incentivize your own citizens to marry and procreate. Stop with the anti-sex feminism and celebrate traditional families.
"We want peace in the Middle East!" But you're just fine with Saudi Arabia. And just fine with taking in millions of refugees* instead of trying to stop the conflicts, or even admitting who the real aggressors are in the conflicts themselves. This even leads back to "needing immigration", which presents some incentive to want conflict and more refugees.
*(Most are economic migrants.)
"We tolerate people of all kinds: gay, trans, all races, and religions!" Yet Islam is on the rise, and it's the most intolerant of the mainstream religions. It's like the most backwards version of Christianity on steroids. Condolences to the liberal upper-class Muslims who have reformed their faith, but the vast majority has scholars who actively work against reformation and keep them in the stone-age of religion.
It's like most people have heard these contradicting lines so many times they've forgotten what a contradiction is and expect it to be mainstream for party policy.
"We want diversity!" Yet you believe European cultures do not exist or do not deserve to exist. You kill cultures, you kill diversity. And you're importing cultures which follow a conqueror religion.Do you have the slightest idea what creates culture ? Diversity and exchanges.
And you're importing cultures which follow a conqueror religion.Do you really think Islamic culture has taken a more important part in French culture than American culture has ? Allow me to laugh at you if you say yes...
"We need immigration for the economy!" Okay, but here's another, better idea: incentivize your own citizens to marry and procreate. Stop with the anti-sex feminism and celebrate traditional families.I will marry if I please. And if so, no-one but me will decide whether it's a he, a she, or even a non-binary gendered one. And in case I marry someone I can have children with, we'll be the only ones to decide whether we have some, okay ?
And just fine with taking in millions of refugees* instead of trying to stop the conflictsWell, pardon us not to send our presidents and secretaries of state ten letters a day... Which wouldn't give us any more control about the situation. As for Le Pen, I doubt she'd improve the situation at all.
"We tolerate people of all kinds: gay, trans, all races, and religions!" Yet Islam is on the rise, and it's the most intolerant of the mainstream religions. It's like the most backwards version of Christianity on steroids. Condolences to the liberal upper-class Muslims who have reformed their faith, but the vast majority has scholars who actively work against reformation and keep them in the stone-age of religion.I don't know details about Islam at all, but I think conservatives are mostly the noisiest ones. Oh, and by the way, there are extremely conservative Christians and lay Europeans too, and I wouldn't call your praise of traditional family reformative either...
It's like most people have heard these contradicting lines so many times they've forgotten what a contradiction isWell, it seems you forgot too. ;D
I take it you took in all of the mainstream journalism on Le Pen and didn't consider they might be lying.
I'm in favor of reducing empires to rubble before they are made permanent. I'm in favor of the exact kind of policies necessary to protect citizens over non-citizens. I'm in favor of no European cultures going extinct in the way Macron wishes they have.
Why revolt? Because your governments are actively working against its citizens. Some of the most amazing contradictions arise from European progressivism.
"We want diversity!" Yet you believe European cultures do not exist or do not deserve to exist. You kill cultures, you kill diversity. And you're importing cultures which follow a conqueror religion.
"We need immigration for the economy!" Okay, but here's another, better idea: incentivize your own citizens to marry and procreate. Stop with the anti-sex feminism and celebrate traditional families.
"We want peace in the Middle East!" But you're just fine with Saudi Arabia. And just fine with taking in millions of refugees* instead of trying to stop the conflicts, or even admitting who the real aggressors are in the conflicts themselves. This even leads back to "needing immigration", which presents some incentive to want conflict and more refugees.
*(Most are economic migrants.)
"We tolerate people of all kinds: gay, trans, all races, and religions!" Yet Islam is on the rise, and it's the most intolerant of the mainstream religions. It's like the most backwards version of Christianity on steroids. Condolences to the liberal upper-class Muslims who have reformed their faith, but the vast majority has scholars who actively work against reformation and keep them in the stone-age of religion.
It's like most people have heard these contradicting lines so many times they've forgotten what a contradiction is and expect it to be mainstream for party policy.
If the refugee invasion was a good thing, then everyone would be taking them in and encouraging them to stay. Is that what is happening now? Is that why Germany needs to force EU member countries to take their fair share?Your thinking is way too simplistic. First, there are always people to refuse things, even when most others consider it good. Second, there are much more people around here who are willing to welcome refugees than what you seem to think. To take that Germany example most of you take, Pegida aren't the only ones who demonstrate, there are pro-migrants demonstrations too. There are people who teach migrants how to speak German, or French, or whatever language they need to learn to communicate in the country they currently live in, there are even people who welcome migrants in their own houses.
It looks more like the refugee crisis is analogous to a soggy, shit sandwich. One that everyone is obligated to eat.
Actually, the plan is really simple. Europe was just too smart to be controlled and policed as hell, so globalists first poisoned Europeans` minds with social marxism in the sixties, and then began to open the borders for the migrants to interbreed with the native population and by that lower their IQ substantially.Ahahah ! Magnificent conspiracy theory Mairon. Well, still a conspiracy theory...
One should boil the frog gradually, right?
Actually, the plan is really simple. Europe was just too smart to be controlled and policed as hell, so globalists first poisoned Europeans` minds with social marxism in the sixties, and then began to open the borders for the migrants to interbreed with the native population and by that lower their IQ substantially.
One should boil the frog gradually, right?
and then began to open the borders for the migrants to interbreed with the native population and by that lower their IQ substantially.
You guys in Europe will be kicking yourselves in the ass 30 to 50 years from now when you realize what an irreversible mistake it was to let the refugees invade.Please keep your xenophobic hasty assumptions for yourself, alright ?
and then began to open the borders for the migrants to interbreed with the native population and by that lower their IQ substantially.
I really hope you were just expressing yourself poorly there.
Quote from: Rigwyn 5tlink=topic=42841.msg482760#msg482760 date=1497919733You guys in Europe will be kicking yourselves in the ass 30 to 50 years from now when you realize what an irreversible mistake it was to let the refugees invade.Please keep your xenophobic hasty assumptions for yourself, alright ?
You're doing precisely what I can't stand at all : telling others what to do because of your own fears/hatred.
Aeghiss, If one fears something should they not try to prevent that which they fear?You know the Aesculapian snake ? It's a species which doesn't bite. Now imagine I got a phone call from someone living at the other side of the town who tells me "Look ! I've seen a snake in your garden with my binoculars ! Kill it ! It's gonna bite !" There's no way I kill the Aesculapian snake because of the call.
Let me ask. If someone tried to bash in your door and raid your house in the middle of the night, would you feel excited, afraid or angry, or would you just sit there on your moral high-horse and claim to be above anger and fear while those invaders stripped you of your belongings and did terrible things to those whom you live with?In northern countries (Finland, Suede, Norway, Canada), there are people who just don't lock their doors at all - much more than you'd expect - and there aren't more burglaries than in ours. Historical reasons for this are that in case someone gets lost in the winter, they'd better not have to wait for people to hear and react to them knocking on the door.
Personally my opinion on the refugees is that first and foremost, not all of them are horrible and not all of them are good and honestQuite true... Like every human group.
But what needs be needs be and I think that to a certain extent we should provide atleast some safety to those who are "real" refugees("real" explanation: those not trying to improve their quality of life while able to live a decent live where they are)Actually, people who don't need to flee their countries and still move on usually are among these able to immigrate legally - which means the point about whether to welcome them doesn't make sense.
Regarding Aeghiss' point about leaving doors unlocked, you can do that in areas where people respect each other. In areas that are culturally different, where people don't respect each other, you would be robbed blind and possibly harmed if you did that.Don't assume I see life through rose-tinted glasses. I know people aren't all good, and I've even learnt that more quickly than usual European kids. Yet I'll let you think about it : what do you think is best living in : a country where one can leave their door open without risk, or one where they cannot ? The answer is pretty obvious. And then : how do you think our way of being can become more trusting ?
It's big mistake to assume that everyone else is as respectful and honest as you are. The ugly truth is that such cultural norms vary.
Where I live, if you rob people, treat women like dogs, and sodomize kids, then you are a horrible person. In Afghanistan, such behavior is considered normal. Does this make people from Afghanistan horrible people? Yes, those of them who act like that are, but if you say that, people will freak out and call you an islamapbobic, xenophobic racist.Conservative African and Middle-East countries usually are macho, and many consider raping a 14-years-old girls the same as raping a 18-years-old one indeed... Which they don't give a damn about anyway. I state loud and clear that it's unbearable, and I defy anyone to call me a racist because of it.
First off, we don't hate Trump because he "speaks his mind." We hate him because he is a bumbling, megalomaniac xenophobe who has absolutely no idea how to run a country.
How many of the other candidates have experience running the country?
Zip.
This is a new experience for any candidate unless they are being re-elected, and with it comes a sharp learning curve.QuoteHe thinks all Mexicans are criminals and rapists and all Muslims are terrorists.
That is not what he's said and is not accurate. Replace the "all" with "some" and you'll be a bit closer. As for what he thinks, it's not knowable and not really relevant.QuoteHis most concrete plans involve building walls, doing "something" about Muslims, and replacing Obamacare with "IDK something better."
What's interesting about this point is that when candidates spout off about specific plans, they typically don't carry through once elected. I suspect it's because they are not privy to the whole story until they are in. ( That or they are just spouting bullshit ). Given this, I'm fine with a rough idea and some history of competence in an executive position.QuoteTrump can't even maintain diplomatic relations with Fox News, who is universally recognized to have a huge bias toward his own side of the aisle. Can you imagine him at peace talks between Palestine and Israel? Things would blow up. More than they already do, I mean.
You have a point there , but I don't think FOX news was interested in supporting him specifically. Remember, he's hitting for the Republicans but he's not bound by them like Cruz and Rubio ( who would be completely helpless without their money ). When a candidate is entirely dependent on their sponsor's money, they are their bitch ( or puppet ). Trump is neither - like Romney( who I despised for reasons not relevant to this topic ) he has his own money and/or means of raising it.QuoteAs far as Socialism goes...that whole thing about the safety net (Welfare, Unemployment, etc) is complete hogwash. It's often spouted by conservatives in favor of "trickle-down economics," which has been failing to work since at least the Nixon era. People aren't fundamentally lazy--sure maybe a few of them are.
There are entire communities where people make a lifestyle out of living off of welfare and food stamps. Some kids grow up thinking that "EBT" cards are the same as "DEBIT" cards. ( They are plastic cards that are used to distribute money to poor people electronically - not the same as a card that gives you access to money you have earned. ) I would cite some references, but I really don't want people accusing me of being racist or anti-religious or anti-semetic or whatever. It's a sticky topic. If you want to know more about it, google it.QuoteBut you'll notice the evidence for this is always anecdotal. When arguing politics with a conservative friend after a few too many G&T's he will inevitably mention his uncle's friend's cousin's wife's roommate who lives in a shack and doesn't work so that he can get welfare. I'm not saying that these people don't exist, but they are a statistically negligent minority.
Let's see... Bronx, Harlem, Kiryas Joel to name a few. We're not talking about some lazy college kid who found a way to beat the system. ( Not all people in these areas are on welfare, but many are. ) This is not anecdotal. Here's some details of the percentage of folks who are getting food stamps etc... ( Mind you, these food stamps are paid for by people with jobs - many of which are struggling to feed their own families )
http://frac.org/pdf/ny_times_snap_poverty_formatted.pdfQuoteMost people who use the safety net want desperately to get off of it.
I applaud those who are caught by the net, get up and recover. That's one example of proper use. For those who are genuinely disabled or who need a hand temporarily, they too are using this resource as intended.QuoteThink also about how a wider safety net would likely increase innovation. For instance, I would love to quit my current job and start a business, but I'm afraid of what will happen if my business fails and I can't pay my rent.
I don't think giving out more money is going to breed incentive. Rewarded behavior tends to repeat. Giving money is essentially giving a reward.
As for starting your own business, I would love to work for myself too, but similarly, I don't know how I would transition from from my job to self employment AND ensure that I make the same amount of money and benefits or more. I don't think welfare is going to help with that. For that, you probably need to take some business classes or seek a mentor.
Sarras, you implied an idiocy on my part that I think you should know is not there, so I felt no need to respond.
I have no idea what you are responding to. The quote in your post is of someone else's words, not mine.
Rubio is too green.
How can someone be "too green" in a world that gets destroyed a bit more every day?
You called my fears and cries of fascism concerns of an immature person who did not understand what the word means, against a literal plethora of evidence which only continues to grow.
I see what we see here is the end of capitalism as we know it. It just happens to be after the end of what people called communism (but wasn´t).
Politicians, not only the US, also here in Germany consistently and I think in full consciousness bring up a ton of decisions that directly violate our constitutions.
What we're dealing with here is a total lack of respect for the law.
Scaramouche, Scaramouche, will you do the Fandango?
I apologize for not apologizing sooner. Sarras, you implied an idiocy on my part that I think you should know is not there, so I felt no need to respond.Sadly, there has been no evidence of intelligence on your part in this discussion thus far, so the implied idiocy holds some weight.
Rigwyn, nothing you posted was a sensible argument against what Trump had himself said in the debates and through other media outlets.You might want to trace the discussion back a few links. I think you've lost track of what we were discussing.
Like, you can't ask me to prove something he's already readily admitted to.I... never asked you to do that. >.>
So it didn't seem worth my time to help you diagnose your logic.LOL. That's quite Ok. I have my logic all figured out. I've made a point to discuss my points of view clearly and articulately. I think I've been fair and balanced giving credit where credit is due. You on the other hand, are being lazy by trying to just hand-wave this away. Shame on you.
What he has done since he has taken office again proves me right. As if there weren't a mound of evidence already, now there's this:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/opinion/donald-trump-scouts-tradition.html?mwrsm=Facebook&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com
Oh well man at least we didn't get stuck with a woman who (legally) deleted (private) emails, right?
Rigwyn, nothing you posted was a sensible argument against what Trump had himself said in the debates and through other media outlets.
You might want to trace the discussion back a few links. I think you've lost track of what we were discussing.
LOL. That's quite Ok. I have my logic all figured out. I've made a point to discuss my points of view clearly and articulately. I think I've been fair and balanced giving credit where credit is due. You on the other hand, are being lazy by trying to just hand-wave this away. Shame on you.
Like literally just said how he believed in stop 'n frisk for instance or some terrible things about varying groups of people. This is all stuff he has repeatedly stated publicly so there is zero question as to its authenticity.
No shame on YOU.
[...]
Meanwhile transgendered folks are banned from the US military and you're like oh the source you cited is biased!
[...]
Are you claiming that his chief strategist is not a known anti-semite?
[...]
These are all moves that dictators make, that fascists make.
Literally every claim I made was directly supported by Trump himself during the debates.
Like literally just said how he believed in stop 'n frisk for instance or some terrible things about varying groups of people.
I figured out pretty quick that Trumpers don't actually CARE about facts so I feel no need to now posthumously hunt things down.
Meanwhile transgendered folks are banned from the US military and you're like oh the source you cited is biased! Okay maybe.It was pretty biased..
Are you claiming he hasn't threatened the press for speaking out against him?
Reasonable discrimination ... legitimate? ???
Would you enjoy being "legitimately discriminated" (whatever that means, and whoever justified the rules about that) if you were the victim?
And, regarding borders:
(http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/15/0715/0703/tyson.jpg)
I'm curious as to what you would consider "reasonable" discrimination?
Reasonable discrimination ... legitimate? ??? Would you enjoy being "legitimately discriminated" (whatever that means, and whoever justified the rules about that) if you were the victim?
I'm emotional because you and riggy are too busy insulting me to present good logical constructions.
It's impossible to do so when your claims are not based on logic. All we can do is point out how absurd your statements are.
You're going off on tangents about the dictionary definition of "discrimination" when you know damned well it takes on a loaded meaning in this context.
Denying a drivers license to a person who is mentally unable to grasp the traffic rules, or physically unable to handle a car safely, is not discrimination, but protection of public safety.
Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.
And what shall we say about "Mister Deluge"?Quote from: QueenScaramouche, Scaramouche, will you do the Fandango?
“This is real life, not fantasy,” we were told. “Anthony can’t escape from reality, and the reality is the Trump administration wants someone who can carry on as if nothing really matters.
Journalists shall research and investigate (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html) ... just in case anyone still cares about facts.
I actually pinned it to keep it close to hand.Journalists shall research and investigate (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html) ... just in case anyone still cares about facts.
While the discussion is raving on, nobody - especially not the pro-Trumps - bothers to comment this extremely interesting link. Thank you, LigH!
Guys, of course you are entitled to your own opinion, just like everybody else.
But please stop ignoring the facts (i.e. what Trump said himself).
I actually pinned it to keep it close to hand.Journalists shall research and investigate (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html) ... just in case anyone still cares about facts.
While the discussion is raving on, nobody - especially not the pro-Trumps - bothers to comment this extremely interesting link. Thank you, LigH!
Guys, of course you are entitled to your own opinion, just like everybody else.
But please stop ignoring the facts (i.e. what Trump said himself).
PS : I don't feel like destroying any statement from Volki and Rigwyn that I could destroy. It would take too long and anyway this is dead-end. They can't be convinced of anything, they only rely on persuasion.
:( This video is not available. (To Germans only?)Same here, i want to see the vid :(
As for that laundry list, yeah, Trump says a lot of stuff that is inaccurate or made up. I've cringed many times listening to him.
I don't agree with everything Trump says or stands for.
As for that laundry list, yeah, Trump says a lot of stuff that is inaccurate or made up. I've cringed many times listening to him.
Inaccurate is not the right word, it sounds much too harmless for someone in Trump's position. He is either lying (knows what he saying is wrong) or incompetent (does not know his facts).I don't agree with everything Trump says or stands for.
All of a sudden...
Did you assume that because I voted for Trump and agreed with some of his positions, that therefore I must agree with everything he says?
Did you blindly assume that I fit into some sort of red cap wearing Trump supporter stereotype?
I said from the beginning that the two choices, Trump vs Hillary were bad and that we were left to choose the better of two.
My conclusion was that Trump was more promising and less problematic than hillary. My decisions were made not so much on personality or public opinion but on what our country needs and what the candidates offered or subscribed to.
PS : I don't feel like destroying any statement from Volki and Rigwyn that I could destroy. It would take too long and anyway this is dead-end. They can't be convinced of anything, they only rely on persuasion.
Ha, certainly not. This was only an explanation as for why I didn't add a new text block to this already long topic : I'm just getting tired of it. But as you insist I'll destroy one to prove that you aren't as flawless as you pretend to be.PS : I don't feel like destroying any statement from Volki and Rigwyn that I could destroy. It would take too long and anyway this is dead-end. They can't be convinced of anything, they only rely on persuasion.
In other words, you are unable to do so because I've off-hand recalled information I studied and cited actual laws to back up my arguments and so you feel the need to defend your ego with hollow claims of superiority.
Basically, if you match the statistic of someone who would require medical attention prior to serving, is statistically more likely to commit suicide, is more likely to not be able to serve for a period of time due to medical issues, or will be more likely than the average recruit to drop out, you're not worth our military's time. Trans people are a huge risk to take in because, if it's someone who intends to transition while in the military, they will be unable to serve at full capacity for at least one of the four years people normally sign on for. Secondly, but very importantly, they have many times the rate of committing suicide than an average person. Thirdly, there is a large statistical proportion of trans people who have mental illness, much greater than the non-trans population.Trans people are more likely to commit suicide, you say ? I won't ask for the source, because this sounds obvious. And why so ? Because they are stigmatized. Trans people would have less reasons to if there weren't people like you to tell them they are trash unworthy of what they want to do.
Trans people are more likely to commit suicide, you say ? I won't ask for the source, because this sounds obvious. And why so ? Because they are stigmatized.
Trans people would have less reasons to if there weren't people like you to tell them they are trash unworthy of what they want to do.Sadly, that's not going to change. They will always be people with their opinions, advice and criticism.
About transition : cisgender people can get ill and be unable to serve at a moment. Don't tell me the military kicks their soldiers out as soon as they catch something worse than a cold, it would be laughable.
Finally, something you didn't mention (of course...) : even though being trans surely is more of a weakness than a strength in a discriminating society, trans people are first and foremost individuals.
your right about that, they basically want puppets that move on command rather than people with a will of their own. much easier to do whatever they want that way.That they want people able to follow orders without asking actually means they do care about who people are, you know.
Finally, something you didn't mention (of course...) : even though being trans surely is more of a weakness than a strength in a discriminating society, trans people are first and foremost individuals.What I meant here was precisely that : recruiting for the army you would ask yourself whether one would be able to follow orders, how fast and how well they will react in case of a danger, etc. And this is about one's quality and flaws, their individuality in short. And if a trans has every quality you seek, it would be nonsensical to turn them down only because they are trans, and instead take someone who isn't as good.
your right about that, they basically want puppets that move on command rather than people with a will of their own. much easier to do whatever they want that way.That they want people able to follow orders without asking actually means they do care about who people are, you know.
Quote from: Aeghiss link=topic=42841.msg482929#msg482929 date=1501836020Finally, something you didn't mention (of course...) : even though being trans surely is more of a weakness than a strength in a discriminating society, trans people are first and foremost individuals.What I meant here was precisely that : recruiting for the army you would ask yourself whether one would be able to follow orders, how fast and how well they will react in case of a danger, etc. And this is about one's quality and flaws, their individuality in short. And if a trans has every quality you seek, it would be nonsensical to turn them down only because they are trans, and instead take someone who isn't as good.
You can tell what you want about trans being globally a lesser choice, trans aren't all the same. Having trans quotas in the army to make sure they have their chances as well as the cis wouldn't make sense, but turning every trans down makes no sense either.
Trans people are more likely to commit suicide, you say ? I won't ask for the source, because this sounds obvious. And why so ? Because they are stigmatized.
Trans people would have less reasons to if there weren't people like you to tell them they are trash unworthy of what they want to do.
About transition : cisgender people can get ill and be unable to serve at a moment. Don't tell me the military kicks their soldiers out as soon as they catch something worse than a cold, it would be laughable.
About mental illnesses, here I ask you for a source. And given your previous post, you'd better give me one.
Secondly, even so, trans people don't all have mental illnesses and there's no reason why a trans should be turned down because others have mental illnesses.
Another thing : depending on the context, some among what are considered mental illnesses can prove to be a good thing. For example people with the Asperger's syndrom are typically more intelligent than the average people and totally can achieve great things despite what first appears as a weakness.
trans people are first and foremost individuals. You can't summarize one's personality, qualities and flaws to the fact they be trans. If a tactical genius applies to the army, it would be a shame to turn them down because they are trans.
... But maybe you think trans can't be tactical geniuses because they are all worthless ?
this thread needs to die. it's just a German complaining about another country's politics at this point.^
How much do they fear science that they feel an urge to restrict it?
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/fd6b2e49eda884293909a1069aa83617/tumblr_p12a0wOJVU1shiv3ro1_540.png) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/cdc-gets-list-of-forbidden-words-fetus-transgender-diversity/2017/12/15/f503837a-e1cf-11e7-89e8-edec16379010_story.html)
Hence my post. Germans have a pathological desire to control everything, including other nations. You try to force your little theories on free nations when you don't understand the different context of another country. The nice thing is that all you're going to accomplish here is annoying people.
How to scare Germans to death: express a tiny shred of doubt in Merkel's and EU's policies and have them run away in fear.
@volki If you want to avoid saying any word used in propaganda, you should basically give up talking at all.
Oh, and saying that "evidence-based" would in no way be used in a research context... Well, you made me laugh at least.
What makes me laugh is that you're so ignorant of the context that you think these words and phrases are not strictly for propaganda. No one says these in research, except "fetus", and I'm getting the feeling that all of this is in reference to the CDC's public work, which makes 100% more sense than what you and LigH are suggesting. We have an issue with taxpayer-funded organizations and programs becoming politically biased.
Maybe try living here for a bit and get to know our country, people, and what words we deem to be politically charged before calling it Orwellian to tell the CDC to stop using Orwellian tactics.
Where are the mods?!
In the case of “science-based” and “evidence-based,” the analyst said a substitute phrase was: “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes.