Skip to content

Politics. The feel in your country.

1462463465467468635

Comments

  • Mantis37Mantis37 Member Posts: 1,173
    I prefer setting phasers to 'ice cream van nearby'.

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850

    ThacoBell said:

    @booinyoureyes I don't understand the issue of "non-lethal" being any more dangerous. If a person can pull a trigger being knocked off their feet and with probable bone fractures, how is a bodyshot from a real gun allowing any less chance? Surely a trigger could still be pulled. The only time a rubber bullet would fail to drop someone is the event of body armor (and missing, I guess) but body armor would potentially stop live rounds as well.

    I have no idea how effective they would be to be honest with you. I know nothing about guns.

    However, as a value judgment I would say that if they are less effective, either due to their effect on the target or due to being less accurate, I would have a preference for live rounds.

    Well, at least until this is possible

    I remember a few years back, the debate was about cops who had been found to have used tasers excessively or too quickly, sometimes resulting in death. Either that debate has been pushed to the sidelines, or they simply aren't even bothering to reach for them anymore and are going straight for the gun.
    ThacoBellbooinyoureyes
  • Mantis37Mantis37 Member Posts: 1,173
    And what I meant to post... Japan's policy on asylum seekers is just a tad harsh.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/16/japan-asylum-applications-2017-accepted-20

    This arguably hurts Japan's economy due to demographics etc., but more countries may be moving in this direction post-Brexit etc.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,366
    edited February 2018
    Mantis37 said:

    And what I meant to post... Japan's policy on asylum seekers is just a tad harsh.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/16/japan-asylum-applications-2017-accepted-20

    This arguably hurts Japan's economy due to demographics etc., but more countries may be moving in this direction post-Brexit etc.

    This idea that anybody in the world should be able to go wherever they want with no restrictions is pretty recent. No country 'owes' somebody the right to live there as far as I'm concerned. I'm pretty sure we could ship almost everybody from the Central African Republic to the US or Canada and likely 99.9% of them would be better off. Does that mean we 'owe' it to them?
    WarChiefZeke
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,366
    edited February 2018

    Japan in general is extremely reluctant to let in any foreigners on anything but the most temporary basis. I remember an old professor of mine saying that becoming a Japanese citizen was nearly impossible for a foreigner. The test involves an extremely elaborate tea ceremony where you can fail the test merely by having a tea cup a single degree out of place.

    Although I have massive respect for Japanese society for numerous reasons, the nation is extremely backward when it comes to immigration. Japan has made almost no progress on xenophobia in the past 150 years. The only truly substantive change in national policy is that foreigners are not subject to the death penalty. They are still not welcomed into the nation, in spite of how desperately Japan needs young blood to overcome its rapidly aging population and panda-like birth rates.

    It's kind of remarkable that two of the closest allies in the world are the nation of immigrants and Japan.

    I think in part it's because of them being an island nation with powerful neighbors who have invaded them in the past (the Mongols and the Chinese). All countries are somewhat slaves to their history. It's far easier for an island nation to control immigration in general and with a little paranoia thrown in, it's pretty understandable.

    Edit: As an island nation they've also had to deal with sharing limited resources, which would also tend to incline a nation against immigration.
    semiticgoddess
  • Mantis37Mantis37 Member Posts: 1,173
    Well this article is primarily referring to asylum seekers which is a slightly different case. I personally found Angela Merkel's commitment to accepting refugees to be rather inspiring for example, but it may have hurt her reelection chances given the result of the German elections. I believe she eventually campaigned on a more nuanced position of accepting up to 200,000. Still a number that is hard for many other countries to believe...

    In more general terms borderless travel primarily exists within limited areas such as the E.U. Conflict occurs when people can move more freely between disparately administered financial areas- just as currencies and goods circulate with greater freedom in low-tariff areas. By extension limit-free travel for all requires greater financial & cultural integration than presently exists. Part of the tension that exists in the EU is the unwillingness of national governments to delegate their financial policies to a pan-European body.

    As an aside shipping almost 5,000,000 Africans to America- aside from the unfortunate historical comparison!- probably would not be of great benefit to either party. The immigrants would be mostly competing for the same jobs in an adjusting economy, and the host country would have trouble adjusting socially. However it is worth remembering that in times of famine and war proportionate situations sometimes occurs in Africa. Uganda has a populalation of around 40,000,000 with over 400,000 refugees for example. If we accept the principle that protecting those fleeing from danger/ persecution is not a local matter but a global one then for the world's 3rd largest economy to accept only 20 is... problematic.
    semiticgoddessThacoBellProont
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    edited February 2018

    ThacoBell said:

    @booinyoureyes I don't understand the issue of "non-lethal" being any more dangerous. If a person can pull a trigger being knocked off their feet and with probable bone fractures, how is a bodyshot from a real gun allowing any less chance? Surely a trigger could still be pulled. The only time a rubber bullet would fail to drop someone is the event of body armor (and missing, I guess) but body armor would potentially stop live rounds as well.

    I have no idea how effective they would be to be honest with you. I know nothing about guns.

    However, as a value judgment I would say that if they are less effective, either due to their effect on the target or due to being less accurate, I would have a preference for live rounds.

    Well, at least until this is possible

    I remember a few years back, the debate was about cops who had been found to have used tasers excessively or too quickly, sometimes resulting in death. Either that debate has been pushed to the sidelines, or they simply aren't even bothering to reach for them anymore and are going straight for the gun.
    sure does seem that way or when they do it these days it's actually getting more coverage. Maybe in the past of no internet, maybe it didn't even make the local paper when the cops shot someone. Maybe they go to the trouble to plant a gun, sort of like the Baltimore cops that drove around with toy guns in case they accidentally hit somebody or got into a shootout, so they could plant them. (1-31-2018).

    I'm no expert on guns either, but I have fired my fair share and am a very good shot because my job wanted me to be one. I think we're better off without that ease of killing at people's fingertips. I definitely think assault type rifles should not be easier to buy than a beer. What on earth do normal people need with guns that fire hundreds of bullets in a short time?

    That type of firepower is only useful if you want to kill a bunch of people at once - like a mass shooter would. We don't need the public with that at their fingertips. Have you seen people? I mean I trust person x,y, and z but PEOPLE. No I don't trust people. They are too unstable. One of the reasons for this florida shooter was that he was upset about a girl breaking up with him and it was valentine's day and he was sad so he killed 17 people because he was having a bad day.

    Do you need your gun because you are you scared the government is going to repress you? Look outside, it's happening now and your guns are not making a difference. A whole bunch of states legislatures have proposed bills that would increase the criminal penalties associated with protesting the government. A half-dozen state legislatures have offered bills to protect people that run over protesters. Trump's henchmen are attacking the Internet by repealing Net Neutrality. His goons are poisoning water and making it easier to pollute. He attacks the first amendment at every chance he gets and pushes his own fake news. Your liberty is under attack, and a lot of people support it going away. When you lost your freedoms, nobody walked up to you to give you a chance to say "well I disagree sir, and I have a gun!".

    If you are really worried about the government taking over or whatever one guy with a gun that fires hundreds of bullets in a minute is not going to make a real difference. You need a movement to fight back. For that you need other people. Look at Metoo. It's actually had an effect on the world, people that do bad things to women can't rely on getting away with it as easily as they could before. It has actually done something - no gun purchase required.
    Grond0Proont
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,235
    "What on earth do normal people need with guns that fire hundreds of bullets in a short time?"
    Bear hunting.
    booinyoureyesProont
  • joluvjoluv Member Posts: 2,137
    ThacoBell said:

    "What on earth do normal people need with guns that fire hundreds of bullets in a short time?"
    Bear hunting.

    That's not how I remember Oregon Trail.
    booinyoureyesProontsmeagolheartThacoBell
  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 3,037

    Have you seen people? I mean I trust person x,y, and z but PEOPLE. No I don't trust people. They are too unstable.

    Now you are living in the same world I inhabit.
    ProontBalrog99smeagolheartThacoBell
  • booinyoureyesbooinyoureyes Member Posts: 6,164
    Balrog99 said:

    Japan in general is extremely reluctant to let in any foreigners on anything but the most temporary basis. I remember an old professor of mine saying that becoming a Japanese citizen was nearly impossible for a foreigner. The test involves an extremely elaborate tea ceremony where you can fail the test merely by having a tea cup a single degree out of place.

    Although I have massive respect for Japanese society for numerous reasons, the nation is extremely backward when it comes to immigration. Japan has made almost no progress on xenophobia in the past 150 years. The only truly substantive change in national policy is that foreigners are not subject to the death penalty. They are still not welcomed into the nation, in spite of how desperately Japan needs young blood to overcome its rapidly aging population and panda-like birth rates.

    It's kind of remarkable that two of the closest allies in the world are the nation of immigrants and Japan.


    Edit: As an island nation they've also had to deal with sharing limited resources, which would also tend to incline a nation against immigration.
    Yes, but that's also why they desperately need open trade, yet have been very protectionist. They also need younger workers to pay for their aging population, yet have backward immigration policies. Also, they are lucky they have so much tourism despite the treatment visitors are usually subject to. Luckily they have a rich culture and history that makes them a great tourist spot (which I can't wait to visit one day).

    There is a reason why economic recessions are so common and long in Japan. It is the textbook example of how a nation can shoot itself in the foot in the name of nationalism.
    ThacoBell
  • Mantis37Mantis37 Member Posts: 1,173

    Japan in general is extremely reluctant to let in any foreigners on anything but the most temporary basis. I remember an old professor of mine saying that becoming a Japanese citizen was nearly impossible for a foreigner. The test involves an extremely elaborate tea ceremony where you can fail the test merely by having a tea cup a single degree out of place.

    I'm not sure whether your professor was being serious, but about 99% of applications for Japanese citizenship are successful, though it takes about a year to go through the application process. To apply you need to have resided in the country for at least 5 years and not plan on overthrowing the constitution or government though!
    Grond0semiticgoddessThacoBell
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,305
    Japanese citizenship is given to 10-20,000 people each year. However, around 90% of those are Korean or Chinese in origin, so it is fairly rare for people from non-Eastern cultures to become Japanese.
    semiticgoddessThacoBell
  • booinyoureyesbooinyoureyes Member Posts: 6,164
    Mantis37 said:

    Japan in general is extremely reluctant to let in any foreigners on anything but the most temporary basis. I remember an old professor of mine saying that becoming a Japanese citizen was nearly impossible for a foreigner. The test involves an extremely elaborate tea ceremony where you can fail the test merely by having a tea cup a single degree out of place.

    I'm not sure whether your professor was being serious, but about 99% of applications for Japanese citizenship are successful, though it takes about a year to go through the application process. To apply you need to have resided in the country for at least 5 years and not plan on overthrowing the constitution or government though!
    That is application for citizenship, not applications for permanent residence. You're looking at the second level of screening for immigrants, where the first is much stricter.

    The reason there is a greater number of Korean immigrants as @Grond0 points out is that they have a special status for people in former Japanese colonies.
    semiticgoddessThacoBellProont
  • Mantis37Mantis37 Member Posts: 1,173
    edited February 2018
    I originally posted on the topic of asylum seekers, which is somewhat different to applications for work visas, permanent residency, and citizenship (which in Japan's case requires the renunciation of one's original nationality). Gaining asylum in Japan is far too difficult, and many applicants have been subject to extortion and harassment, which is rather unfortunate. Gaining a short-term visa is not overly difficult, depending on your country of origin, and the government has been more than happy to wink at the employment of Chinese workers on student visas so that companies have a source of low paid labour. This practice has gone on for some time and is now semi-official. However it is subject to ethnic considerations. For example for some time the Japanese government promoted special visas for ethnic Japanese from Brazil and Peru because they believed that people who were Japanese by descent would be more easy to integrate into Japanese society than other foreigners- an impression that was somewhat mistaken. When Japan was hit by the financial crisis many were persuaded to quietly return home with no possibility of return...a rather short-sighted move in view of Japan's long term interests. Permanent visas have become somewhat easier to acquire in recent years, as the government slowly relaxes its stance on foreign integration. However it should be remembered that many 'foreigners' in Japan were actually born in Japan, and did not become Japanese because of the nationality laws which determine Japanese citizenship by descent rather than birth. For many years ethnic Koreans who were culturally Japanese were discriminated against, though this problem is now slowly declining. It should probably be noted that even supposed ethnic Japanese can be discriminated against on similar grounds- Okinawans for example.

    At any rate Japan is an example of a society which has been relatively 'closed' and is opening very slowly in response to long term economic needs. Its government fears diversity, but recognises its necessity. Its immigration policies are therefore an example of managing and containing diversity. Other countries and regimes are at different points on this axis. The UK and USA are obviously moving in the 'closed' direction. So Japan has more interest than the US at this point in engaging in something like TPP (much to the dismay of its agricultural sector etc.), while the UK withdraws from the world's largest free trade area.
    Grond0ThacoBellBalrog99Proont
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited February 2018

    There are a couple of interesting things about the Mueller investigations indictments of Russian actors:

    1. The Russians' social media accounts supported Bernie Sanders during the primaries.
    2. The Russians staged a pro-Trump and anti-Trump protest in New York on the same day.

    I've discussed the multiple possible motives for Russian interference, and this suggests that the motive has less to do with Russia liking Trump or even disliking Clinton, and more to do with simply causing strife in the United States.

    Right, but it also said this (from Politico):

    The IRA trolls’ primary directive was to “communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton” and “to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump,” the indictment says.

    One instruction from the IRA told the trolls to “use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump — we support them),” according to the indictment. One IRA-controlled Facebook page, called “Secured Borders,” even drew flak during an internal IRA review for having “a low number of posts dedicated to criticizing Hillary Clinton.”

    Frequently, the IRA trolls produced materials intended to promote pro-Trump and anti-Clinton hashtags on Twitter, including #TrumpTrain, #MAGA and #Hillary4Prison. Starting in the second half of 2016, the alleged trolls also encouraged minority groups either to not vote or to vote for a third-party candidate.

    More broadly, the IRA told its trolls to create “political intensity through supporting radical groups, users dissatisfied with [the] social and economic situation and oppositional social movements.” IRA-controlled pages on social media platforms had names like “Blacktivist,” “United Muslims of America,” “Army of Jesus” and “South United,” names that pointed up existing U.S. social on issues like the Black Lives Matter movement or anti-Muslim bias. These pages commanded hundreds of thousands of online followers.


    Almost every tangible effect of their efforts, from both primaries to the general election, was to HURT Hillary and HELP Trump. They promoted Hillary's primary opponent, they went after Rubio and Cruz (Trump's two biggest GOP rivals near the end). I think it is extremely hard to draw any other conclusion than that the effort was attempting to get Trump elected, for reasons that are beyond obvious after his first year in office. It's all well and good to say they just wanted to "create chaos". But that ignores the fact that the chaos was intended to and only helped ONE of the candidates I just mentioned, which was Donald Trump.
    semiticgoddessProont
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    edited February 2018

    There are a couple of interesting things about the Mueller investigations indictments of Russian actors:

    1. The Russians' social media accounts supported Bernie Sanders during the primaries.
    2. The Russians staged a pro-Trump and anti-Trump protest in New York on the same day.

    I've discussed the multiple possible motives for Russian interference, and this suggests that the motive has less to do with Russia liking Trump or even disliking Clinton, and more to do with simply causing strife in the United States.

    Most of the stuff they put out is pro-trump though. A couple throwaway things in other directions doesn't change the overall direction of things. Yes, their major goal was chaos and discord but once the candidates became set it seems the overwhelming majority of effort was to support Trump who has become a chaos president.

    Also as part of the probe a California man, Richard Pinedo, has pleaded guilty to identity fraud for helping Russian-backed ring of social media users to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.

    Pinedo operated a site where he pretended to not be aware of the identity or motivations of those who used his service to bypass paypals security features. For about $35, he offered customers who've been banned from sites like PayPal, eBay and Amazon a place where they could buy verified accounts. The site advised its international customers to use a US-based IP address with a fake account.

    Prosecutors said he willfully and intentionally avoided learning about the use of stolen identities. His actions helped the Russians with their identity theft schemes and helped their online presence to appear legitimate. Using Pinedo's site, Russian trolls were able to appear legitimate to sites like Amazon, Facebook and others.

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/16/politics/richard-pinedo-guilty-plea/index.html
    ThacoBellsemiticgoddessProont
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited February 2018
    Moreover, ASIDE from this Mueller investigation, I don't have an ounce of faith that ANYTHING is being done to prevent this from continuing to happen, because I've been watching it continue to happen every single day for the last year, up to an including pushing narratives about the Parkland shooting. Up until yesterday afternoon, Trump has called the ENTIRE THING a hoax. Not just insisting his campaign wasn't involved, but that it didn't happen at all. And the people he has put in place in National Security positions seem to be doing absolutely nothing about this issue. And why would they?? It's why they are in power in the first place.
    ThacoBellProont
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963

    Up until yesterday afternoon, Trump has called the ENTIRE THING a hoax.

    I guarantee tomorrow he will be calling it a hoax too. The guy gaslights and pushes his own reality that isn't based on reality but says whatever spin he wants you to believe things to be.

    There's no way he's done calling it a hoax. There could be videotape of him and putin shaking hands and putin handing him a comically large bag of money with a $ on it. Trump would deny it or say Hillary Clinton got a bigger bag of money in Uraninum one or Obama illegally recorded the video or whatever he will lie and deflect. Leopards don't change their spots.
    Proont
  • booinyoureyesbooinyoureyes Member Posts: 6,164


    2. The Russians staged a pro-Trump and anti-Trump protest in New York on the same day.

    I mentioned this in my initial post on the matter. If you look at the advertisements for the actual events, and their close proximity, its not that much of stretch to believe that the Russian government was hoping for some violent clashes between the two groups.
    semiticgoddessProontBalrog99
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    I think I posted that second video earlier in this thread. Obama shouted down his own supporters and demanded that they show respect to a Trump supporter in the crowd. The audience stopped booing and applauded instead.
    jjstraka34booinyoureyes
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited February 2018

    I think I posted that second video earlier in this thread. Obama shouted down his own supporters and demanded that they show respect to a Trump supporter in the crowd. The audience stopped booing and applauded instead.

    This was very late in the campaign. Granted, it's not as if Obama didn't KNOW exactly what kind of stuff was going on at Trump rallies. He obviously knew he was also on every single cable channel during that rally. I can imagine 3 things are going through his mind: 1.) the last thing we need is for some kind of physical altercation to break out here so they can paint us with the same brush 2.) if I kill this guy with kindness, and admonish my own supporters booing, the juxtaposition is going to be striking and 3.) this is the right and proper to handle a possibly volatile situation with a large crowd. Large crowds can easily become mobs. Obama didn't want it to become a mob. He didn't want the story to be "Democrats shout down a Trump-supporting elderly war veteran". So instead, he went Joe Clark on his own audience (if you've seen "Lean on Me" with Morgan Freeman) and decided to do the exact opposite of what Trump would have done.
    ProontGrond0
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited February 2018

    In the long-line of tweets this asshole has sent out over the past 14 months since he's been in office, I would have to say that using dead children as a way to attack the investigation into your own campaign is pretty much the worst. As if a counter-intelligence operation going on in DC has anything to do with criminal tips to a field office in Florida.

    Think what you want about Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, or Barack Obama. Donald Trump is just a straight-up monster, and there is no bottom to this barrel.
    booinyoureyesProontThacoBellAstroBryGuy
  • Mantis37Mantis37 Member Posts: 1,173
    edited February 2018
    If Trump were really a SPECTRE plant bent on destroying the US one imagines that he would be trying to ban firearms in the most reactionary fashion possible at this point. That would probably have half the US dissolving into a state of semi-civil war. Instead he's just doubling down in the most predictably reactionary fashion, and supercharging the Democratic base. Those kids who survived aren't going to go away...
    Balrog99Proont
This discussion has been closed.