This forum is honestly the best I've seen for sharing political ideas on both sides of the spectrum.
At this point the participants are a self-selecting group. There are an unknown number of people who cannot--or will not--participate under these rules, and it's impossible to know if their contributions would add or detract from the discussion.
If you want a de-facto dictatorship (which is what a monarchy is), you are likely going to get your wish, so, congratulations.....I guess.
No, is not. On most monarchies, the king have limited powers, usually to sanction laws that the congress approved and call new elections in case of corruption scandals. I rather live on Liechtenstein over any modern democracy... Mainly in a democracy where the majority vote against Mexico Style gun control in a referendum and the government ignores the result and pass an draconian gun control using corrupt money to bribe the congress.
If you want a de-facto dictatorship (which is what a monarchy is), you are likely going to get your wish, so, congratulations.....I guess.
One obvious advantage of a constitutional monarchy is that the head of state is expected to be politically neutral. If the head of state is elected by a particular party there's always the danger that they will support that party at the expense of the wider country ...
A full quarter of british muslims want sharia law and over half want a homosexuality ban and not allowing them jobs as teachers and the like. This isn't a tiny minority not worth mentioning. People bring their values where they go and teach them to their kids, as a rule.
They do. But this poll doesn't differentiate between generations--it doesn't show if younger British Muslims share the attitudes of the older ones.
I don't know how things progress in historically homogeneous countries like the U.K., but the U.S. has been a multi-racial and multi-cultural country since before the nation was founded. We've been assimilating people. A pre-multicultural United States never existed--we've literally always been like this.
We're a nation of mongrels. We're a Chaotic Good version of the Borg Collective. It's our past and our present, so yes--it's also going to be our future. I don't see why 250 years of history suddenly has to stop now.
I've seen the assimilation process firsthand. It didn't take 4 years for my friend Puru to start losing his accent and adopting American speech patterns. In terms of culture and values, virtually every second-generation immigrant that I've known has been nearly indistinguishable from all the other Americans I know.
As for third-generation immigrants... If I've ever met one, I haven't noticed. That's how indistinguishable they are from other Americans; I can't name a single one I've ever met.
If you want an example of a successfully assimilated nth-generation immigrant, look in the mirror. You are one. Where else do you think you came from? You grew up in the same society as a second-generation immigrant, and the same household as a third-generation immigrant.
And again... we're still at a 20-year low in immigration. How can immigration possibly be such a huge threat if it's at a 20-year low?
You should come to the UK if you want to meet 2/3rd gen immigrants.
They are the ones who are adopting hard line Islamic teachings and running off to join ISIS. Some of their own parents are appalled at the direction their children are taking. You can also check out the enormous increase in Brit born 2/3rd gen immigrant women adopting the burqua.
Assimilation only works when there is integration with the host population. When numbers are too high, there's no need or desire to assimilate. Plus there's the rather bigoted practice of only marrying within the faith, and actually forbidding women to marry out of it. Funny how the feminists have so little to say about women being told who they must marry.
Wasn't immigration to the US quite restricted until the 60's? This is what it says in Wiki,
"Prior to 1965, policies such as the national origins formula limited immigration and naturalization opportunities for people from areas outside Western Europe. Exclusion laws enacted as early as the 1880s generally prohibited or severely restricted immigration from Asia, and quota laws enacted in the 1920s curtailed Eastern European immigration."
People literally just walked off boats at Ellis Island and were let in en-masse. By the millions. For 30 years. Damn near 40% of the population of the US can trace their ancestry in this country to basically unfettered immigration policies of the late 19th and early 20th century. Which is frankly why the rending of garments over it now is such bullshit. To give you an example of just HOW unfettered it was, let's look at the opening line from the History Channel page on Ellis Island, because it is really all we need:
No passports or visas were needed to enter the United States through Ellis Island at this time. In fact, no papers were required at all. More than 12 million immigrants passed through Ellis Island between 1892 and 1954—with a whopping 1,004,756 entering the United States in 1907 alone. And yet, even during these days of peak immigration, for most passengers hoping to establish new lives in the United States, the process of entering the country was over and done relatively quickly—in a matter of a few hours.
Huh. Imagine that. Using today's arguments, it should have destroyed the country, fracturing it into pieces of tribal warfare. The only reason it wasn't illegal immigration is because there was absolutely no immigration laws whatsoever. When we hear about open borders, it ignores the fact that we HAD open borders for all of Europe for almost a half century. Chances are at least 50/50 that anyone who bitches about people advocating for open borders now had great-grandparents who entered the country in EXACTLY that manner. They walked off a boat, had a quick medical check, and they were newly minted American citizens. There was no waiting list, there was no citizenship test, nothing. If you got here, you were in. Only 2% of the immigrants who came in through Ellis Island were rejected. I mean, we want to talk about caravans?? These boats sometimes held upwards of 7000 passengers.
Multiculturalism has made tacos, U2, Sinterklaas all the stereotypes we know and love into "American".
So what's the bad immigration again? Which ones are the bad ones? Right that's racism.
Come on. The scapegoating of "others" is weakness. It's an appeal to ignorance. But most of all it's a ploy to keep you distracted while the rich run off with your money and leave YOU with the bill.
I'll give it 3 months before we have another Duterte on our hands.
Or Erdogan or Trump.
Bolsonaro, Duterte, Erdogan, Putin, Trump: Hey there's a group where Trump's not the worst in it. That's a rare thing. But doesn't mean he's good, he's just best of that motley crew.
People literally just walked off boats at Ellis Island and were let in en-masse. By the millions. For 30 years. Damn near 40% of the population of the US can trace their ancestry in this country to basically unfettered immigration policies of the late 19th and early 20th century. Which is frankly why the rending of garments over it now is such bullshit. To give you an example of just HOW unfettered it was, let's look at the opening line from the History Channel page on Ellis Island, because it is really all we need:
No passports or visas were needed to enter the United States through Ellis Island at this time. In fact, no papers were required at all. More than 12 million immigrants passed through Ellis Island between 1892 and 1954—with a whopping 1,004,756 entering the United States in 1907 alone. And yet, even during these days of peak immigration, for most passengers hoping to establish new lives in the United States, the process of entering the country was over and done relatively quickly—in a matter of a few hours.
Huh. Imagine that. Using today's arguments, it should have destroyed the country, fracturing it into pieces of tribal warfare. The only reason it wasn't illegal immigration is because there was absolutely no immigration laws whatsoever. When we hear about open borders, it ignores the fact that we HAD open borders for all of Europe for almost a half century. Chances are at least 50/50 that anyone who bitches about people advocating for open borders now had great-grandparents who entered the country in EXACTLY that manner. They walked off a boat, had a quick medical check, and they were newly minted American citizens. There was no waiting list, there was no citizenship test, nothing. If you got here, you were in. Only 2% of the immigrants who came in through Ellis Island were rejected. I mean, we want to talk about caravans?? These boats sometimes held upwards of 7000 passengers.
Circumstances change, country's circumstances change. The US isn't an untamed wilderness still is it? There's a certain amount of infrastructure, welfare ect., the majority of the land is owned already. People are not prepared or expected to carve out a life with no established society. That was the past.
Should another virtually empty, undeveloped country be discovered I dare say the land would have open borders because people would be needed to establish the nation. But once it's established, the people who have done that have the right to control their borders.
A full quarter of british muslims want sharia law and over half want a homosexuality ban and not allowing them jobs as teachers and the like. This isn't a tiny minority not worth mentioning. People bring their values where they go and teach them to their kids, as a rule.
They do. But this poll doesn't differentiate between generations--it doesn't show if younger British Muslims share the attitudes of the older ones.
I don't know how things progress in historically homogeneous countries like the U.K., but the U.S. has been a multi-racial and multi-cultural country since before the nation was founded. We've been assimilating people. A pre-multicultural United States never existed--we've literally always been like this.
We're a nation of mongrels. We're a Chaotic Good version of the Borg Collective. It's our past and our present, so yes--it's also going to be our future. I don't see why 250 years of history suddenly has to stop now.
I've seen the assimilation process firsthand. It didn't take 4 years for my friend Puru to start losing his accent and adopting American speech patterns. In terms of culture and values, virtually every second-generation immigrant that I've known has been nearly indistinguishable from all the other Americans I know.
As for third-generation immigrants... If I've ever met one, I haven't noticed. That's how indistinguishable they are from other Americans; I can't name a single one I've ever met.
If you want an example of a successfully assimilated nth-generation immigrant, look in the mirror. You are one. Where else do you think you came from? You grew up in the same society as a second-generation immigrant, and the same household as a third-generation immigrant.
And again... we're still at a 20-year low in immigration. How can immigration possibly be such a huge threat if it's at a 20-year low?
You should come to the UK if you want to meet 2/3rd gen immigrants.
They are the ones who are adopting hard line Islamic teachings and running off to join ISIS. Some of their own parents are appalled at the direction their children are taking. You can also check out the enormous increase in Brit born 2/3rd gen immigrant women adopting the burqua.
Assimilation only works when there is integration with the host population. When numbers are too high, there's no need or desire to assimilate. Plus there's the rather bigoted practice of only marrying within the faith, and actually forbidding women to marry out of it. Funny how the feminists have so little to say about women being told who they must marry.
Wasn't immigration to the US quite restricted until the 60's? This is what it says in Wiki,
"Prior to 1965, policies such as the national origins formula limited immigration and naturalization opportunities for people from areas outside Western Europe. Exclusion laws enacted as early as the 1880s generally prohibited or severely restricted immigration from Asia, and quota laws enacted in the 1920s curtailed Eastern European immigration."
Do you have any figures on how many UK citizens have adopted the burqa or are attracted to hardline faiths? It is not an area on which it is easy to do sociological research for obvious reasons but a look through google scholar suggests that the UK may have been more successful with promoting assimilation than most other european countries.
The burqa issue is a great one for debate because on the one hand one doesn't want to be in the common position of telling women what they can wear, yet it also seems to impose restrictions on individual liberty. However the burqa has sometimes been seen as a symbol of affluence as the garment is not necessarily cheap to produce.
Hundreds of people seem to have travelled from the UK to Syria however their reasons are not always religious. This article suggests that they were often motivated by economic concerns and lacked knowledge of some of the basic tenets of Islam.
The phenomenon of foreign fighters travelling to participate in these sorts of conflicts is hardly new of course- e.g. Orwell in Spain or Byron in Greece.
People literally just walked off boats at Ellis Island and were let in en-masse. By the millions. For 30 years. Damn near 40% of the population of the US can trace their ancestry in this country to basically unfettered immigration policies of the late 19th and early 20th century. Which is frankly why the rending of garments over it now is such bullshit. To give you an example of just HOW unfettered it was, let's look at the opening line from the History Channel page on Ellis Island, because it is really all we need:
No passports or visas were needed to enter the United States through Ellis Island at this time. In fact, no papers were required at all. More than 12 million immigrants passed through Ellis Island between 1892 and 1954—with a whopping 1,004,756 entering the United States in 1907 alone. And yet, even during these days of peak immigration, for most passengers hoping to establish new lives in the United States, the process of entering the country was over and done relatively quickly—in a matter of a few hours.
Huh. Imagine that. Using today's arguments, it should have destroyed the country, fracturing it into pieces of tribal warfare. The only reason it wasn't illegal immigration is because there was absolutely no immigration laws whatsoever. When we hear about open borders, it ignores the fact that we HAD open borders for all of Europe for almost a half century. Chances are at least 50/50 that anyone who bitches about people advocating for open borders now had great-grandparents who entered the country in EXACTLY that manner. They walked off a boat, had a quick medical check, and they were newly minted American citizens. There was no waiting list, there was no citizenship test, nothing. If you got here, you were in. Only 2% of the immigrants who came in through Ellis Island were rejected. I mean, we want to talk about caravans?? These boats sometimes held upwards of 7000 passengers.
Circumstances change, country's circumstances change. The US isn't an untamed wilderness still is it? There's a certain amount of infrastructure, welfare ect., the majority of the land is owned already. People are not prepared or expected to carve out a life with no established society. That was the past.
Should another virtually empty, undeveloped country be discovered I dare say the land would have open borders because people would be needed to establish the nation. But once it's established, the people who have done that have the right to control their borders.
So, in the end, it's going to be "We got ours, f- off!!"?
And about those 10 million or so Native Americans that were already here?
Circumstances change, country's circumstances change. The US isn't an untamed wilderness still is it? There's a certain amount of infrastructure, welfare ect., the majority of the land is owned already. People are not prepared or expected to carve out a life with no established society. That was the past.
Should another virtually empty, undeveloped country be discovered I dare say the land would have open borders because people would be needed to establish the nation. But once it's established, the people who have done that have the right to control their borders.
You should come to the UK if you want to meet 2/3rd gen immigrants.
They are the ones who are adopting hard line Islamic teachings and running off to join ISIS. Some of their own parents are appalled at the direction their children are taking. You can also check out the enormous increase in Brit born 2/3rd gen immigrant women adopting the burqua.
It's not as if all of those people hitched up wagons and went out west. Plenty of them stayed in New York City - hardly "the wilderness", and contributed to society such that NYC is now considered (by some) to be the cultural capital of the world.
As someone else alluded to, I'd be curious to see statistics that bear out your assertion that 2nd and 3rd generation descendants of Muslim immigrants are the ones leaving to go to Syria in any significant number. Perhaps the only argument I can see that would suggest this from common sense is that 1st generation immigrants wouldnt immigrate to another country only to leave shortly thereafter. So if that the high bar needed to qualify as arguing against multiculturalism, then no one should ever be allowed in (Since I suspect that's true of all immigration - that once they find a place to settle, they're less likely to leave it than their descendants).
Monarchy is clearly superior to democracy in every place. After the fell of monarchy on Germany, Germany had an leftist Weimar republic with hyperinflation who fueled the rise of the third Reich...
I get rather tired of constantly fact checking people's history. The Weimar Republic wasnt responsible for hyperinflation in Germany. That was as a result of fighting the largest and most expensive war in human history up to that point, and the costs associated with it from the Treaty of Versailles
A world war I might that was started by a Monarchy.
People literally just walked off boats at Ellis Island and were let in en-masse. By the millions. For 30 years. Damn near 40% of the population of the US can trace their ancestry in this country to basically unfettered immigration policies of the late 19th and early 20th century. Which is frankly why the rending of garments over it now is such bullshit. To give you an example of just HOW unfettered it was, let's look at the opening line from the History Channel page on Ellis Island, because it is really all we need:
No passports or visas were needed to enter the United States through Ellis Island at this time. In fact, no papers were required at all. More than 12 million immigrants passed through Ellis Island between 1892 and 1954—with a whopping 1,004,756 entering the United States in 1907 alone. And yet, even during these days of peak immigration, for most passengers hoping to establish new lives in the United States, the process of entering the country was over and done relatively quickly—in a matter of a few hours.
Huh. Imagine that. Using today's arguments, it should have destroyed the country, fracturing it into pieces of tribal warfare. The only reason it wasn't illegal immigration is because there was absolutely no immigration laws whatsoever. When we hear about open borders, it ignores the fact that we HAD open borders for all of Europe for almost a half century. Chances are at least 50/50 that anyone who bitches about people advocating for open borders now had great-grandparents who entered the country in EXACTLY that manner. They walked off a boat, had a quick medical check, and they were newly minted American citizens. There was no waiting list, there was no citizenship test, nothing. If you got here, you were in. Only 2% of the immigrants who came in through Ellis Island were rejected. I mean, we want to talk about caravans?? These boats sometimes held upwards of 7000 passengers.
Circumstances change, country's circumstances change. The US isn't an untamed wilderness still is it? There's a certain amount of infrastructure, welfare ect., the majority of the land is owned already. People are not prepared or expected to carve out a life with no established society. That was the past.
Should another virtually empty, undeveloped country be discovered I dare say the land would have open borders because people would be needed to establish the nation. But once it's established, the people who have done that have the right to control their borders.
So, in the end, it's going to be "We got ours, f- off!!"?
And about those 10 million or so Native Americans that were already here?
Who's the we? What was given to anybody?
Don't the people who want to emigrate to the US have countries of their own where they hold citizenship rights?
And what on earth has more and more people arriving in the US now got to do with Native Americans? Have they expressed a desire to accept millions more immigrants contrary to the rest of the country?
I'm not quite understanding the logic here. If you feel that the Native Americans had every right to tell settlers to go away, why now are you not supporting the right of the current Americans to do the same?
Maybe I'm wrong, but you appear to believe the Native Americans should have had the right to say, in a just world, "We got ours, f-off"?
This morning, merely a weekend removed from the pipe bombs sent because of EXACTLY this type of rhetoric, Donald Trump AGAIN calls the press the "true enemy of the people" and essentially demands they stop reporting critically on him, or else:
I'm not going to continue to listen to people say this isn't a problem. This is how it all dies, one day at a time, with this constant eroding of any sort of norms or responsibility. The pipe-bomber will not be the last person to take these words to heart. If the press truly is the enemy of the people, then there is only two logical things you would want to do with those involved in something so heinous. Saying it means you either believe they should be jailed or killed, and that if it happens, yes that is sad, but honestly, they had it coming because they didn't grovel before me like obedient subjects.
I would be surprised if you could find even one bad thing Trump said about the Jews. Attempting to pin him for some random dudes antisemitism is absurd. I thought politicizing a tragedy was a bad thing, anyway.
I would be surprised if you could find even one bad thing Trump said about the Jews. Attempting to pin him for some random dudes antisemitism is absurd. I thought politicizing a tragedy was a bad thing, anyway.
Well first off, the pipe-bomber isn't the one who attacked the synagogue. But he was the one with MAGA stickers plastered all over his van. Secondly, no, the synagogue shooter wasn't inspired directly by Trump worship (in fact, he thought Trump was too far to left). What he WAS inspired by (and this isn't even really up for debate) is that the migrant caravan was coming to invade the United States, and that somehow a Jewish conspiracy was behind it. Where, pray tell, did he get that idea?? Both that the caravan was an existential threat, and that some Jewish hand was behind it. Because I can tell you THREE places that were spreading one or both of these ideas for the last 10 days or more. Trump (at nearly every rally) FOX News (for hours upon hours everyday) and AM radio (the same). They are coming and Soros is paying them. THAT has been the major narrative in right-wing media for the past two weeks. I know because I listen to them. I've always listened to them. It's been the same song and dance for 20 years in right-wing media. It's just that now they have a living avatar with the bully pulpit.
This morning, merely a weekend removed from the pipe bombs sent because of EXACTLY this type of rhetoric, Donald Trump AGAIN calls the press the "true enemy of the people" and essentially demands they stop reporting critically on him, or else:
Where is the 'or else' in this statement? I guess it must be implied somewhere???
I'm not going to sit here and say that Trump has ever gotten a fair shake from the press. Fox News may be biased but the rest of the media should remove the beam from their own eyes before they start accusing them of being propagandists. Every position on the conservative side is lambasted on CNN. I know because I watch it. They're so self-righteous it's unbelievable.
Here's my view of virtually all of the non-Fox, non-AM radio press:
Omigod, some people don't agree with us. You're all just wrong and white-trash troglodytes. We on the other hand, are the Enlightened Ones. We'll load up the guilt on you so that you must agree with our moral supremacy or be called Nazis!
We must take away your privilege at all costs because there are people who don't have it! We'll make you feel good about it though because we'll call it 'saving the planet', not taxing the Hell out of you.
Your country is no better than any other. We'll make sure of it by letting in illegal aliens and making them citizens! Just look how well it's worked for Europe. There's an enlightened continent. (my aside to that statement: they're living under a nice US flag umbrella of protection - must be nice not having to worry about your defense. That might really free up some money to tackle health-care.)
The military is evil! Except,when one of our guys are in charge of it. Then it's ok.
Don't change any of our social systems that don't work! It doesn't matter if they work or not, all that matters is that our hearts are in the right place!
Even if all of that is true (which it isn't), what part of that makes them the "true enemy of the people"?? And for that matter, what people??
Meanwhile, we are now deploying 5000 active duty troops on American soil to apparently stop a caravan that (as I pointed out yesterday through the use of geography and basic math) can't possibly even get here for another 110 days. So I guess in the meantime time they can play alot of Hearts and Bridge.
If you use the term "enemy of the people" you really shouldn't be surprised if people compare you to nazis. Nazi Germany used it about Jews, Robespierre used it during the Reign of Terror and both Lenin and Stalin used it a lot in the Soviet union. And of course, in all those cases "enemies of the people" were to be imprisoned or killed.
Even Khrushchev, who took over after Stalin, avoided it, saying that it was a term that was specifically created to annihilate people. I'm sure Trump knows perfectly well what the historical connotations of that term are. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if he used that term precisely because people will compare him to Hitler. He knows that his supporters think that's a stupid comparison.
Even if all of that is true (which it isn't), what part of that makes them the "true enemy of the people"?? And for that matter, what people??
Meanwhile, we are now deploying 5000 active duty troops on American soil to apparently stop a caravan that (as I pointed out yesterday through the use of geography and basic math) can't possibly even get here for another 110 days. So I guess in the meantime time they can play alot of Hearts and Bridge.
Perhaps they're not the 'enemy of the people' but they're certainly not unbiased and they're no friend to Trump. Are they really surprised by his reaction? I doubt it. I don't get what the whole purpose of their constant whining and droning is. If it's to change people's hearts and minds they're clearly failing. How about getting both sides to sit down together and come up with some amazing, workable ideas? No, let's just keep pounding on the right.
I can see that there are some good ideas out there left-of-center. Some people on this very thread have convinced me on a few issues. Unfortunately I have yet to hear one iota of anything right-of-center that has gotten any good press in this thread or out there in the media. I guess conservatives must be 100% wrong...
Name one time Trump or Fox News claimed a Jewish conspiracy behind anything. I'll wait.
Comparing Republicans to Nazis is something the left is going to do either way and has been for years now, they need no justification and they have none. But that rhetoric is okay, obviously, even after someone tried to shoot down all the republicans at the baseball field, because politics. But calling the press fake news, bah gawd! This is a creeping threat of fascism!
Even if all of that is true (which it isn't), what part of that makes them the "true enemy of the people"?? And for that matter, what people??
Meanwhile, we are now deploying 5000 active duty troops on American soil to apparently stop a caravan that (as I pointed out yesterday through the use of geography and basic math) can't possibly even get here for another 110 days. So I guess in the meantime time they can play alot of Hearts and Bridge.
Perhaps they're not the 'enemy of the people' but they're certainly not unbiased and they're no friend to Trump. Are they really surprised by his reaction? I doubt it. I don't get what the whole purpose of their constant whining and droning is. If it's to change people's hearts and minds they're clearly failing. How about getting both sides to sit down together and come up with some amazing, workable ideas? No, let's just keep pounding on the right.
I can see that there are some good ideas out there left-of-center. Some people on this very thread have convinced me on a few issues. Unfortunately I have yet to hear one iota of anything right-of-center that has gotten any good press in this thread or out there in the media. I guess conservatives must be 100% wrong...
Well let’s list Trump’s and this administrations accomplishments after 2 years:
A tax cut that had allegedly helped the economy chug along and give countless people raises and a continued strong economy.
Redoing NAFTA. Getting a better deal for American (and in some cases Canadian) workers in the auto sector. This didn’t come at a cost however as it weakened relations with both countries.
And I can’t think of anything else honestly so I google it and found this:
Although, most of those 289 are misleading. Most of them are repetitive and stuff whoever was president would be required to do. Others are actually controversial while others haven’t happened yet (trade deal with Japan).
Also with the economy, after taking all the praise for the gains made, has set up the Federal Reserve to take all the blame when stuff does come crashing down, so keep that in mind when reading through the first 27 points.
Name one time Trump or Fox News claimed a Jewish conspiracy behind anything. I'll wait.
Comparing Republicans to Nazis is something the left is going to do either way and has been for years now, they need no justification and they have none. But that rhetoric is okay, obviously, even after someone tried to shoot down all the republicans at the baseball field, because politics. But calling the press fake news, bah gawd! This is a creeping threat of fascism!
Paristan hackery is partisan hackery.
Is Soros funding the migrant caravan? I believe lou dobb’s has a guest that explicitly linked him to the caravan.
Name one time Trump or Fox News claimed a Jewish conspiracy behind anything. I'll wait.
Comparing Republicans to Nazis is something the left is going to do either way and has been for years now, they need no justification and they have none. But that rhetoric is okay, obviously, even after someone tried to shoot down all the republicans at the baseball field, because politics. But calling the press fake news, bah gawd! This is a creeping threat of fascism!
Paristan hackery is partisan hackery.
Trump claimed George Soros was 1) Paying for the migrant caravan to come here and 2) paying for protestors against Kavanaugh. George Soros is Jewish (and Hungarian). And FOX news loves to talk about "the Soros-occupied State Department."
A full quarter of british muslims want sharia law and over half want a homosexuality ban and not allowing them jobs as teachers and the like. This isn't a tiny minority not worth mentioning. People bring their values where they go and teach them to their kids, as a rule.
They do. But this poll doesn't differentiate between generations--it doesn't show if younger British Muslims share the attitudes of the older ones.
I don't know how things progress in historically homogeneous countries like the U.K., but the U.S. has been a multi-racial and multi-cultural country since before the nation was founded. We've been assimilating people. A pre-multicultural United States never existed--we've literally always been like this.
We're a nation of mongrels. We're a Chaotic Good version of the Borg Collective. It's our past and our present, so yes--it's also going to be our future. I don't see why 250 years of history suddenly has to stop now.
I've seen the assimilation process firsthand. It didn't take 4 years for my friend Puru to start losing his accent and adopting American speech patterns. In terms of culture and values, virtually every second-generation immigrant that I've known has been nearly indistinguishable from all the other Americans I know.
As for third-generation immigrants... If I've ever met one, I haven't noticed. That's how indistinguishable they are from other Americans; I can't name a single one I've ever met.
If you want an example of a successfully assimilated nth-generation immigrant, look in the mirror. You are one. Where else do you think you came from? You grew up in the same society as a second-generation immigrant, and the same household as a third-generation immigrant.
And again... we're still at a 20-year low in immigration. How can immigration possibly be such a huge threat if it's at a 20-year low?
You should come to the UK if you want to meet 2/3rd gen immigrants.
They are the ones who are adopting hard line Islamic teachings and running off to join ISIS. Some of their own parents are appalled at the direction their children are taking. You can also check out the enormous increase in Brit born 2/3rd gen immigrant women adopting the burqua.
Assimilation only works when there is integration with the host population. When numbers are too high, there's no need or desire to assimilate. Plus there's the rather bigoted practice of only marrying within the faith, and actually forbidding women to marry out of it. Funny how the feminists have so little to say about women being told who they must marry.
Wasn't immigration to the US quite restricted until the 60's? This is what it says in Wiki,
"Prior to 1965, policies such as the national origins formula limited immigration and naturalization opportunities for people from areas outside Western Europe. Exclusion laws enacted as early as the 1880s generally prohibited or severely restricted immigration from Asia, and quota laws enacted in the 1920s curtailed Eastern European immigration."
I think that immigration depends a lot of the immigrant culture. For eg, if you decide to move to Saudi Arabia, how much time will take to you get adapted? Now, lets suppose that you decide to move to Falklands. You will gonna have a very easy time since most of the population is British descendant, most of the population have British nationality, the climate will not be incompatible(only summer/winter can lead to a little confusion but you will get used very quickly) but more important. No cultural shock.
The biggest problem is the welfare state + gun control laws. But even with this problems, adaptation of similar cultures is not impossible. I saw no Polish complaining about refugees from Ukraine, a very similar culture.
See this video, a Syrian family wanna move back from Uruguay because there are no welfare state there. Note that Montevideo HDI is pretty high(0,880), similar to many EU countries. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OotApv6q2xU
I'm not going to sit here and say that Trump has ever gotten a fair shake from the press. Fox News may be biased but the rest of the media should remove the beam from their own eyes before they start accusing them of being propagandists. Every position on the conservative side is lambasted on CNN. I know because I watch it. They're so self-righteous it's unbelievable.
@Balrog99 just choosing a few points to respond on .
I do believe that Trump has had more than a fair shake from the press. The extent to which he lies about things is amazing and historically unprecedented, as is the conflicts of interest associated with his administration. The press has had a hard job keeping up with him simply because of the multiplicity of negative stories they could have run - meaning he's had an easier ride than he deserves.
We must take away your privilege at all costs because there are people who don't have it! We'll make you feel good about it though because we'll call it 'saving the planet', not taxing the Hell out of you.
You keep making this claim, but I really think it's unjustified. One of the things I'm currently doing at work is developing a business case for a new £20m solar farm, which will be totally unsubsidized. I doubt if there's a coal-fired generating plant in the world that can make that claim - and for damned sure there's not in the US (where fossil fuel generation receives more government support than renewables). Intermittent forms of renewable energy are already competitive with even cheaper forms of fossil fuel generation (such as gas) - and they are still coming down in price. Renewables do of course have advantages for both the health of local people and the health of the planet as well, but the economic case for them is solid without considering those other benefits. This article has links to further information about relative subsidies provided to various technologies if you're interested. I accept that base load renewable generation (like ground source heat pumps and tidal energy) is currently more expensive than solar and wind, but if there was proper investment into those technologies it's likely they would fall sharply in price just like the intermittent technologies have done over the last 10 years or so.
Don't change any of our social systems that don't work! It doesn't matter if they work or not, all that matters is that our hearts are in the right place!
There's been a lot in the news recently about Obamacare and pre-existing conditions. That's a clear illustration of the reverse happening to your suggestion - the Democrats worked hard to change health insurance systems so that they work better for ordinary people, while the Republicans are the ones that have been trying to get rid of the systems entirely as opposed to making them work better (though if you only listened to what Republican candidates for the current elections are saying you wouldn't know that).
I don't think that's the only such example in relation to social systems as one strand of Republican thinking is from the perspective that the government should not intervene at all to provide social support. That's fair enough as a political stance, but it becomes problematic when political tactics used are not to argue directly for the abolition of systems, but to deliberately try and sabotage them so they don't work well - with the aim of making them unpopular and hence easier to abolish in due course.
Comments
You should come to the UK if you want to meet 2/3rd gen immigrants.
They are the ones who are adopting hard line Islamic teachings and running off to join ISIS.
Some of their own parents are appalled at the direction their children are taking. You can also check out the enormous increase in Brit born 2/3rd gen immigrant women adopting the burqua.
Assimilation only works when there is integration with the host population. When numbers are too high, there's no need or desire to assimilate.
Plus there's the rather bigoted practice of only marrying within the faith, and actually forbidding women to marry out of it.
Funny how the feminists have so little to say about women being told who they must marry.
Wasn't immigration to the US quite restricted until the 60's?
This is what it says in Wiki,
"Prior to 1965, policies such as the national origins formula limited immigration and naturalization opportunities for people from areas outside Western Europe. Exclusion laws enacted as early as the 1880s generally prohibited or severely restricted immigration from Asia, and quota laws enacted in the 1920s curtailed Eastern European immigration."
No passports or visas were needed to enter the United States through Ellis Island at this time. In fact, no papers were required at all. More than 12 million immigrants passed through Ellis Island between 1892 and 1954—with a whopping 1,004,756 entering the United States in 1907 alone. And yet, even during these days of peak immigration, for most passengers hoping to establish new lives in the United States, the process of entering the country was over and done relatively quickly—in a matter of a few hours.
Huh. Imagine that. Using today's arguments, it should have destroyed the country, fracturing it into pieces of tribal warfare. The only reason it wasn't illegal immigration is because there was absolutely no immigration laws whatsoever. When we hear about open borders, it ignores the fact that we HAD open borders for all of Europe for almost a half century. Chances are at least 50/50 that anyone who bitches about people advocating for open borders now had great-grandparents who entered the country in EXACTLY that manner. They walked off a boat, had a quick medical check, and they were newly minted American citizens. There was no waiting list, there was no citizenship test, nothing. If you got here, you were in. Only 2% of the immigrants who came in through Ellis Island were rejected. I mean, we want to talk about caravans?? These boats sometimes held upwards of 7000 passengers.
You've never heard of Van Morrison??
So what's the bad immigration again? Which ones are the bad ones? Right that's racism.
Come on. The scapegoating of "others" is weakness. It's an appeal to ignorance. But most of all it's a ploy to keep you distracted while the rich run off with your money and leave YOU with the bill.
Bolsonaro, Duterte, Erdogan, Putin, Trump: Hey there's a group where Trump's not the worst in it. That's a rare thing. But doesn't mean he's good, he's just best of that motley crew.
Circumstances change, country's circumstances change.
The US isn't an untamed wilderness still is it?
There's a certain amount of infrastructure, welfare ect., the majority of the land is owned already.
People are not prepared or expected to carve out a life with no established society. That was the past.
Should another virtually empty, undeveloped country be discovered I dare say the land would have open borders because people would be needed to establish the nation. But once it's established, the people who have done that have the right to control their borders.
The burqa issue is a great one for debate because on the one hand one doesn't want to be in the common position of telling women what they can wear, yet it also seems to impose restrictions on individual liberty. However the burqa has sometimes been seen as a symbol of affluence as the garment is not necessarily cheap to produce.
Hundreds of people seem to have travelled from the UK to Syria however their reasons are not always religious. This article suggests that they were often motivated by economic concerns and lacked knowledge of some of the basic tenets of Islam.
https://www.google.co.jp/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/isis-islamic-state-foreign-fighters-syria-recruits-lack-basic-understanding-of-islam-radicalisation-a7877706.html?amp
The phenomenon of foreign fighters travelling to participate in these sorts of conflicts is hardly new of course- e.g. Orwell in Spain or Byron in Greece.
And about those 10 million or so Native Americans that were already here?
As someone else alluded to, I'd be curious to see statistics that bear out your assertion that 2nd and 3rd generation descendants of Muslim immigrants are the ones leaving to go to Syria in any significant number. Perhaps the only argument I can see that would suggest this from common sense is that 1st generation immigrants wouldnt immigrate to another country only to leave shortly thereafter. So if that the high bar needed to qualify as arguing against multiculturalism, then no one should ever be allowed in (Since I suspect that's true of all immigration - that once they find a place to settle, they're less likely to leave it than their descendants). I get rather tired of constantly fact checking people's history. The Weimar Republic wasnt responsible for hyperinflation in Germany. That was as a result of fighting the largest and most expensive war in human history up to that point, and the costs associated with it from the Treaty of Versailles
A world war I might that was started by a Monarchy.
What was given to anybody?
Don't the people who want to emigrate to the US have countries of their own where they hold citizenship rights?
And what on earth has more and more people arriving in the US now got to do with Native Americans?
Have they expressed a desire to accept millions more immigrants contrary to the rest of the country?
I'm not quite understanding the logic here.
If you feel that the Native Americans had every right to tell settlers to go away, why now are you not supporting the right of the current Americans to do the same?
Maybe I'm wrong, but you appear to believe the Native Americans should have had the right to say, in a just world,
"We got ours, f-off"?
I'm not going to continue to listen to people say this isn't a problem. This is how it all dies, one day at a time, with this constant eroding of any sort of norms or responsibility. The pipe-bomber will not be the last person to take these words to heart. If the press truly is the enemy of the people, then there is only two logical things you would want to do with those involved in something so heinous. Saying it means you either believe they should be jailed or killed, and that if it happens, yes that is sad, but honestly, they had it coming because they didn't grovel before me like obedient subjects.
I'm not going to sit here and say that Trump has ever gotten a fair shake from the press. Fox News may be biased but the rest of the media should remove the beam from their own eyes before they start accusing them of being propagandists. Every position on the conservative side is lambasted on CNN. I know because I watch it. They're so self-righteous it's unbelievable.
Here's my view of virtually all of the non-Fox, non-AM radio press:
Omigod, some people don't agree with us. You're all just wrong and white-trash troglodytes. We on the other hand, are the Enlightened Ones. We'll load up the guilt on you so that you must agree with our moral supremacy or be called Nazis!
We must take away your privilege at all costs because there are people who don't have it! We'll make you feel good about it though because we'll call it 'saving the planet', not taxing the Hell out of you.
Your country is no better than any other. We'll make sure of it by letting in illegal aliens and making them citizens! Just look how well it's worked for Europe. There's an enlightened continent. (my aside to that statement: they're living under a nice US flag umbrella of protection - must be nice not having to worry about your defense. That might really free up some money to tackle health-care.)
The military is evil! Except,when one of our guys are in charge of it. Then it's ok.
Don't change any of our social systems that don't work! It doesn't matter if they work or not, all that matters is that our hearts are in the right place!
Meanwhile, we are now deploying 5000 active duty troops on American soil to apparently stop a caravan that (as I pointed out yesterday through the use of geography and basic math) can't possibly even get here for another 110 days. So I guess in the meantime time they can play alot of Hearts and Bridge.
Even Khrushchev, who took over after Stalin, avoided it, saying that it was a term that was specifically created to annihilate people. I'm sure Trump knows perfectly well what the historical connotations of that term are. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if he used that term precisely because people will compare him to Hitler. He knows that his supporters think that's a stupid comparison.
I can see that there are some good ideas out there left-of-center. Some people on this very thread have convinced me on a few issues. Unfortunately I have yet to hear one iota of anything right-of-center that has gotten any good press in this thread or out there in the media. I guess conservatives must be 100% wrong...
Progressive Jewish leaders tell Trump he's not welcome in Pittsburgh until he denounces white nationalism
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/413558-jewish-leaders-say-trumps-not-welcome-in-pittsburgh-until-heLetter to President Trump from Pittsburgh Jewish Leaders
https://www.bendthearc.us/open_letter_to_president_trump?fbclid=IwAR3-pUgaWFNP71MvKGjUEfxt9NWr8aBIM8Hlk_T5dg_LeA03FNSEfzBBQ7IHere Is a List of Far-Right Attackers Trump Inspired. Cesar Sayoc Wasn’t the First — and Won’t Be the Last.
https://theintercept.com/2018/10/27/here-is-a-list-of-far-right-attackers-trump-inspired-cesar-sayoc-wasnt-the-first-and-wont-be-the-last/?fbclid=IwAR1ka7Ix2nRuXVlIjE_CY-45t9TBUHxSBimeuKZwKB6tSkoERPdYjI4JlwkPittsburgh mayor to Trump: Armed guards are not the answer
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/pittsburgh-mayor-trump-armed-guards-are-not-answer-n925341?fbclid=IwAR2NF3fA-ey_-nP_i4IOBsyoVThkGrxAmyM711VXVg0AMdlVgbhNmd4udUwAnti-Semitic violence erupts in America
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/29/pers-o29.htmlObama Has The Perfect Dig About Trump's iPhone Drama
https://www.comicsands.com/obama-has-the-perfect-dig-about-trumps-iphone-drama-2615782501.html?utm_content=inf_10_3759_2&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=GTAK&tse_id=INF_d1990390dad711e8871cc5c94d0ec567Watch: Pro-Trump march for ‘ex-Democrats’ ends with tiny crowd singing along to crazy QAnon conspiracy song
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/10/watch-pro-trump-march-ex-democrats-ends-crazy-qanon-conspiracy-song/?fbclid=IwAR2RK_FUM11jU-AU0lqBcTZ2Cy_X6LJpWnhef_lBv-OUfs0fAXEtrbUQODMWoman who reported racist Facebook message may have stopped a school shooting
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/new-jersey-kentucky-racism-facebook-shooting-school-message-koeberle-bull-a8598986.html?amp&__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR2p_rpJI7b2ik14yOFuJxSWtYFQyzNtvUF2Rzjpcx6Y_XgFTJFdcboCIrcKKK leader claims hate group has grown at record pace since Trump became President
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/kkk-trump-membership-rise-grown-record-pace-says-leader-chris-barker-a7905811.html?fbclid=IwAR2DfwPkQd-TphkeVlpvsabmcr4xp6fTJBRqRnRO3HM-lnUyk4mZZhj0c5k‘I’ve been doing this for over 20 years and I haven’t seen the Klan grow at the pace it’s growing now,’ says Chris Barker
Fans unfurl ‘trans people deserve to live’ banner during World Series Game 5
It was quickly removed.https://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2018/10/28/18036294/world-series-game-5-dodger-stadium-banner-trans-people-deserve-to-live?fbclid=IwAR0QJg0NSCFR_n-Oh7BLMaGAUHUM74tfvvRT0RvVxJBQXS-9G9qq00wj-PE
There’s Nothing Virtuous About Finding Common Ground
http://time.com/5434381/tayari-jones-moral-middle-myth/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=social-share-article&utm_content=20181028&fbclid=IwAR2wI8eKvuhPhL6jciQv_XPpIKKq2hWoSOnoUtJz1sIBklkLFdyIAN9gH7kFive ways Dems could fight Trump if they win the House
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/386141-five-ways-dems-could-fight-trump-if-they-win-the-house?fbclid=IwAR0SZRhAW34_zO2kQUTqKjHTAY6O_afYvEjo32xUtFYy6EvHaTyvyva2lOEFinally! Black Poll Worker Calls Cops on Suspicious Caucasians for #LurkingWhileWhite
https://www.theroot.com/finally-black-poll-worker-calls-cops-on-suspicious-cau-1829994936?utm_source=theroot_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow&fbclid=IwAR13Sr6iNCcGuCCDXFlNHp6gh7M3vBd5-3KoAfVpTHASxYbu1y153m57MJcThe two under spoiler are shared only because they are very, very weird.
Straight men have a lot of gay sex, study shows
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/04/29/gay-sex-love-straight-men-study-shows/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Buffer&utm_campaign=PN&fbclid=IwAR2L76oJA4KvpYJ8ebrBwljV9gLt0TfwtUkpxZAgyAj_9vbKh3qfzvhl1PsWhy Fascists Hate Masturbation
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-who-stray/201810/why-fascists-hate-masturbation?fbclid=IwAR1EsdaGQO2tp-obKklbS3n6hKKUg5E2b3mkLg3ug4dy_Ve6XPBBrc_n1ykComparing Republicans to Nazis is something the left is going to do either way and has been for years now, they need no justification and they have none. But that rhetoric is okay, obviously, even after someone tried to shoot down all the republicans at the baseball field, because politics. But calling the press fake news, bah gawd! This is a creeping threat of fascism!
Paristan hackery is partisan hackery.
A tax cut that had allegedly helped the economy chug along and give countless people raises and a continued strong economy.
Redoing NAFTA. Getting a better deal for American (and in some cases Canadian) workers in the auto sector. This didn’t come at a cost however as it weakened relations with both countries.
And I can’t think of anything else honestly so I google it and found this:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/trumps-list-289-accomplishments-in-just-20-months-relentless-promise-keeping
Although, most of those 289 are misleading. Most of them are repetitive and stuff whoever was president would be required to do. Others are actually controversial while others haven’t happened yet (trade deal with Japan).
Also with the economy, after taking all the praise for the gains made, has set up the Federal Reserve to take all the blame when stuff does come crashing down, so keep that in mind when reading through the first 27 points.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/robert-bowers-suspected-synagogue-shooter-believes-migrant-caravan-is-jewish-conspiracy.html
Rupert Murdoch (owner of Fox News and current acting CEO) has tweeted against "Jewish owned Press".
I think that immigration depends a lot of the immigrant culture. For eg, if you decide to move to Saudi Arabia, how much time will take to you get adapted? Now, lets suppose that you decide to move to Falklands. You will gonna have a very easy time since most of the population is British descendant, most of the population have British nationality, the climate will not be incompatible(only summer/winter can lead to a little confusion but you will get used very quickly) but more important. No cultural shock.
The biggest problem is the welfare state + gun control laws. But even with this problems, adaptation of similar cultures is not impossible. I saw no Polish complaining about refugees from Ukraine, a very similar culture.
See this video, a Syrian family wanna move back from Uruguay because there are no welfare state there. Note that Montevideo HDI is pretty high(0,880), similar to many EU countries.
I do believe that Trump has had more than a fair shake from the press. The extent to which he lies about things is amazing and historically unprecedented, as is the conflicts of interest associated with his administration. The press has had a hard job keeping up with him simply because of the multiplicity of negative stories they could have run - meaning he's had an easier ride than he deserves.
You keep making this claim, but I really think it's unjustified. One of the things I'm currently doing at work is developing a business case for a new £20m solar farm, which will be totally unsubsidized. I doubt if there's a coal-fired generating plant in the world that can make that claim - and for damned sure there's not in the US (where fossil fuel generation receives more government support than renewables). Intermittent forms of renewable energy are already competitive with even cheaper forms of fossil fuel generation (such as gas) - and they are still coming down in price. Renewables do of course have advantages for both the health of local people and the health of the planet as well, but the economic case for them is solid without considering those other benefits. This article has links to further information about relative subsidies provided to various technologies if you're interested. I accept that base load renewable generation (like ground source heat pumps and tidal energy) is currently more expensive than solar and wind, but if there was proper investment into those technologies it's likely they would fall sharply in price just like the intermittent technologies have done over the last 10 years or so.
There's been a lot in the news recently about Obamacare and pre-existing conditions. That's a clear illustration of the reverse happening to your suggestion - the Democrats worked hard to change health insurance systems so that they work better for ordinary people, while the Republicans are the ones that have been trying to get rid of the systems entirely as opposed to making them work better (though if you only listened to what Republican candidates for the current elections are saying you wouldn't know that).
I don't think that's the only such example in relation to social systems as one strand of Republican thinking is from the perspective that the government should not intervene at all to provide social support. That's fair enough as a political stance, but it becomes problematic when political tactics used are not to argue directly for the abolition of systems, but to deliberately try and sabotage them so they don't work well - with the aim of making them unpopular and hence easier to abolish in due course.